[Wolfman]

This one about ideologues and partisanship in general. Don't get me wrong, I think people should have a foundation to there views and should protect those views, but people chill the hell out!

Let me explain. Lets say a few years ago, you're favorite singer is Brittany spears (or whatever the hell she did to get famous). After a little while, people start showing all the horribly stupid things she's been doing. What do you do? Do you go 'oh well, it was nice while it lasted', or do you blame it all on the media? Well, if you choose the second, you'll soon end up on youtube, crying, blaming it on the media, on screaming 'Leave Brittany alone!' (for proof of this, see here

)

If you ended up on youtube, you're an ideologue. You ignore that some aspect of your views is not working, or never did. The rational person will then go 'well, that doesn't work... maybe I should find something new', the ideologue go 'no, you're fucking wrong! Leave Conservativism alone!'. Of course, this isn't limited in any way to Conservatives. An example from recent politics is Bush and Obama. Conservatives were flocking to defend Bush when he authorized warrantless wire tapping, an act that.... well, lets be honest with ourselves. Bush took a crap on the Declaration of Independence with that one. Obama's idea of spending us out a depression caused by excess spending is idiotic, and yet there are plenty of Liberals out there who are masturbating to the thought.

Here's the part that really pisses me off. In addition to jerking to something or someone in a mindless way, while not accepting the need for change, the majority are bitching about problems that apply to there own views as much as there opposition. I've heard fascist say that there plan is to take over when Liberal Democracy crashes in on itself, by blaming it all on the Mexicans. The solution would be to then expel those Mexicans... OK, now what? Now, you are ruling a population of people that expect certain things, and you don't have a well thought out plan to deal with that fact they want.. you know.. freedoms. Short sightedness is the most significant problem facing Liberal Democracies (this is as a whole, as opposed to criticizing any specific example), and yet the take over plan used by fascists, is short sighted.

Another complaint is the ignoring of oxymorons (no, not you Oxy, you’re cool). Libertarian arguments tend to come to one of two conclusions, that go in opposite directions. OK, the government shouldn’t be providing for something that people can pay for…. Umm… that eliminates EVERYTHING the government does. So, you’re an Anarchist? Then realizing that the government should pay for things that keep people from unnecessary death (people have a right to being protected by police, military, firefighters, and access to food). Ok, lets count all the things that people need to stay alive, that you refuse to give them. Jeffersonian Libertarians aren’t even worth talking to, since they masturbate to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, while ignoring that parts of his writing where he is critical of the idea everlasting governments, the Articles of Confederation, and best of all, they ignore his own Presidency for crying out loud.

Here’s another thing that pisses me. What the hell is up with insulting people? Ok, Obama’s a socialist. Big fucking deal. That says nothing about his ability to lead, not to mention is wrong. He’s not American? Bullshit, you’re just mad that you lost. Gore should have won the 2000 election? I agree, but that’s a problem with the voting system, try changing that, not bitching mindlessly about it. Argue from fucking facts, not from how much bull shit you can sling! The winner by that argument deserves to lose any political discussion!

Here’s the part that might get me carded, but I don’t care. I fucking hate Nationalism. There is nothing dumber then going “I love America” -rub, rub, rub- “Ahh, the Statue of Liberty is soooo hot” -rub, rub, rub- “man, if I wasn’t so straight and not into necrophilia I’d totally nail Lincoln” -rub, rub, rub- “what, America doesn’t have the highest GDP Per Capita? Man, you totally ruined it for me!” Seriously people, I love my country, hell I serve my country (USMC, Bi-otch), but I realize America isn’t perfect. Jerking it to the thought of how awesome your country is, is a real good way to completely miss the fact that your country is rocketing down the road to a massive SHIT-STORM! And what’s best is the Nationalists, that have never been outside there own country.

Now, a question for the Anarchists in the room -- How the hell do you plan on stopping some random asshole (like… Dave for instance) from simply rounding up a few of his buddies, giving them weapons, and taking over? To say nothing of the very real possibility of any random country simply moving there army in to occupy whatever Anarchist Commune you set up. And if money remains, how are you going to know if it’s real? How are you going to stop people from robbing and killing, and so on? I’ve met a lot of people who claim to be Anarchists, and a lot who claim that they’ve actually thought out how an Anarchist society will work, but they can’t answer those questions, and it hasn’t made them realize that there system isn’t perfect.

And here’s my complaint about Partisanship. If you think your party is the only real solution for a societies problems, don’t tell me you want a Democracy, or any government that has some kind of representative method. You don’t. You cannot worship Michael Steele, and at the same time think that the other party might be worth something. The founding idea of such government systems is that no one group knows everything, and has all the answers. Well, if you think the opposition is evil, inept, and always wrong, geuss what, you want a one party state. If that.

Seriously people, what the fuck?

[Spotacus]

Nice Rant. We need more ranters. I think that the Libertarians, Anarchists and Communists have more in common then they would like to admit, they are all offshoots of the same idea that they will bring about a perfect world and they can't see how anyone could possibly disagree with them. At least fascists are honest, they are totally amoral. I actually can't believe anyone would subscribe to that except as a joke because anyone with a passing knowlege of history would know that unashamed criminal governments worked so well in the thirty's and forty's.

On the other hand I am not a conservative and anyone who thinks we live in the best of all possible worlds has serious imagination problems, but some ideas are better then others. Just because someone has an opinion does not mean that we have to waste our time reading it. Arguing convincingly is hard and If someone tells me something I know to be false no matter how hard they think it's true I still think they are an idiot.

[JimmiBaez]

Not a bad rant at all, I enjoyed reading it.

Now, a question for the Anarchists in the room -- How the hell do you plan on stopping some random asshole (like… Dave for instance) from simply rounding up a few of his buddies, giving them weapons, and taking over?

I don't speak for all anarchists so I'll give you my point of view. Assuming we know Dave is going to arm and round up his buddies to take over and give themselves power, we would attempt to put them in a safe place to rehabilitate and educate them. If this fails, or if they escape, then blood would be shed. Anarchists are not authoritarians and do not believe in oppression, this is why we would have to prevent Dave from being authoritative and oppressive to the majority by the anarchists doing it to a minority. The minority being Dave and his gang. In short, he and his gang would probably be imprisoned in very humane and in very livable conditions. They would just be kept away from society for a while to be educated and rehabilitated. For how long, I don't know. If other anarchists would agree with me, I don't know.

Now assuming we didn't know about Dave's plan to seize power for himself, he would try to do so and the anarchists would be at war with Dave and his gang with our trained voluntary militia. Blood would be shed in order to prevent the oppression of the majority, by the necessary imprisonment of a minority. I'd like to hear other anarchists' point of view on this as questions involving crime and justice usually stump anarchists.

To say nothing of the very real possibility of any random country simply moving there army in to occupy whatever Anarchist Commune you set up.

I wouldn't say this is a 'very real possibility', what would any country want with a small anarchist commune? If the anarchist commune is as large as a country, if it contains valuable natural resources and the like, then I would consider it a very real possibility. I would assume that this anarchist commune would have allies be it with other anarchist communes or even with capitalist countries. Hopefully it wouldn't end like the Spanish Civil War. In short, the anarchist commune would need allies and a very well-trained voluntary militia.

And if money remains, how are you going to know if it’s real?

In a true anarchist society, there would be no currency and no money like there is today for the monetary system would have been destroyed by then or simply ignored. Also, I don't understand your question.

How are you going to stop people from robbing and killing, and so on?

Education, rehabilitation, etc. Most people's needs and wants would be met, I imagine we'd be on a combination of the barter system and a gift economy so there wouldn't be as much an incentive to steal, rob, murder, etc.

I’ve met a lot of people who claim to be Anarchists, and a lot who claim that they’ve actually thought out how an Anarchist society will work, but they can’t answer those questions, and it hasn’t made them realize that there system isn’t perfect.

I haven't met an anarchist who believes an anarchic system would be perfect, I know it isn't and it wouldn't be. Of course neither is the current system in any country be it the United States of America or Venezuela. On paper and in theory most systems seem attractive and workable but in practice it's very different. It always has been this way and it always will, perfection is impossible. Most anarchists, most people, realize this.

[Wolfman]

Assuming we know Dave is going to arm and round up his buddies to take over and give themselves power, we would attempt to put them in a safe place to rehabilitate and educate them

Wouldn't that require some kind of wide spread organization through out the whole of society, with governing rules and laws. In other words, a government.

I wouldn't say this is a 'very real possibility', what would any country want with a small anarchist commune?

The only people I've met that claim to be Anarchist are from some first world country, with resources, people, and technology. The rest largely assumes that (again) there is wide spread organization, like a government.

The rest of your post basicly proves what I said -- You're most interested in arguing then anything else.