On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 13:04:24 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia piątek, 2 października 2015 17:00:42 Juan pisze:
You know, the first requirement to win an argument is to pick the right side. And statism isn't the right side of the argument.
I am not arguing for nor against statism.
Really.
I am voiving my opinion that regardless of how we call it, there *will* be structure/hierarchy sooner or later in any "sociely" you want to build.
Oh OK. Just a wrong and unfounded opinion.
re : 'division of power' - the incentives for people who have power lead them to COOPERATE to maintain or gain more power, not to 'check' each other's power. ABC of economics.
Cool, show me a better, more workable model, and I'm happy to roll with it.
I thought you were not arguing for statism? And yet you copypasted a statist slogan and now you think you are mocking me because I showed that your statist slogan is...just that, empty propaganda. What you said about division of power IS bullshit. If you are not arguing for statism, then go ahead and acknowledge that your/the statist slogan is bullshit.
etc) and build upon them or try implementing them in a more functional way, or... go the "ignore it altogether" route, end up reinventing the wheel, and arriving at a not-all- that-functional variation of it.
So, you are willing to 'cooperate' with the current criminals and justify them while accusing a bunch of anarchist of 'maybe' doing something that goes against their principles?
Who said anything about cooperation? I was merely remarking that inevitably one way or the other we will land in a state-like organisation. Not saying it's good.
"Who said anything about cooperation? " You, of course. "But we can either choose to take what we can from what seems to be a set of good ideas (separation of powers, checks and balances, etc) and build upon them or try implementing them in a more functional way," Don't take me for an idiot rysiek. J.