View Single Post
  #6  
Old 05-22-2010, 02:07 AM
Razor's Avatar
Razor Razor is offline
crafts entire Worlds out of Words
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Arkansas
Age: 28
Posts: 1,133
Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...Razor is getting phone calls from TNA...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Remix Mancini View Post
Not always. It's easier to come about when there's a severe depression. But that's by no means the only way. Some of the rulers of Ancient Greek city states could qualify as fascists. The Spartans for example took posession of every baby, judged if it was healthy, killed the sick ones and when that baby was old enough to fight, they were drafted to the army. And yet, there was no depression there. It was actually founded on those principles. As for the nationalistic aspect, they enslaved non-Spartans at every opertunity.
How is killing all babies deemed "not fit for life" not oppressive? How is enslaving any non-Spartan not oppressive?

Fact is, Sparta was an incredibly oppressive fascist government. Killing babies because their arm might not be as long as you'd like it to be is not exactly a nice time.

Quote:
It wasn't caused by the jews at all. Technically, Hitler never claimed it was. It was caused by the Allies of WW1 sitting at a table compromising over how much Germany should be punished (and for the French people, it wasn't enough. They voted out Clemenceau for letting them off easy). He blamed the loss of WW1, and some of the financial ills of Germany on the jews though. He also said that the German people were racially superior to Jews and the people of the east.
I didn't blame the Jews. I was blaming the Treaty of Versailles. Which you're agreeing with me here.

However, Hitler DID blame the Jews. He blamed the Jews as being integral in forming the Treaty of Versailles, and he tapped into centuries old Anti-Semitism.

See, the Catholic Church condemned loaning money for profit in the Middle Ages. They deemed it non-Christian. If you are to loan money, you shouldn't be doing it for money. You should be doing it out of the love for you fellow man.

So who could lend money and charge interest? The Jews. So they did. And they made a lot of money. And they charged exorbiant interest rates, because they were the only people you could get money from.

And so in the 1930's you had a Jew stereotype that was greedy, money grubbing, and hook nosed. Hitler made the easy jump to saying "See? Those greedy Jews are making us pay outrageous amounts to borrow the money we need to jump start our economy again." Neglecting to say that anyone in Germany had huge interest rates because...well, their economy was shit after a massive and world altering WWI.

Quote:
Stalin slaughtered his populace. Limiting movement was the least of his sins.
Still an oppression of rights, as I'm arguing that Anarchy would not do.

Quote:
How does anarchy do it? By making it a free for all, and ensuring that only the strong get what they should be entitled to while everybody else suffers.
No, you're confusing Anarchy for Capitalism.

Anarchy guarantees personal freedoms and natural rights by making it to where a person's social responsibility would not require them to infringe on those rights. A farmer who is growing wheat for eating and trade doesn't need to tell the blacksmith he can't call the elders in the town stupid. As long as he takes care of his own and the other citizens take care of their own, every one's rights are observed.

Quote:
In anarchy, you piss off the wrong person and that person can do whatever he likes to you. I think being beaten to death by a pissed of guy is roughly as bad as being sent to a gulag.
No. You're confusing anarchy with a lawless society.

Anarchy has a primary principle. And it's right...here:

Quote:
The most fundamental maxim of anarchism is that no individual has the right to coerce another individual, and that everyone has the right to defend his or her self against coercion
Anarchy allows for anyone to retaliate against another trying to coerce them. Coercion of course allows for threats of murder, robbery, or assault. If a person murders another, then that may be seen as a form of coercion against the society at large, and the society at large may correct that form of coercion.

For the entire Wiki paragraph:

Quote:
The most fundamental maxim of anarchism is that no individual has the right to coerce another individual, and that everyone has the right to defend his or her self against coercion.[citation needed] This basic principle forms the basis of all anarchist law, and indeed of virtually all anarchist theory. "It is best summed up by the maxim 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (quoting Kropotkin), with the additional provision that if others try to do things to you that violate your rights you have the right to stop them. In short, anarchist philosophy includes the 'golden rule', but typically does not include "turning the other cheek" (with the exception of Christian anarchism and other nonviolent/pacifistic movements.)

Quote:
Also, I think you'd agree Sadam Hussain was a fascist. I think that you'd also agree that after removing him from power, Iraq rapidly went from fascism to anarchy. With this in mind, you'd expect the country to improve socially. I mean after all, piss off the fascist government and you face the consiquences. Last I checked, it got worse. Under fascism, you know your enemies. Under anarchy your enemies are unknown and constantly changing. Which is worse, the evil you know, or the evil you dont?
It was not anarchy. It was in the middle of a civil war. That civil war found itself waged between a group of Shia and Shiite Muslims that were both fighting for power. Who was heading these groups? A power structure of Islamic clerics on both sides. It was not anarchy, it was merely civil war between two shadowy religious governments.


Quote:
Yes, the holocaust is one motherfucker of a crime. No denying it. However, since anarchy, by definition has no government you cannot compare governmental crimes. It's like comparing the engine size of a Bugatti Veyron to a push bike. One's got a big, huge, massive engine the other doesn't have one. You really cannot compare them. So I compared something that they did both have, citizens who commit crimes.
So what, members of government aren't citizens any more?

Hitler was a citizen of Germany. Stalin was a citizen of Russia. Once they were given the power of a fascist government they killed billions of their own citizens and non-nationals through war.

Yeah, I'd say until Somali pirates kill a billion people that Fascism has Anarchy beat on that one.


Quote:
Many more. And if Genghis Khan conqured the same area today would have killed more than both. (you could make a good arguement for the Mongol empire being anarchistic in nature. As it allowed for free trade, and local armed forces were disbanded and people roamed around in perfect safety. Granted it controlled individual areas by fear but the Khagan wasn't the sole bearer of power, preventing it from being a true fascism).
And Genghis Khan lived in a time that was rife with murder to live. Did Stalin and Hitler have to kill all of those people to live? No. They had to kill all of those people to, in their own mind, protect their power. Completely different reasons for the killings provided as evidence.



Quote:
And no anarchistic state can say the same.
No anarchist state can claim a complete collapse in natural human rights either, but Stalin and Hitler took great big ole slaps at them, huh?



Quote:
In most of those cases because of large factors like big wars, and trade becoming impossible. Which are external factors. You could make an areguement for China. And that's a state that doesn't look to be failing any time soon.
Well, those countries in question waged wars because they had to to keep the public opinion behind them. Just like Russia had to do nothing short of giving out free bread to keep their citizenry happy, Hitler and Stalin had to wage war. It's their own damn fault that they had to expand so far and ruin their economies.

China is the exception that proves the rule. When Germany can get 1 billion people to worship Chancellor Merkel and pledge their freedom to her, then Germany will also has a Fascist economy that arguable controls the entire globe.

But, they don't. And no one else ever has. So China can't be used as an example of Fascism working and have you be completely truthful. They're an exception.

Quote:
But Mussolini was completely incompetant though. It took someone competant (but for more evil) to take his idea and make it work.
I don't care how incompetent Mussolini was. He was still a Fascist, and his economy still collapsed. Stalin was brilliant, and as was Hitler. What did their states do? Collapse. Looks like the common denominator isn't competency, but rather Fascism.

Quote:
Because the pitfalls of anarchy are so much better? Which is why people in Iraq prefered the fascism of Sadam's dictatorship to the anarchy it's currently in.
First of all, Iraq has a stable government thank you very much. They just held free elections and are in the process of installing their second freely elected government.

Secondly, they were never in anarchy. They were in civil war between two opposing Islamic power structures while being ruled overall by the freely elected Iraqi Government.


Quote:
Thing about that idea is that it doesn't work. Ihere'll simply be people who take advantage to become more powerful, and everything ends up in deep shit. It's like the idea of Marxism, it looks great, but in the real world it doesn't work and leads to dictators like Stalin and Mao wiping out milllions of their own people.

I'll go ahead and quote it again:

Quote:
"It is best summed up by the maxim 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you" with the additional provision that if others try to do things to you that violate your rights you have the right to stop them.
There is a provision in the anarchist system for application of justice. It just isn't handled by a government that the anarchists view as being a product of the "elite." Because in an anarchist society, there is no elite.

Quote:
What better test of society is there than letting it happen in the real world? In the real world, fascist states have been stable and ecconomically powerful. Anarchistic states, not so much.
Oh? What fascist states have lasted as long as say, America? A very fledgling country.

Germany under Hitler? No.

Russia under the USSR? No.

Italy under Mussolini? ...No.

China under the People's Republic? Sure.

North Korea under Kim Jong Il? Hells no.

You're batting 1 out of 5 there. And China is an exception, as I've already said. Anything with a billion people pledging their allegiance to a single ruler will run correctly. A dog could run China if we got all over the people to say he knows what he's doing.

Quote:
Very true. However, anarchy unless in a control group too small to be demographically useful doesn't work at all, and leads to groups of people who become powerful and poress the people anyway. The only difference being that it's citizen vs citizen, rather than state vs populace.
I've already covered this. Anarchy is not a lawless society, but rather it has no overall government to run it. So yes, the villages will be smaller. However, the rule of life in those villages will be happier and more cohesive. I'd say a happy, lawless society that exists cohesively and peacefully is more demographically useful than a fascist society in which millions of people are killed by their government, no one can eat unless the government hands out food, and no one can speak to their neighbor without fear of being reported for anti-American speech.

Quote:
So you concede the superiority of fascism when it comes to ruling a country?
If by ruling a country you mean completely oppressing their citizenry, developing a nation of third world poverty and freedom, and creating a government that holds all power over life, death, and freedom with no checks or balances. Then yes, yes I do.



Quote:
So does communism. But in the real world, nothing works as its supposed to. Drugs aren't 100% effective, enzymes aren't 100% effective, DNA checkpoints can fail and lead to malignant tumors (cancer), power stations aren't 100% effective, religious fundimentalism leads to hate when the founders preached love. In the real world even the best ideas fail.
Throw in Fascism there. Anarchy has never had a village or sufficiently sized control group to judge it with. We can not judge its effectiveness literally, but only theoretically. And theoretically, anarchy works to uphold freedoms and society.

In the real world and theoretically, Fascism destroys everything but the power of the government. That won't ever work for a country that isn't brainwashed into worshiping their leader.


Quote:
Yeah anarchy works great for groups of 100 or so. How useful is that though? Yes those 100 people are perfectly cohesive, but that's completely useless outside of those 100 people. What can 100 perfectly synchronised people do that 100 oppressed people can't? While a small utopia is great and all, fascism simply works better for a useful society. Hell a fascist factory would work better than an anarchistic one. If you need anything other than complete equality fascism works better. And because people aren't equal, no useful anarcistic society will ever work, wheras fascists have had stable, working countries throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
1) Thanks for conceding my point. Anarchy would work in a small group at least, while Fascism would not. And since Fascism nor Anarchism would work on a grand scale, that puts Anarchy up a point.

Anarchy 1, Fascism 0. We win.

2) 100 perfectly synchronized people can...oh, I don't know, live their lives? What else can we ask of them? And, as I've argued, 100 oppressed people can not do that. At least not happily and as their natural freedoms would allow them to.

3) People aren't equal? Since when? Every constitution in the world states that all people are created equal. America was founded on that principle. Everyone is equal, and to argue that point is faulty.

Quote:
Anything can work well in a small society unless its fundimentally flawed.
And since Fascism can't, for the oppressive element would simply be killed by the proportionally large oppressed society, that would imply that Fascism is fundamentally flawed.

Woot. Anarchy 2, Fascism 0. I'm winning.

Quote:
And what if one of the farmers decides to put himself above the community, and focus on making the most money? Suddenly that anarchy isn't so utopic. All it takes is one self serving prick and the anarchy rapidly transforms into a structured society with centralised control. In the middle ages it was the church and the crown which were the spanners in the works.
1) There is no money to be made. There is no currency in this market. It's pure barter. He'd have no reason to stockpile wheat....other than to let it go bad in his farmhouse.

2) As I've already stated, Anarchy has controls placed to counteract people who would seek to screw over the society. They are termed, perhaps seemingly oxymoronically, as Anarchist Laws.

Citizens who find themselves in an anarchist society have every right to punish anyone who breaks the Golden Rule. This punishment can take any form the society warrants.


Quote:
Coincidentally, those villiages did have a government because they still had to follow the King's laws and pay his (and the church's) taxes.
They had a government, but I was not using the villages as an example of anarchist government. Those were the Native American villages. The middle ages villages were used as an example of a pure trade and barter economic system.
Quote:
But that never happens. People are programmed to do what's best for them and not society. From an evolutionary standpoint, you're more likely to pass on your genes by helping yourself as well as society and that's a powerful motivator.
No.

Evolution has a control in place for Altruism or working to promote the society as a whole. Simply put, any one who works to promote the society has a better chance to procreate, thereby increasing their evolutionary fitness. Anyone who practices Altruism, or acts that are done without want of reciprocal reward, also promote evolutionary fitness. Acts such as giving food to a starving neighbor or adopting another man's child all promote an organism's evolutionary fitness.

So, evolutionarily speaking, a person would be best served to help out society. That's why people naturally seek to form some sort of societal structure. And that's why Anarchy has the most rudimentary social laws in place, while staying away from a government structure that would promote a societal elite.


Quote:
Nobody's. However you'd be a fool to think that people would only do what they're responsible for.
When that's all that's asked for them, and when the village of 100 people have set, rigid forms of societal punishment for any violations of the Golden Rule, then yes. People will only do what they're responsible for. That's why inner village murder is so rare in Amazonian villages or Native American villages of old. Their anarchist social structure calls for strict punishments for anyone who violates the social responsibility. And so those villages were peaceful.

Quote:
Unscrupulous farmers decides to create an artificial shortage of wheat. Or alternatively, traders alter the value of their goods depending on the customer (what's costs 5 nails for person A might cost person B 10). Suddenly bartering seems a lot less fair.
Then the Golden Rule has been violated, and the society places judgment on the individual. Anarchy is not totally lawless. Even your blessed Somalia isn't completely lawless. They regularly use Islamic Courts in the region as opposed to the regional warlords.

Quote:
You're asuming that people won't serve themselves before others. Marxism had the same principles, and look where that lead (Stalinism and Maoism)
The problem with Stalinism and Maoism is that there was no one there to check those dictators and punish them for breaking the Golden Rule. Punish those who grow too power hungry, and there will be a check in how powerful anyone one group gets. So no one groups becomes more powerful than another, and the rule of the entire society rules, as opposed to a few powerful elite.

And there you go, we have an anarchist system.


Quote:
What's stopping people from stealing it?
The idea of, you know, the society killing you for stealing their wheat.

Quote:
Until people stop being perfect and altruistic. Which they will.
Then law is brought in to stop them. Unlike Fascism, where the government is allowed to run completely without checks and balances. Then we have governments like Stalin's Russia, where millions of sovereign Russians are killed by their own government. That would never happen in an anarchist society.



Quote:
The problem with that though is that fascist dictators tend to censor the press. Which leads to people not knowing about the atrocities. Which leads to them not hating the dictators. Hell Stalin was one of the biggest cunts in history, and he had a cult of personality built around him (until Khrushchev told everybody the truth). If you control the information of the people, you control the minds of the people.
Which is a blatant violation of human rights, something that does not happen in an Anarchist society. Therefore, anarchy can be held up as a society that only helps keep human rights in the hands of the citizens.

Anarchy 3, Fascism 0. I'm up 3, yo.

Quote:
And yet only Italy got rid of its fascist dictatorship this way. And that was because Mussolini was an incompetant idiot who failed at war. Whereas the competant fascists didn't get overthrown at all. Hell if Hitler hadn't been a stupid megalomaniac odds are that Germany would have remained a fascist state for a lot longer. And if Hitler hadn't been a fucking racist piece of shit, he'd have gone down as one of the greatest world leaders in history (for taking Germany from rags to modern power).
Yet more reasons why Fascism is not a good idea for a power structure of government. You'll get megalomaniac dictators who will lead the government into the ground, or at the very least a state that oppresses their citizens at every turn.

Case in point: Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, North Korea, China, Stalin's Russia, Hiter's Germany, and Mussolini's Italy.

Quote:
Fascism works in the real world. Anarchy doesn't, and that's why Fascism is superior to Anarchy.
Hmmm..I fail to see how Fascism works beyond the one great China. Fascism has failed in every other instance of its practice.
  1. Iran is barely holding onto their power over the citizenry.
  2. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was overthrown by President Bush, and the liberating American Army was welcomed as liberators. It wasn't until recently that the American government has been made a villain by the citizenry, and that is after years of fuck ups, like accidentally bombing schools and launching nighttime raids after Al Qaeda that ending up killing 5 innocent children and women.
  3. North Korea is currently falling apart. Their citizenry is surviving off of Arkansas rice and grass, while their dictator eats and lives in luxury. Another 10 years, and North Korea is dead.
  4. Stalin's Russia collapsed once the government was too impoverished to feed their citizens. Why did they have to feed their citizens? Because the citizenry was too busy being oppressed and kept from working paying jobs because the jobs would require foreign experts to teach the Russians (a violation of the Iron Curtain).
  5. Hitler's Germany only survived because Hitler kept his oppressive measures largely to minorities. Any oppressive measures he levied (like censorship of the press) on the common citizenry he explained as necessary to maintain the cohesive nature of the state. The Germans ate it up because they were winning.
  6. Mussolini's Italy fell because he was an idiot. That, and no country will stand being oppressed if their country can't even win a war. Mussolini would have stayed in power if he could actually, you know, win a battle that wasn't against Ethiopia.
  7. Mao's China is regularly held up as a glaring example of human rights abuses. The only reason there hasn't been a massive uprising is because of the North Korean-esque brainwashing that occurs. That, and the police won't hesitate to shoot any dissenters. No, not the secret police. The police.

    "Oh, wow. That man hates our Great Leader? He has a gun!" *Gun shot*

    If you think that's exaggerated....I'm sorry to say it isn't. Any government dissension is swiftly put down. Millions of Chinese are worked to death in Labor Camps. I'm sorry, they're just sentenced to "Hard Labor."

The fact is, no government you can claim as Fascist has succeeded without massive human rights abuses. The only one left standing, China, only survives because of brutal human rights abuses. Those are not successful governments by any means.
__________________


I'm off to save the Keywork.

By teh Doctor
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote