# most anarchist aren't really anarchists



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

anarkos : w/o rulers.

I am not an anarchist.  As a matter of fact I am a middle of the roader on the arky question, but that is neither here nor there.  I am an anarchist.  I am an anarcho capitalist.  I am not an anarchist.  The truth is messy.

Most anarchists are not ararchists.  They do not want to tear down the state - at least not until they build a new one.  Most anarchists support all measures of government intervention.  Noam Chomsky talks about the tyranny of private power.  In fact, despite being a libertarian socialist, he argues for more welfare statism.  Essentailly his (your) claim is that power nhas been historically tyrannical and it is only recently that it has been wrested - ever so slightly - from the hands of the elite.  Whatever merit this world view has in preaching to the converted it is clearly short on facts.

Most anarchists are not anarchists.  They don't believe in freedom.  They believe in control.  Power.  Dominace.  They don't want to abolish the state.


They wish to establish their own.

So the next time you hear them talking about organic networks of self rule, workers councils, syndicates ant the like, realize that the state by any other name will still rule you with an iron fist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

i don't know what else you are, but it's clear you're a twat of the first water


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Yeah


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 29, 2012)

94 posts _today_?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> 94 posts _today_?


could you compare and contrast his ip address with that of other posters?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 29, 2012)

Go for it, dude


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 29, 2012)

Start a thread about white dreadlocks


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> could you compare and contrast his ip address with that of other posters?


I have indeed done so, but note that IP addresses are not the only aspect to be considered, as using a proxy server is fairly straightforward.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> Most anarchists are not anarchists. They don't believe in freedom. They believe in control. Power. Dominace. They don't want to abolish the state.
> 
> 
> They wish to establish their own.


 
Who's been winding this plonker up?


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

Clever name dotcommie!  I had dreadlocks once but only because I never brushed my hair


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

'who is this guy?  where did he learn to post like that!'

I coach posting btw.... reasonable rates.  inquire via pm.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 29, 2012)

I met a self proclaimed anarchist, once. He insisted on turning the telly off in the pub when we were all trying to watch Blair justify his adventure in Iraq. I suspect he wasn't really an anarchist.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 29, 2012)

Has someone not been taking their librium?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 29, 2012)

Did he ever give the wrong time stop a traffic line? If not, his anarchy was ersatz.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 29, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I met a self proclaimed anarchist, once. He insisted on turning the telly off in the pub when we were all trying to watch Blair justify his adventure in Iraq. I suspect he wasn't really an anarchist.


 
Sounds like a bourgeois individualist.


----------



## JimW (Feb 29, 2012)

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, and I met dullards like this too.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 29, 2012)

Most people don't care about anarchism.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 29, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Sounds like a bourgeois individualist.


lol, it was in a pub after an anti war demo when the tired mob (meself included) had gone to take 5 and see what was being done "in our name". I remember that night because after the elation of the demo, this twat decided "in our name" to switch Blair off & later, some jolly types from Hampton Heath Labour branch accused me of being a terrorist for running to the loo & leaving my bag behind


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 29, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Most people don't care about anarchism.


 
_meh_-narchism


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

I find it very interesting - and perhaps I'm mistaken on this, I've never attempted the experiment, but I would wager if you stopped 100 people on the street and asked them 

 "could society survive without the state"
or
"are you an anarchist"

not 1 in a 100 would be able to say yes with full intellectual honesty.  so why is there such unanimous consent on this issue?  why is everyone so certain we need a state?  It's almost as if we were all from an early age subjected to social conditioning that made us fear, love and obey the state.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 29, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> some jolly types from Hampton Heath Labour branch accused me of being a terrorist for running to the loo & leaving my bag behind


 
Sounds like a right barrel of laughs


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Most people don't care about anarchism.


Very true - but enough people on this site do to make it a touchy subject


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

I've always wondered what is the play when you are an in airport with luggage for a long time.  It feels weird to bring it in to the washroom with you but I don't want it exploded on me!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> washroom


 
Do you know, I think this one is real. Very few of our trolls would have Americanised with such care.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Do you know, I think this one is real. Very few of our trolls would have Americanised with such care.


surely 'bathroom'?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 29, 2012)

No, washroom is right for public spaces, IIRC.


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

oh u guys must be terrible confused.  i was referring to the wc.  it's where we tinkle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> oh u guys must be terrible confused. i was referring to the wc. it's where we tinkle.


ah, you're taking the piss


----------



## two sheds (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> Most anarchists are not ararchists. They do not want to tear down the state -


 
Aren't you thinking of anarcho-syndicalists there? They have  good communes I understand.


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

I have no idea what it has to do with anything else, but the airport bag question is easy.  _Of course you take your bag to the loo!_  (Applies equally to all public places, not just airports.)  Why do you ask the question, Andrew?


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

in my experience there are really only anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-capitalists.  I mean, I don't deny the existence of anarcho-primativists, feminists, etc. but they just seem to not really be arounded whereas anarcho-syndicalists are all over the place (relatively speaking)


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

Nah I always leave my bags anywhere aside from a plane.  Train station etc. just leave it there.  Ofc I live in Canada where there arent' so many angry muslims trying to blow us up so that might explain the cultural difference here.


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> Nah I always leave my bags anywhere aside from a plane. Train station etc. just leave it there. Ofc I live in Canada where there arent' so many angry muslims trying to blow us up so that might explain the cultural difference here.


 
What about good old-fashioned thieves (Muslim, angry or otherwise)?


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 29, 2012)

'Anarcho capitalist' lol.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Start a thread about white dreadlocks


Where? I've always had trouble bleaching my hair white, it goes all cotton-wooly. Did he have any tips?



andrew fanshion said:


> in my experience there are really only anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-capitalists. I mean, I don't deny the existence of anarcho-primativists, feminists, etc. but they just seem to not really be arounded whereas anarcho-syndicalists are all over the place (relatively speaking)


Some of the feminists I know are very rounded indeed, but I normally put that down to age.


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 29, 2012)

I think he's cute. Can we keep him?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 29, 2012)

Fruitloop said:


> I think he's cute. Can we keep him?


He will piss in the corner and chew your socks, and when we're all bored of him in a week or two you will still have to feed and exercise him....


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

New poster has the temerity to dis the narks
Urban posse responds in usual rude and slightly paranoid way

...oh well...


----------



## Belushi (Feb 29, 2012)

JHE said:


> New poster has the temerity to dis the narks
> Urban posse responds in usual rude and slightly paranoid way
> 
> ...oh well...


 
If only he were an islamofascistbomber, we'd be rolling out the red carpet.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 29, 2012)

Anarcho capitalists are a funny bunch. I'd absolutely love to watch what happens to capitalists in a world with no state to protect them, but I say that because I'm not one of them.

It is amusing to think of capitalists so greedy and/or stupid that they think the world as it is unduly harsh on _them._


----------



## Belushi (Feb 29, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anarcho capitalists are a funny bunch. I'd absolutely love to watch what happens to capitalists in a world with no state to protect them, but I say that because I'm not one of them.


 
A lot of idiot libertarians jumped on the bitcoin bandwagon and got repeatedly fleeced


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> I find it very interesting - and perhaps I'm mistaken on this, I've never attempted the experiment, but I would wager if you stopped 100 people on the street and asked them
> 
> "could society survive without the state"
> or
> ...



Sounds like a plan batman, 


Take your time posting the results


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anarcho capitalists are a funny bunch. I'd absolutely love to watch what happens to capitalists in a world with no state to protect them, but I say that because I'm not one of them.


 
I'm not up on anarcho-capitalist ideas at all, but surely the capitalists would have their own private armies to protect them and their property.

I imagine anarcho-capitalism be a bit like living in some part of Colombia ruled by ruthless drug barons.

There would be all sorts of problems for capitalists in that situation - the absence of a functioning legal system, for example, would impede capitalist development, IMO - but the capitalists would know how to deal with any rebels or thieves.  They'd deal with them very violently.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 29, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> He will piss in the corner and chew your socks, and when we're all bored of him in a week or two you will still have to feed and exercise him....


aww. c'moooon. he's cute. wagging his little tail.

anyway, when we get fed up, we can put him in a sack with a brick and chuck him in the cut.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> anarkos : w/o rulers.
> 
> I am not an anarchist. As a matter of fact I am a middle of the roader on the arky question, but that is neither here nor there. I am an anarchist. I am an anarcho capitalist. I am not an anarchist. The truth is messy.


 
So, you're an anarcho-capitalist, or "reductive freebooting market-loving right-libertarian money-grubber", as I like to call your ilk.



> Most anarchists are not ararchists. They do not want to tear down the state - at least not until they build a new one.


 
Interesting.
The only people who ever vomit forth their prescriptions about "most anarchists" are those that don't actually understand anarchism, or they wouldn't fall into the error of speaking for "most anarchists".
You, evidently, are one such.



> Most anarchists support all measures of government intervention. Noam Chomsky talks about the tyranny of private power. In fact, despite being a libertarian socialist, he argues for more welfare statism.


 
Now, if only you could quantify where Chomsky does so, and cite his actual words, I could show you that while he wishes for one state of political affairs, he acknowledges (because he, unlike you, is a realist) that we have to currently exist within another state of affairs that may actually require welfare.
Welfare, by the way, isn't synonymous with statism, however much wankers..sorry, I mean "anarcho-capitalists" try to paint it as such, because it suits your selfish urge to accumulate.



> Essentailly his (your) claim is that power nhas been historically tyrannical and it is only recently that it has been wrested - ever so slightly - from the hands of the elite. Whatever merit this world view has in preaching to the converted it is clearly short on facts.
> 
> Most anarchists are not anarchists. They don't believe in freedom. They believe in control. Power. Dominace. They don't want to abolish the state.


 
I believe in freedom, it's merely that my freedom extends beyond freedom from state, whereas yours is merely about being able to navigate a market unregulated by states.



> They wish to establish their own.


 
This, my friends, is the psychological phenomenon known as "projection", beloved of men who dream that their name is John Galt, and have very small genitals.



> So the next time you hear them talking about organic networks of self rule, workers councils, syndicates ant the like, realize that the state by any other name will still rule you with an iron fist.


 
You misapprehend anarchists. We merely wish to crush your ilk with an iron fist, not anyone else.

Obviously, when I say "crush...with an iron fist", I actually mean "put your testicles in a vice, and clamp them until they rupture, then stand you in a pool of piss while administering electric shocks", before sending you to the "People's waste reclamation depot" at Slough for re-education.
*This will, of course, be done as part of a re-education regime, not because I believe that anarcho-capitalists have so little intrinsic or moral value that they need to be subjected to acts of violence. *


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> anarkos : w/o rulers.
> 
> I am not an anarchist. As a matter of fact I am a middle of the roader on the arky question, but that is neither here nor there. I am an anarchist. I am an anarcho capitalist. I am not an anarchist. The truth is messy.
> 
> ...


 
jesus fucking christ on a bike


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Has someone not been taking their librium?


 
Or his lithium, for that matter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Belushi said:


> A lot of idiot libertarians jumped on the bitcoin bandwagon and got repeatedly fleeced


 
As they should have been. It's the only way to educate them.


----------



## andrew fanshion (Feb 29, 2012)

> We merely wish to crush your ilk with an iron fist,


 
And this is exactly what Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain.  They started burning money and slaughtering thousands for their political beliefs.  To me this is not anarchy.  Anarchy is about peace, not conflict.  Violence only ever in self defense.  Living a moral life.  Not stealing.  I think to some people anarchism is an excuse to run around and fuck things up.  That's not what I'm about.  I want to improve my life.  I want to make things better for me.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> And this is exactly what Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain. They started burning money and* sl**aughtering thousands *for their political beliefs. To me this is not anarchy. Anarchy is about peace, not conflict. Violence only ever in self defense. Living a moral life. Not stealing. I think to some people anarchism is an excuse to run around and fuck things up. That's not what I'm about. I want to improve my life. I want to make things better for me.


 
You may want to back this up.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> And this is exactly what Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain. They started burning money and slaughtering thousands for their political beliefs. To me this is not anarchy. Anarchy is about peace, not conflict. Violence only ever in self defense. Living a moral life. Not stealing. I think to some people anarchism is an excuse to run around and fuck things up. That's not what I'm about. I want to improve my life.* I want to make things better for me*.





Blagsta said:


> You may want to back this up.


And this...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> And this is exactly what Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain. They started burning money and slaughtering thousands for their political beliefs. To me this is not anarchy. Anarchy is about peace, not conflict. Violence only ever in self defense. Living a moral life. Not stealing. I think to some people anarchism is an excuse to run around and fuck things up. That's not what I'm about. I want to improve my life. I want to make things better for me.


what's wrong with burning money?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what's wrong with burning money?


Smells funny, doesn't give off much heat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You may want to back this up.


he may want to take it back


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 29, 2012)

Of course the OP is dubious, but it is worthy of discussion that so many anarchists seem to oppose cuts. In my opinion when Marx talks about "the withering away of the state" he is alluding to anarchy. Therefore the state as a transitional and facilitating instrument could be acceptable. Anarcho capitalism isn't capitalism either - capitalism tends toward oligarchy and monopoly especially when not regulated.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> And this is exactly what Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain... slaughtering thousands for their political beliefs.


 
Fighting Fascists? Clearly they didn't slaughter enough but i've got a funny feeling that's not quite how your trying to portray it.



andrew fanshion said:


> I want to make things better for me.


 
Have you ever thought of moving to the motherland and joining the tories?
anarcho-capitalists Cunts like you are in high demand by neoliberal cunts like them.
Like peas in a pod you would be.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> And this is exactly what Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain. They started burning money and slaughtering thousands for their political beliefs. To me this is not anarchy.


Fucking right. Tough shit.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 29, 2012)

should've killed more of 'em.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 29, 2012)

cba. In the face with the communal sharpened entrenching tool.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Might've stopped this...why..ning...oh...god they killed everyone...

Not you. Next time. And there's interest owed. etc


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> And this is exactly what Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain.


 
Really? Spanish anarcho-syndicalists crushed your bollocks in a vice?



> They started burning money and slaughtering thousands for their political beliefs.


 
Ah, that old chestnut, much voiced by....? Come on, you know you want to say it!



> To me this is not anarchy. Anarchy is about peace, not conflict.


 
We're all entitled to our own opinions of what constitutes anarchism. For you it's about the freedom not to have your bollocks squashed for being an anarcho-capitalist. For others it someting different that doesn't involve the elevation of free-market principles to a religious dogma.



> Violence only ever in self defense. Living a moral life. Not stealing.


 
You'll be hard-put to exercise the tenets of anarcho-capitalism without stealing, unless you plan on a bit of good old-fahion right-libertarian semantic manipulation, anyway.



> I think to some people anarchism is an excuse to run around and fuck things up. That's not what I'm about. I want to improve my life. I want to make things better for me.


 
And that's where we differ. I'm not just concerned about things being better for me. I'm concerned about things being better for all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You may want to back this up.


 
It'll be amusing when he does, if his source for that claim originates from where I think it does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what's wrong with burning money?


 
It has a very low calorific value.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Anonymous1 said:


> Fighting Fascists? Clearly they didn't slaughter enough but i've got a funny feeling that's not quite how your trying to portray it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Surely you mean "like pees in a piss-pot"?


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 29, 2012)

you don't think this is rmp3?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 29, 2012)

andrew fanshion said:


> Nah I live in Canada where there arent' so many angry muslims trying to blow us up.


 Offensive but uses the right terminology.  At first glance this passed the Dwyer test.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> you don't think this is rmp3?


Are you kidding? No, that bloke cannot you don't think this is rmp3?[/quote]_ve you ever thought of moving to the motherland and joining the tories?_
_anarcho-capitalists __Cunts like you are in high__Violence only ever in self defense. Living a moral life. Not stealing.__ demand by __neoliberal__ cunts _


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you kidding? No, that bloke cannot you don't think this is rmp3?


_ve you ever thought of moving to the motherland and joining the tories?_
_anarcho-capitalists __Cunts like you are in high__Violence only ever in self defense. Living a moral life. Not stealing.__ demand by __neoliberal__ cunts _[/quote]
Is this code?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

Straight up that's how they talk.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

I say bah and i say pah.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Mar 1, 2012)

If there is any doubt about who i am then im sure a mod will confirm i am not what you are assuming.
I have lurked on these boards for a few years, consistently, from the same ip addy (only changing comps).
I hope that clears that up, if not.... what the fuck do i care.


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or his lithium, for that matter.


----------



## JHE (Mar 1, 2012)

Anonymous1 said:


> If there is any doubt about who i am then im sure a mod will confirm i am not what you are assuming.
> I have lurked on these boards for a few years, consistently, from the same ip addy (only changing comps).
> I hope that clears that up, if not.... what the fuck do i care.


 
What a peculiar post!  Who has been assuming what about who you are?


----------



## Anonymous1 (Mar 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> What a peculiar post! Who has been assuming what about who you are?


 
Try reading from post 54 and then you might be equipped to muster up a guess, then again maybe not...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> What a peculiar post! Who has been assuming what about who you are?


I wish you'd fuck off.


----------



## JHE (Mar 1, 2012)

Anonymous1 said:


> Try reading from post 54 and then you might be equipped to muster up a guess, then again maybe not...


 
Is this what you're talking about?



barney_pig said:


> you don't think this is rmp3?


 
It does not refer to you, twit.


----------



## JHE (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wish you'd fuck off.


 
You're in luck, you pissed old git.  I'm off to bed.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> You're in luck, you pissed old git. I'm off to bed.


I'll be pissed tmw, you'll still be a cunt.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Mar 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> It does not refer to you, twit.


 
Cut to the core there. Fuck off headbanger, i'm sure you've got some islamotantrum shit to be trolling with elsewhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

Anonymous1 said:


> Cut to the core there. Fuck off headbanger, i'm sure you've got some islamotantrum shit to be trolling with elsewhere.


You might want to calm down as well.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You might want to calm down as well.


No need, i'm calm.  

Apologies for derailing the thread.


----------



## elfman (Mar 1, 2012)

I don't really want to take the OP seriously but just for clarification without putting too much effort in, there's no such thing as an 'anarcho-capitalist'. I cba to explain, so I'll link instead.

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQAppendix1


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> I'm not up on anarcho-capitalist ideas at all, but surely the capitalists would have their own private armies to protect them and their property.
> 
> I imagine anarcho-capitalism be a bit like living in some part of Colombia ruled by ruthless drug barons.
> 
> There would be all sorts of problems for capitalists in that situation - the absence of a functioning legal system, for example, would impede capitalist development, IMO - but the capitalists would know how to deal with any rebels or thieves. They'd deal with them very violently.


Close.

Interesting short article on anarcho-capitalist ideas for you (from The Economist, so not written from a left perspective):



> In her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society", Rand wrote:
> ​In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.​​This is faintly ridiculous...
> 
> More


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

Morning.  What's being going on here, then?


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Morning. What's being going on here, then?


 
Hopefully some sort of leap day occurance...


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

chilango said:


> Hopefully some sort of leap day occurance...


What, you reckon he'll only come back every five years? Awww.


----------



## albionism (Mar 1, 2012)

You sir, are an arse head of the first magnitude....and you look as if you are sniffing glue in your avatar.


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 1, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what's wrong with burning money?


Have you ever tried lighting a pound coin?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> What, you reckon he'll only come back every five years? Awww.


Your state has banned one of my years.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Your state has banned one of my years.


Which one?


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2012)

Can they ban 1996 please? That was a pretty shit year...


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Which one?


2016.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

chilango said:


> Can they ban 1996 please? That was a pretty shit year...


I quite liked 1996


danny la rouge said:


> 2016.


Not sure about the wisdom of banning the year after I graduate....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> you don't think this is rmp3?


 
Nah. RMP3's spelling errors are caused by the fact that he uses speech recognition software to write. Mr. Fanshion's spelling errors are different. They're caused by typing too fast.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

Anonymous1 said:


> If there is any doubt about who i am then im sure a mod will confirm i am not what you are assuming.
> I have lurked on these boards for a few years, consistently, from the same ip addy (only changing comps).
> I hope that clears that up, if not.... what the fuck do i care.


 
They're talking about the OP, you muppet.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah. RMP3's spelling errors are caused by the fact that he uses speech recognition software to write. Mr. Fanshion's spelling errors are different. They're caused by typing too fast.


Typing one handed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Typing one handed.


 
Probably not wanking, though. Probably caressing a copy of "Atlas Shrugged".


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I quite liked 1996
> 
> Not sure about the wisdom of banning the year after I graduate....


Rescind your decision, then!


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Rescind your decision, then!


Um, can I ban 2007? That year was a bit shit all told.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Um, can I ban 2007? That year was a bit shit all told.


Yes.  Go for it.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes. Go for it.


Cool, glad we got that sorted. Does that mean all the scrap I 'recycled' is back where I found it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Cool, glad we got that sorted. Does that mean all the scrap I 'recycled' is back where I found it?


I don't know how it works, really.  I just said yes because I don't think I had much sex that year, so it's no loss.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 1, 2012)

An andrew quote:

why is everyone so certain we need a state? It's almost as if we were all from an early age subjected to social conditioning that made us fear, love and obey the state.

Imagine you are sitting in a pub, andrew (you'll be able to in a year or so)  and a group of nasty rough men sit at your table and immediately start turning out your pockets and putting your wallet in their pockets. you appeal to surrounding drinkers for help, but they just avert their eyes and ignore your plight.  What ARE you going to do andrew ?

1: fight them yourself ?
2. Accept losing all your possessions ?
3. Come in with a gun next time ?
4. Complain to a POLICEMAN ? (He works for the STATE, andrew)

Be honest , anarcho capitalist, we all KNOW what you'd do !


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2012)

in fairness, free market libertarians do seem to be advocating a world unsuited for their pencil-necked selves


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> in fairness, free market libertarians do seem to be advocating a world unsuited for their pencil-necked selves


 
Hey, I don't mind. We'll get to see social Darwinism at work on them.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 1, 2012)

The anarcho-capitalist answer to Ayatollah's conundrum is for rich people to use all the wealth which is currently coerced from them in taxes by the evil state to employ a private police force of their choosing.

Or for _everyone_ to own a gun, according to a Loompanics article i once read.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 1, 2012)

How did I miss this excellent thread? I used to believe in the state, never really thought about it before, but after reading the OP's posts it's like a veil has been lifted from my eyes.

I agree with the OP about anarchists too. Most love the state and the ones on here actually want to marry it and everything.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 1, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree with the OP about anarchists too. Most love the state and the ones on here actually want to marry it and everything.


 
I'm a proud anarchist and am also married to the state of Denmark.

I see no hypocrisy in that.


----------



## Termite Man (Mar 1, 2012)

8ball said:


> I'm a proud anarchist and am also married to the state of Denmark.
> 
> I see no hypocrisy in that.


 
in that case Denmark is a bigamist


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 1, 2012)

I reckon most of these people who call themselves anarchists are just dirty commies really


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> in that case Denmark is a bigamist


Something rotten.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I reckon most of these people who call themselves anarchists are just dirty commies really


I know I am.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 1, 2012)

Anarchostalinists!


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2012)

Don't start that shit again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> How did I miss this excellent thread? I used to believe in the state, never really thought about it before, but after reading the OP's posts it's like a veil has been lifted from my eyes.
> 
> I agree with the OP about anarchists too. Most love the state and the ones on here actually want to marry it and everything.


 
Most anarchists aren't anarchists, they're pineapples.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I reckon most of these people who call themselves anarchists are just dirty commies really


 
Fuck you, I wash once a year whether I need to or not!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Don't start that shit again.


 
TBF, it's slightly less ludicrous than the idea of "anarcho-capitalism".


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 1, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> The anarcho-capitalist answer to Ayatollah's conundrum is for rich people to use all the wealth which is currently coerced from them in taxes by the evil state to employ a private police force of their choosing.


 
Like what Rupert Murdoch already did with with the MET for decades apparently ... or did he just rent the boys in blue ? (Giving em the odd hour to rescue "andrew" from that nasty situation with the big rough men in that pub ?)


----------



## revol68 (Mar 1, 2012)

remember how awesome the fire service was in the US when it was a series of private companies...

anarcho capitalists are just weirdos, they always give the impression of being bitter misanthropic twats who imagine if it weren't for the artificial restraints of society would be gods among men.

it's not surprise that our friend andrew considers himself far too smart for everyone else, despite the fact he doesn't even understand the basics of economics.


----------



## romeo2001 (Mar 4, 2012)

revol68 said:


> socialists are just weirdos, they always give the impression of being bitter misanthropic twats who imagine if it weren't for the artificial restraints of society would be gods among men.
> 
> it's not surprise that our socialist friend  considers himself far too smart for everyone else, despite the fact he doesn't even understand the basics of economics.


 
The above is how the vast majority of the electorate sees both the far right and the far left - I dont see that changing


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> The above is how the vast majority of the electorate sees both the far right and the far left - I dont see that changing


 
You'd be surprised - a lot of people express left wing ideas, even if they don't identify as left wing.  Like running utility companies for the people, not for profit, for example.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> The above is how the vast majority of the electorate sees both the far right and the far left - I dont see that changing


. 
How many people voted for the extrem right in the last election? 17/5 million - a majority.What are the popular centrist politics currently getting people hot?


----------



## romeo2001 (Mar 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You'd be surprised - a lot of people express left wing ideas, even if they don't identify as left wing. Like running utility companies for the people, not for profit, for example.


 
You'd have to define what for the people would mean really before I could comment on that.  I dont often hear anyone advocating that the bunch of corrupt incompetents in power be given anymore chances to fuck things up even more.

 if "a lot of people"  express left wing ideas then you'd logically expect something other than the annihalation of  left wing parties by the electorate that we have seen


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> You'd have to define what for the people would mean really


 
Run for the needs of the people of this country, rather than profit.


----------



## romeo2001 (Mar 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> .
> How many people voted for the extrem right in the last election? 17/5 million - a majority.What are the popular centrist politics currently getting people hot?


 
What?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> What?


 
We have a hard right government.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> What?


Exactly what i said.


----------



## romeo2001 (Mar 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Run for the needs of the people of this country, rather than profit.


But unless your talking about it happening in some (at best) far off socialist utopia then profit would be fairly important to the running of public utilities - as the other poster said it could be disseminated by the Govt to provide better services etc.  Or do you mean by "needs" getting them as cheap as possible?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> But unless your talking about it happening in some (at best) far off socialist utopia then profit would be fairly important to the running of public utilities - as the other poster said it could be disseminated by the Govt to provide better services etc. Or do you mean by "needs" getting them as cheap as possible?


 
Why would profit be fairly important?


----------



## romeo2001 (Mar 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> We have a hard right government.


But I think that is one of the problems right there - Ive not seen that view from anywhere else other than the far left and I'd be amazed if its the view of the electorate in general


----------



## romeo2001 (Mar 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Why would profit be fairly important?


Ive given you a reason in my post


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> But unless your talking about it happening in some (at best) far off socialist utopia then profit would be fairly important to the running of public utilities - as the other poster said it could be disseminated by the Govt to provide better services etc. Or do you mean by "needs" getting them as cheap as possible?


Why is running thing at just under/over cost part of a far socialist utopia? It's bog standard centrism - which everyone supports according to you.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> But I think that is one of the problems right there - Ive not seen that view from anywhere else other than the far left and I'd be amazed if its the view of the electorate in general


 
I think most people with a basic knowledge of political philosophy would agree that privatising everything in sight, sending Bibles to schools whilst simultaneously cutting budgets etc is quite far to the right.  Where would you place it?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> Ive given you a reason in my post


 
No you haven't.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> Ive given you a reason in my post


No you haven't. Can you repeat it please if you have?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2012)

Moon.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Moon.


 
I doubt it, moon was dyslexic. This one can spell.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Moon.


 
it ain't moon23


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2012)

Must be a common path from interested in anarchism to free-marketery balls then.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

If I remember correctly moon was a particularly interesting case, having passed through the socialist party (though he wasn't sure whether it was militant or the SPGB), into anarchism, then via the NO2ID campaign finding himself sucked into the Lib Dem cult.

I suspect his was a kind of "if I want to eat my pudding before my fish fingers I'm going to do it no matter what my mum says " wadicalism that was always going to lead him to the neoliberal hard right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> The above is how the vast majority of the electorate sees both the far right and the far left - I dont see that changing


 
Showing your prejudices there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> if "a lot of people" express left wing ideas then you'd logically expect something other than the annihalation of left wing parties by the electorate that we have seen


 
Why? You appear to believe there should be some kind of innate connection between how people act in their everyday lives, and how they vote, when all the evidence points to voting having become the apex of instrumental behaviour.

And since when has party politics been based on logic?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> But I think that is one of the problems right there - Ive not seen that view from anywhere else other than the far left and I'd be amazed if its the view of the electorate in general


 
Okay, here's a little exercise for you, should you have the courage and wit to undertake it:

Quantify the current policy posture of the UK government. You don't need to do so in detail, just in general terms.
Now, take a sheet of paper, draw a line down the centre of it, marking the column right of the line "right-wing" and the column to the left "left -wing". Now, exercising as much neutrality as you can muster, attribute the elements of the policy posture to either "right" or "left".

If you now analyse these elements historically (i.e. you pick out the origination point of the policy element), there's only one clear origination point for those elements and, _ipso facto_, the use of those elements by this government and the previous one leads to only one conclusion. What do you suppose that conclusion is?

BTW, I'm not asking this from a partisan or "left-right" perspective, but as someone who did exactly the above as an intellectual exercise, to see just how much neo-liberalism-derived policy either originates from, or is consonant with the long-term political aims of the hard right (by which I don't mean fringe groups with boneheads for members).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2012)

romeo2001 said:


> But unless your talking about it happening in some (at best) far off socialist utopia then profit would be fairly important to the running of public utilities - as the other poster said it could be disseminated by the Govt to provide better services etc. Or do you mean by "needs" getting them as cheap as possible?


 
This depends on what you mean by "profit". Would a public utility that could cover it's costs (maintenance, wages, infrastructure development etc) be a good thing? yeah! Would it *need* to make a profit substantially above those costs? No!


----------

