On 6/17/2015 8:31 PM, Juan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:57:35 -0400
Tim Beelen [1]<tim@diffalt.com> wrote:



        So, pay attention : human/natural rights exist PRIOR TO ANY
        FUCKING GOVERNMENT.


I concede to that point.

        Fine. Now work out the logical conclusions that follow from that
        premise. Here's one : any violation of such rights is criminal.

   Well, it's not necessarily immoral. So not necessarily criminal. Even
   your own dictionary definition of anarchy provides mentions a
   government. Albeit a minimal one. Governed you are. Whether it's by
   consensus, opt-in or otherwise.



So, I happen to know a few people that are marines.
They don't like killing and are generally very agreeable. Would you
like to meet one?


        Not really. And I happen to live outside the direct
        'jurisdiction' of the US government. Now, if you want to send
        one of your friends, unarmed, to my house, I might talk to
        him. From a safe distance and while pointing a gun at him, just
        in case.

   -.-




It might be your
observation but also generally not true for actual marines. And
actually not true in any sense. So. There's that.

        There's what? There's a neocon in this mailing list?

Basically anyone you actually get to meet and say hello to. What do
you think they are? Big bad bulky continuously angry men?


        They are people who kill other people when ordered to. That's
        all that counts.


   ? There is lots of that going around amongst humans. How do you suggest
   people defend themselves against any hostile force? Do you think that
   calling it a militia makes a difference? Having trained defenders of
   your homestead is no bad thing. It's actually quite smart.
   Confusing them with lies and propaganda and making them shoot people
   that are innocent is repugnant and immoral. But being confused or
   ignorant is not inherent to the institute . It's something that happens
   through lack of education and indoctrination through faith institutes
   (religion). Humans are fallible and on top of that, programmable.
   Many of them suffer from a massive, violent even, cognitive dissonance
   if you talk about what they are actually doing. Once you turn back on
   the cause and effect part of their humanity it's all tears, anger and
   confusion. PTSD, shitty coping mechanisms. And you just put them all in
   a hole, categorizing like a common Nazi.




        Nope, that's not anarchy.

Okay, lets try Bakunin, because for a guy who does not no anything
about Anarchism I sure know about him. He claims to "organize from
below, through local structures interlinked on a federalist basis". I
agree with Bakunin on this point. It also happens to be a form of
direct democracy.

        If individuals are free to NOT participate in such
        organization if they wish, then yes, it's anarchy.

        If individuals are subjected to such organization against their
        will then no, that's not anarchy, bakunin or not.


        And since you like dictionaries

        [2]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism?s=t

   [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

   1:  a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to
   be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on
   voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

   GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY; i.e.: Government as in a society's
   organizational form, but not it's authority. I.e. Direct Democracy.

        "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental
        restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and
        political liberty. "


        Oops. Government and anarchy just happen to be mutually
        exclusive concepts. (That of course shouldn't be news...)


   Government OR governmental restraint. Government non-the-less. Learn to
   read you illiterate :D
   But yea, I agree that for the sake of the argument they could be
   considered mutually exclusive. If you want to abolish government. Which
   is kind of strange because every form of anarchism usually has an
   adjective regarding it's organization. Federated, syndicalists. All of
   them are organized in some fashion shape or form.
   Now, I don't mind NOT calling that form a form of government. But I
   don't want to confuse people in to thinking that anarchism is some kind
   of synonym for chaos.



J.

References

   1. mailto:tim@diffalt.com
   2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
   3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism