[mikema63]

Prokaryotes are cells that lack a nucleus.

[ingliz]

Prokaryotes are cells that lack a nucleus

I know what they are.

Why do you think "slime" and the proletariat are analogous?

[mikema63]

Slime molds are eukaryotic.

[ingliz]

Slime molds are eukaryotic

Biofilms/slime

Prokaryotes are capable of forming stable aggregate communities within a polymer matrix.

Why do you think "slime" and the proletariat are analogous?

[mikema63]

Well if we're looking into biofilm then it would be an example of class solidarity.

[ingliz]

Well if we're looking into biofilm then it would be an example of class solidarity.

Why would it be an example of class solidarity?

[mikema63]

All the proletariat working together in a mass that is less than optimal for us.

Biofilms are difficult to get rid of and can be problematic for dental lines and some other stuff.

The only good biofilm I can think of is the e. coli biofilm in your digestive tract.

Anyway biofilms are meant for protection and resistance so they make me think of all the little buggers revolting.

[Demosthenes]

What question?

Ummm... the OP?

Nobody will eve understand anything if you only talk to the converted.

This doesn't mean anything. He posted this in anarchism. If he wanted random comments he would have asked it somewhere more... public. Point is, he asked it here expecting those interested in Anarchism or similar ideologies would give answers and/or critique him. Not everyone else.

No you can't.
You can flee as fast you can, but you can never escape your history, both on an individual level and on a societal level. You don't ever start from zero, you start from the particular point in the social matrix where you were deposited.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I find most things can be left behind in time both individually and socially. It's actually rather simple to start from zero.

You're being somewhat obtuse. At some point you stop talking about making the journey, and actually make the first step on the journey.

I'm actually not. I'm trying to address the implication you seem to have been making that looking into Anarchism is simply a child's errand, and represents running away from life's problems or something. Furthermore, as far as talking about walking, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean anymore. People from other walks of the political spectrum always say things like that, "Well you're not a real _________" unless you've A) murdered people in cold blood for it, B) Blown something up, C) formed a workers strike that shut down some major operation, D) Are making secret trips through the tunnels to Mexico (insert nearby impoverished nation for non-US locations) to meet with real revolutionaries. It's tiresome and annoying.

The psychological burden this imposes is nearly unbearable: it is no accident that the founders of neo-conservatism were Marxists.

I just don't see it. In fact its quite liberating to realize how much it sucks to be a vassal of the state. To me, what you are saying sounds like what sounds logical to one who will never really understand Anarchism, nor any other revolutionary state of mind, and decry it simply because it isn't comfortable at times.

What is the specific nature of this psychological burden? Constantly remaining on the cusp of rebellion (often for decades) without ever taking the first step to commit. Whether it is not paying taxes or something else is irrelevant, it is the act of commitment that frees you from the deadening stasis.

I think you're reading far too much into the internet.

Why do you choose to defend his position?

Actually, that wasn't my intention.

[Soixante-Retard]

So here you're admitting that capitalists have interests that inherently conflict with labor's.

Insofar as a buyer and a seller have interests that inherently conflict. But conflicting interests can be harmonized; when both the buyer and seller agree to make a transaction because both are made better off.

[mikema63]

Or when the position of both is equal in terms of power without one artificially raised above the other.

[Rothbardian]

When I consider what I don't like about the government it is not so much that they have a monopoly on power or that it is immoral, nor do I feel some longing for tribalism or the like.

I simply dislike the monopoly on ideology that it has by neccesity.

I am an individualist at heart, and what I dislike about government is that be you a communist, fascist, or liberal you must live in the ideology of the state. I have no choice but to live under the current regime of liberal-capitalism no matter my thoughts on it.

I also dislike it's monopoly on morality. When I live under the laws of the government those laws can only represent one view of right and wrong, but I do not believe there is such a single moral truth.

This is what I truly desire from anarchism, not necessarily that a collective government cannot exist but hat it cannot force you to stay.

What I want is a system under which any ideology or moral system can exist so long as any individual can know of the alternative societies and groups and be able to leave for them at any time.

When we argue about economics we cannot prove ourselves right or e other wrong, especially when the argument is about the subjective rightness or wrongness of systems. So too is it impossible to prove or disprove an organization of society or moral code.

We cannot even manage to measure the relative merits of systems by objective measures.

I wish to find or create a system under which any group can live out their own beliefs and goals in piece, a world where individuals decide their values and live them.

What is required for this?

A meta system must exist under which all these systems run, it would consist by whatever means of the rules that allow these societies.

All individuals must be able to know about and move to another group.

Any group that attempts to force subjects to stay or hide the other systems from the subjects or propagandize against other groups must not only be deterred but disbanded by the other groups.

Groups must be prevented from fighting each other and a system must be in place to resolve differences between groups.

The simple fact is, it doesn't matter why you 'don't like the government'. Proponents of statism feel they have a right to impose their opinions on others, whether they understand this or not. You cannot actively disagree with the government (that is to say, you can disagree with it internally, but you can't disagree with it in the way you live your life), so to be a statist means to say "my opinion supercedes yours". It requires you to argue that people are entitled to their opinions, and are not entitled to their opinions, at the same time in the same moment.

Kudos for having the sense to reject this notion.

[quetzalcoatl]

...This doesn't mean anything. He posted this in anarchism. If he wanted random comments he would have asked it somewhere more... public. Point is, he asked it here expecting those interested in Anarchism or similar ideologies would give answers and/or critique him. Not everyone else...

Very well. In the future, I will refrain from posts on anarchism.

[Demosthenes]

Very well. In the future, I will refrain from posts on anarchism.

Well now your concessionary nature makes ME feel like the butthole.

I can't win!

I really didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't post here, but only to note that... I don't know, give some of the locals a chance first or something?

Meh... whatever. I'm always the butthole.

[AFAIK]

When I consider what I don't like about the government it is not so much that they have a monopoly on power or that it is immoral, nor do I feel some longing for tribalism or the like.

I simply dislike the monopoly on ideology that it has by neccesity.

I notice you didn't use the word hegemony in your post. I share your feeling that if a group of like minded individuals wish to form communities, institutions, etc. that allow them to pursue their ideological goals they should be free to do so as long as they don't attempt to use force against others. Unfortunately we live in a world in which those in power wish to expand that power by any means available to them, expanding their territorial control and sphere of influence. Many of those who are harmed by this process feel that the best way to improve the situation is by the maxim, "might makes right" and express that might via the ballot box or street protests.

Some level of coercion is necessary to regulate interactions between people. The challenge is identifying what level of coercion is legitimate and creating and maintaining methods that won't develop into authorities that impose unnecessary coercion upon people.

[mikema63]

This was ages ago, and kind of embarrassing.

I wonder if I can have my entire libertarian ancap record expunged or sealed?

[Coyote]

A "good" society? Mike is an anarcho-capitalist. For capitalism to work it requires a political organisation that preserves and defends the position and interests of the propertied classes.

If by "positions and interests" you mean a recognition and defense of property rights, then you are correct.

Otherwise, You are incorrect.

[mikema63]

Actually he was correct.

[Coyote]

Actually he was correct.

How so?

I am an anarcho-capitalist.

I don't believe in cronyism that keeps money in the hands of the monied.

[mikema63]

But would you divest all current owners of property of their illegitimate gains as part of your transition to an cap?

Who would you give it too?

The laborers?

[AFAIK]

For me it's all about sovereignty. If Japan wants to live in self-imposed isolation I'm not going to put a gun to her head and forcefully open her borders to trade. If Chileans elect a socialist government via elections then that is their right to do so.

On the personal level I think people should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies. I would intervene in a crack whore's life by giving her the opportunity to live a better life. I wouldn't insist that she take this option by arrogantly asserting that my attitude towards sex and drugs should be shared by everyone.

I would support instituting a redistribution of wealth during the transition to a free society. I'm not insisting on a level playing field now that the deck has been stacked in the capitalists' favour.