[From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[juan]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:39 -0000
xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:


> 
> I see. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me more like
> your main criticism is of the establishment of psychiatry, and not so
> much with the study of the mind, personality, and so on as such?

	You can 'study' the mind if you want. I'll remain skeptical
	for many reasons. I outlined a couple of reasons why...


 
> I can agree with this. I think a great deal of psychiatry, as a
> discipline, is half-assed, and generally speaking am critical of
> institutions generally.
> 
> But in terms of explaining common aspects of human behavior, I find
> psychological models fairly accurate.

	Well, I don't. And what hat are you wearing now? The
	manipulative emotionalist, or the cold 'scientific' thinker? 


> 
> > 	Maybe she doesn't like gym class. And maybe the tantrums are
> > 	caused by some other reason.
> 
> No, she won't wear shoes if she can help it. 


	OK. You want to believe that your niece has 'autism'. I think
	she should be left the fuck alone. Notice also how a couple of
	days ago you apparently thought that conformity to 'social
	norms' was a problem, but you've been taking the exact opposite
	side here. You made excuses for the psychiatric mafia, and
	ultimately you just believe in their nonsense. 


> That example is like a weird "two-fer" .. Aspies (affectionate name
> for those with Asperger's) 

	Fuck that.

	


> > 	So, the issue is not any mental problem on her part, but
> > 	having to deal with less than fully civilized people...
> 
> I wouldn't consider it a problem.. and my understanding is that
> because its biologically based, 

	I'm done with (your) pseudo science, sorry.




> > 	In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of
> > 	model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny
> > 	states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from
> > 	pater)...that kind of thing...
> 
> Ok, so we're talking models of the state, and not THE totalitarian
> state.

	Huh? All states are totalitarian, by definition.



> 
> >
> > 	Exactly. Greedy STATE LICENSED doctors working as salesmen
> > for the greedy pharmaceutical mafia that exists only thanks to
> > 	STATE GRANTED patents and other IP shit. Furthermore, they
> > drug up children who are not 'normal', i.e. they are actually
> > 	healthy children who don't get along with 'normal' savagery.
> >
> > 	So the state seems to play some sort of role in all that...
> 
> Greedy state-outlawed drug dealers, working as salesmen for out-lawed
> cartels, selling outlawed, unpatentable freely reproduced and copied
> products and other shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are
> just looking for an escape from the 'normal' savagery.

	What point are you trying to make? That doctors are nothing
	but drug dealers? Yes, of course, but they are way worse than
	non-state-licenced drug dealers. 

	And you got a couple of things wrong. 

	"unpatentable freely reproduced and copied products" 

	Unpatentable yes, freely reproduced, obviously not at all. The
	products still need to be manufactured in a highly regulated
	enviroment. That's why there's a black market...

	"they drug up children " No, dealers sell recreational drugs to
	people who want them. 


> 
> So the state seems to have little role, in all of that...

	The state obviously is the sole creator of black markets for
	some drugs. AND they are the ones who license your beloved
	official 'legal' drug dealers, aka 'medical doctors'.

	So, what point are you trying to make? 

> 
> Greed will always be around, man. Greed will infect any system you
> have, or don't have. Greed infected monarchies, modern nation-states,
> churches, 


	Momarchies, 'modern' states and churches are criminal
	organizations - You seem confused. 



> >
> > 	Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able
> > to impose their views on the rest.
> 
> But it isn't rational to allow a minority to impress its will on the
> majority.
> 
> So we're back to square one.


	No. It's true that if people were completely rational they
	would be fighting back in a rational way, but their enemy is
	more specialized and motivated.




> > 	Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow
> > 	we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people
> > controlled by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a
> > recipe for tyranny and disaster.
> 
> Why not? If rational is the metric for good, then the most rational
> people can do the most good. They'll seek to do the most good.

	OK. They'll seek to do the most good by means of 'laissez
	faire', so if the rational people you want to put in charge are
	really rational they would resign in the blink of an eye.
	Nobody will solve your problems	- vote for nobody.


> 
> It may still be a recipe for disaster, but it would seem to be a
> smaller disaster, or take a longer time, or SOMETHING positive
> compared to those that can't reason to the same level of complexity.


	If you think my position entails support for 'rational'
	'leaders' you don't understand my position.



> >
> > 	Except that the state is a criminal organization so by
> > 	definition it's not "good".
> 
> OK, fair enough, so perhaps phrase it a different way.. the most
> rational should, in some way, have their views take precedent over
> the irrational views.

	Ah yes, of course. At least as far as arguments go...


> Whether that is a "state" or whatever you want
> to call it, it seems clear that if "rational" is "good" then
> "irrationality" needs to be suppressed.

	What needs to be suppresed are attacks against person and
	property. And it just so happens that those attacks can't be
	rationally justified. 

> 
> >> You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select
> >> "popular" kids,
> >
> >
> > 	Did I mention that children (and 'teenagers') are well
> > known for defying authority? The 'authority' of their shitty
> > parents, for starters.
> 
> I don't think so. But yeah, I was certainly one of them.


	OK. You don't believe that children don't want to obey their
	parents? And you are the one who are pretending to be a
	'realist' and 'teaching' me about 'life'? Come on.

> 
> That doesn't invalidate what I'm saying though. 
	
	Yes it does.


> At the same time that
> children start selecting their peer leaders, they rebel against their
> parental leaders.

	Nope. They rebel against their piece of shit parents from day
	one. 

> 
> It's because they are defining their own identity, and that identity
> -- as a primate, is largely bound up in hierarchy.

	primate bla bla bla primate

> 
> "No, Dad, I'm not going to listen to you. I'm going to wear makeup
> like the cool girl in school does!!"

	I'm going to wear makeup because of obvious reasons having to
	do with sexual affairs. Again, you are pretending to teach me
	about 'street smarts' and 'real life'? 

 
> Bottom line.

	Bottom line is indeed clear. 



> 
> >
> > 	You seem to be focusing on facts that validate your theory
> > but ignore the facts that don't fit...
> 
> Not at all.

	Yes at all.


> 
> > 	And of course, fuck big brother too! Now I'm kinda wondering
> > 	what's your take on 1984? An example of heretical and
> > misguided rational thinking?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The music was god-aweful.


	I can't hear any music coming from my books.


> 
> > 	The way you describe the situation? We do nothing because
> > 	nothing can be done. You can keep repeating your
> > deterministic views, based on...'biology'? 'psychology'? but if you
> > 	keep repeating that alpha/beta thing, at least face the
> > 	logical consequences of your own theories.
> 
> Oh, I do.
> 
> Hierarchy, to some level, will always(?) be present in human society.
> It does not follow, however, that the alphas need to always be the
> most cunning, competitive, driven sociopaths we have around.
> 
> If you've ever met an alpha type who is actually a genuinely nice
> person, its obvious to see the positive effect they can have on
> people, in terms of getting them to be more confident themselves.


	I don't believe in fairy tales, good cops(except dead cops of
	course) and your 'good' 'leaders'. 


> 
> Do that long enough, on a large enough scale.. I don't know how many
> generations it would take.. 


	Cool. So a bunch of members of the master race will save the
	poor human primates. Some anarchist you are.



> 
> Just because we're social animals doesn't mean we can't have different
> ways of organizing. There are constraints, but the Native American
> economy was run on beads and the honor system. Some societies were
> ruled by the strongest, others the oldest.

	Beads? As in indirect medium of exchange, also known as
	money? 	



> > 	But I don't wonder. I've studied the subject =)
> >
> > 	And actually I do listen to statists first, and then yes,
> > 	shred their 'arguments' to pieces. Seems to me that's the
> > 	intellectually honest way to talk to people.
> 
> No, its the dick way of talking to people that will guarantee that
> they will get angry, and won't remember what you said, just that what
> you said made them angry. And so, since they don't remember, they'll
> never change their mind.


	Fuck fake politness.




> >> We should feel compassion for people so
> >> enamored with authoritarianism, and be gentle with them.
> >
> >
> > 	Feel compasion for people who advocate all sort of
> > attrocities?
> 
> Of course. Conceivably you'd feel compassion for a person hit by a
> bus and through no fault of their own had their body broken. 

> Why
> would you not feel compassion for a person whose mind, and very
> spirit was broken by the weight of the state?


	It's not the same thing.




> 
> >> Many
> >> anarchist writers of the past have looked at them as some sort of
> >> debased beast who is content to lick their chains, and this view is
> >> why we don't have more people.
> >
> > 	Oh, so it's bakunin's fault now? =)
> 
> Indirectly, yes. I appreciate much of the man's thought, but he made
> errors he couldn't have forseen. We all have.
> 
> I could wish that my errors wouldn't be visible for hundreds of years.

	They are glaring already...




> 
> > 	And what kind of 'leading' would the 'betas' do...?
> 
> I don't know. It depends on the individual, of course. I'm a terrible
> cook, and in matters of cooking, I defer to those that are my betters.
> I've never made shoes, and so I defer to the authority of the boot
> maker.

	Ah, as in 'division of labor'? What's new about that, exactly?


> 
> With apologies to Uncle Mikhail, naturally. :)
> 
> >> Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and
> >> putting you in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE
> >> that power. Ask for their opinions, and defer to them. When
> >> someone comes to you, for advice, or a solution.. Be content to
> >> say you don't know, and encourage them to use their own
> >> understanding. Encourage them to see that you aren't their
> >> superior.
> >
> >
> > 	I'm not sure what that is about. I'm not a politician nor I
> > 	believe in authority...
> 
> Doesn't matter if you believe in it. You can disbelieve in VD all you
> like, someone can still give it to you, and without your consent.
> 
> The point is, be aware of the subtle ways in which people express
> their feelings of their inferiority to you, or others, and subtly
> uplift them.

	I'm not a babby sitter.



> 
> > 	There shouldn't be any 'power vacuum' absent the state.
> > That's like saying that absent the mafia there would be a 'crime
> > 	vacuum'. Well, yes, actually that's the point of the whole
> > 	anarchy exercise, a power vacuum, meaning nobody has power.
> 
> Rather not. The point of anarchy would be power equilibrium. 

> With a
> vacuum, there is always something trying desperately to get sucked
> in, and to fill the vacuum. Anarchy would be equilibrium. No power
> pushing out, and none seeking to attain it.


	Yeah well. Phrase it however wish, but that's the idea. 


> 
> And if you dispose of a state without people being ready to live
> without it, there WILL be a new state.
 
> Spain. WWII. After Franco fell, there was decentralized
> organization.. 
> no rulers to speak up. Cooperation to run the country,
> and after the war they made a new government.
> 
> They didn't have to. It just seemed like the thing to do. Fuck, we
> have to keep up with the Jone's. Every other self-respecting people
> has a government. We better get one.


	Seems like creative interpretation of spanish history. I'll
	simply point out that spanish 'anarchists' got quite a few high
	ranking posts in the government of catalonia.



> 
> >
> > 	And don't think that 'manipulating' or 'causing' or
> > 	'suggesting to' somebody to get a degree is a good thing. So
> > 	both the means and end strike as less than ideal.
> 
> Really? Because she went from not being able to support herself, nor
> her child, and being on state assistance, to getting a decent job. I
> haven't seen her in some years now, but last I heard she is a quite
> prosperous small business owner now.

	And you need a university degree to do that? 

> 
> I get that university is largely a scam. It's a fucking pyramid
> scheme, basically. But like most "multi-level marketing" schemes, if
> you really put in the effort, you can get ahead.

	If you put in the effort you can get ahead generally speaking,
	and you don't need to get a degree. But hey, I'm sure that more
	peopel with degrees is a step forward towards freedom.

> 
> >> It was a genuine, human moment. If inspiring each other to be our
> >> best selves is distasteful, then I would suggest that you don't
> >> actually like humanity very much.
> >
> > 	Yeah. I'd tell people that academy is a disguting mafia and
> > 	that they shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole =)
> 
> Forget every I've said. Stay a loner =)


	So making common sense remarks aligned with common sense
	not-pro-establishment views means I'm a loner. 



> >> Statists will say, we NEED taxes, to help with welfare, to
> >> build roads, and so on.
> >>
> >> We know thats bullshit.
> 
> And?

	You tell me. You wrote the part with quote level 3 "> >>" - I
	replied with something else that you are not quoting...


> 
> It doesn't matter what we know is bullshit. The point is helping OTHER
> people know its bullshit. If a deductive argument gets them there?
> Good. If example, and suggestion get them there? Good. If it takes a
> hit of LSD? Fine.

	Well yes. If LSD actually worked, fine. But does it work?

> 
> The point of an argument is the truth, right? Well, which is the
> valuable part? The form of language, the process that gets them
> there? Or the truth?
> 
> If you actually value the TRUTH of the idea that the state is perhaps
> the worst idea humans have ever come up with (with the possible
> exception of Barry Manilow recordings), I'd imagine that you'd be
> keen and open on any way to dispel that idea 

	Yes. 

> .. and not be hung up on
> little fine points of communication style. 

	That seems to be exactly your problem. You seem concerned about
	form and politeness more than substance.


> I'd think that any block
> or friction to getting that idea dispelled would be done away with.
> 
> > 	So, you are going to build roads.
> 
> No, I never said that.



	No? So you are only going to provide alternatives to some of
	the 'services' the state provides? So, you will never fully
	replace the state with something else? 


> 
> > 	There  already are sizable 'charity' efforts. They don't
> > 	change a thing, IMO.
> 
> So what does? As I mentioned some time ago, you're taking the tact of
> questioning without offering alternatives.

	So? 

> Its a good debate tactic,
> if you like to just carry on. It won't dissuade me. 

	Because you just chose to do something that doesn't work and
	are too arrogant to admit you are wrong. 

	Notice also the  fallacy here. 

	You say : 2+2=5

	Me : No, that's wrong.

	You : HOW CAN I BE WRONG AND YOU MUST TELL ME THE RIGHT ANSWER. 


	Well, it just so happens that whether I tell you the right
	answer or not, my criticism stands. The idea that criticism is
	not valid because I'm not also finishing YOUR homework
	is...flawed.


> I know the
> tactic. I've used it on occasion. No matter how many questions you
> come up with, even if I can't answer, actually proves me wrong.


	Priceless. I can't answer objections to what I'm saying but the
	objections never prove anything.



> Whether its logic puzzles that may stump me, or fine points of
> magnifying conceptual distinctions, none if it actually proves
> anything I've said incorrect, unless you can provide an alternative
> that is in some way better, simpler, or so on.

	Again that is beyond ridiculous. As a matter of fact I've been
	proving you wrong all along. If you are doing something that
	doesn't work, then doing NOTHING is a better alternative. At
	least if you do nothing you are not wasting your time. And
	that's just one possibility.



> > 	It's good that you disagree because I can't think of
> > anything more fucked up than sending people to schools, let alone
> > state schools (which is what virtually all schools are today anyway
> 
> Shows how little you know about this area of life. These are private
> institutions. They cater to people with cognitive disabilities.

	So you were saying they were not good and now you flip-flopped?


> 
> 
> >
> >
> >> We'd be able to pay for
> >> them if we took money from religious charities, then we wouldn't
> >> need the government grants. I get out voted on that by some rabid
> >> atheists in the group though, so it is what it is.
> >
> > 	As if theocracy was anything but the most brutal sort
> > 	statism?
> 
> You like to exaggerate terms. So do I. Hyperbole can be fun, yeah?

> 
> Depends on the theology. I imagine you're not real versed in, say, the
> Dalai Lama's rule as a theocratic leader. 

	I don't think you were talking about taking moeny from the
	dalai lama, were you? 
	
	And I don't know the dirty secrets of those particular
	theocrats anyway, but I surely know who the 'judeo-kristians'
	are, and I assume those are the ones offering money to you.
	Plus, *you* said you didn't think it was a good idea. 



> Not many states give up
> their terrority to avoid bloodshed.
> 
> Not that I have much use for the guy, really. But I won't get into
> that.
> 
> In any case, I'd have thought that someone who made such a big show
> about the coercive nature of taxes would understand that I'd rather
> not take tax money because I know its at the barrel of a gun.


	That doesn't mean I would cooperate with fucking
	jew-kkkristians, who are not only theocrats they are also
	statists. 

	But hey, I'm a 'loner'.


> 
> I don't believe in Santa Claus, but if people want to put money into
> the Easter egg for charity work, that's fine by me. It's voluntary.
> 
> These days, at any rate.

	Ha ha. Organized religion aka organized fraud is 'voluntary'.


> 
> > 	People should be able to provide food for themselves?
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't completely detached from
> reality.

	Right back at you.


> 
> What should be, and what is. You seem to have a problem with that
> whole reality thing. What arguments are meant to do, vs. what they do.

	*You* have the problem and it was apparent from your first
	message. I'll restate it once more, and then I'm not bothering
	anymore. 

	If you are a 'realist' then you 'should' not advocate any sort
	of change. Whatever happens, IS REALITY. There's no, gasp,
	'free will' and nobody is responsible for anything. Stuff just
	happens. Ther's no moral anything and words like 'should' and
	'ought' are meaningless. 

	The military 'should' stop bombing people? Hey, that is
	'reality'! They just bomb people. 

	But of course, you are a 'realist' only when it suits you. 
	

> 
> There are other examples, it seems, I don't feel like going back
> through the thread to find them.

	The whole conversation is an example of your lack of
	consistency. So, yeah, whatever 'examples' you think you find
	about my failure at grasping reality, they are actually examples
	of your selective 'realism'.

> 
> But you really should get that looked at.
> > 	They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much,
> > 	if at all...
> 
> Neither does your trolling?


	Well, thanks for finally shoting yourself on the foot. 


> 
> > 	Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows
> > pretty well that if their power gets really challenged, they can
> > 'fix' the problem.
> 
> It's all about PR.

	I'm not a marketing bot.


> 
> > 	There are various problems with that. One is that your
> > 	alternative statist programs are just that. Giving 'free'
> > stuff to people is obviously NOT the way to encourage people to be
> > 	independent. Second, even if you can give some free stuff
> > away, it will never scale.
> 
> You can feed a man while he learns how to fish. I'm not sure it
> scales to feeding trolls though.

	Now you shot your remaining foot. 

	At any rate, realize you are not teaching people how to fish.
	And learning requires rationality.


> 
> 
> >> There is no reason you can't boot strap an independent
> >> program using tax dollars initially.
> >
> > 	Lol. Not only you are playing state, you are also using
> > state money? It doesn't get any more 'anarchist' than that...
> 
> I always vote not to do so, as I've said. 

	Why would you vote against that? It's just reality!


> But, I do understand the
> logic of those that vote for taking state money:


	So you vote against it, but you think it's logical anyway?

> its better than
> using it elsewhere (military), 

	I suggest you look up welfare-warfare state. 

> and if we can bleed off the state 

	And I'm out of touch with reality? You think you are going to
	bleed off the state by taking tax money? Seriously?

> to
> get programs rolling and people set up, all the better. We could take
> a lot more state money, but we don't.

	Why not? Weren't you going to bleed off the state? 


 
> And we're not 'playing state.'
> 
> You can LOL at bootstrapping from the state if you like. But its how
> things work in the real world. You know, that pesky thing called
> physics and biology.
>

 
> Like you for example. You were bootstrapped out of your mama's vag,
> sucked on your nanny's tit, ate their food, and burdened them. Papa
> could have gotten more ass if not for all your crying. And they
> didn't even have the responsibility to do this for you,
> seeing how
> you aren't them and you should have been taking care of yourself,
> after all you were just the result of an ejaculation.


	What point are you trying to make? 



> 
> 
> > 	I suspect that your grasp of math is way better than mine.
> > 	However your overall political analysis doesn't strike me as
> > 	good.
> 
> I don't really look at it as political analysis, seeing as I have no
> real political ideology. 

	Ha...



> The way I think about states is the way I think about children. I've
> often commented on "playground politics." The dynamics of how 5 year
> olds act are quite similar to the nonsense nation-states engage in.

	You seem to have missed this one 

	"Boy asks Who Made God? "
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUZud3OLgg

	See? That's reality. Piece of shit parent, rational child
	setting her straight.
 


> >> It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an
> >> alternative.
> >
> > 	I call that competition. I think it's the correct word =)
> 
> So, your car breaks down. Person A offers you a ride. Person B offers
> you a ride.
> 
> You think they are in competition?

	Wrong analogy. So, fail.



> It's not the correct word.
> 
> Competition implies striving, and struggling. It involves trying to
> beat another at some mutually important task, or game, and so on.
> 
> I'm not in competition with the state. I don't want to do what they
> do. They really don't want to do what I do.
> 
> To give themselves an air of legitimacy, they are forced to provide
> certain services. They'd probably rather line their pockets or buy
> bombs. I'm not trying to beat them at that game.


	You said that helping people is good PR. You mention the state
	does it for the same reasons. And you are not trying to beat
	them at their own game? 



> 
> I'm not forced to provide services. If I worked harder at my job
> instead of the other stuff, maybe I'd make more money and line my
> pockets. Instead I choose to provide services.
> 
> I'm not in competition with the state. They aren't in competition
> with me.
> 
> I am providing an alternative though, that if widely supported and
> used, would take away one of the false ways the state legitimizes
> itself.
> 
> >
> > 	You can go to grocery store 'A' or to grocery store 'B'.
> > 'A' is an alternative to 'B'. And viceversa. And both stores are
> > 	'competing'.
> >
> > 	People can use state services, or your alternative services.
> > 	You are competing with the state.
> 
> You can ride in your friend A's car, or friend B's car. You can choose
> either service.


	Keep up with the wrong analogies. But even in that case they
	may well be competing. Maybe both want to give you a ride for
	their some particular reason of their own in addition to
	helping. So both  they will try to get you to ride in their
	car. 

	But really quibbling about the meaning of
	competition is even more disgression. 


> 
> They are not in competition.
> > 	My point is, how would you solve a quintessential statist
> > 	problem like the 'war on drugs'? What kind of alternative
> > can you provide to the 'war on drugs', apart from ending it ASAP?
> 
> Civil disobedience and getting high.


	Civil disobedience, yes. 


> 
> >
> > 	You can take it over only if they allow you. And I'm not
> > making an error. I'm switching to an area (drugs) where it's not
> > clear how the 'provide alternative options' strategy can be
> > 	implemented.
> 
> Fine. Who cares? Not all strategies are fit for all terrains or all
> conditions. That's obvious. Each strategy needs soldier/workers.
> That's obvious.
> 
> You propose no real strategy as an alternative, other than - what are
> you advocating? Nothing. Except talk.


	You are also doing a lot of talking too. And from my point of
	view reinforcing stuff that should actually be challanged.
 

> 
> Fucking dumb.

	...


> 
> > 	Yes, that's true. But do notice that before the state ITSELF
> > 	appropiated social services, they were mostly provided by
> > 	'private' mutual aid societies and the like.
> 
> So I'm trying to re-take lost terrain? OK. Sure.

	But never bother about thinking how you lost that terrain in
	the first place? Ah no. Thinking is too much trouble.

> 
> Better than waiting for a solution from you that will never come, 

	I'm 'teaching' you how to think for yourself...ha ha ha.


> or
> waiting for an insurrection to take the whole show and HOPEFULLY
> actually ends in anarchy .. and not just another criminal gang with
> guns.
> 
> And since your solution (I suspect its insurrection because you won't
> say it) includes getting a gang of people with guns together, 


	My solution would be civil disobedience basically. But you
	don't get people to think about civil disobedience by giving
	them 'free' 'vegan' food, I believe.


> and
> then killing guys who HAVE power, it seems really risky that when the
> dust settles they won't TAKE power. In theory it could work.. but it
> requires too much that never seems to come about: millions of people
> free from greed.
> 
> And if they are when they start, you lose a leg or an eye in the
> fight.. then you start thinking "well, I DESERVE something" that
> other people didn't get.
> 
> I know to much history to fall for that shit. I'm real suspicious of
> violence as a solution.

	
	I'm not advocating violence per se. I think I said violence is
	less than ideal, but if I didn't, I'm saying it now. 


> 
> >> This is what fucked
> >> over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by
> >> deed" horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations,
> >> and associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind.
> >
> > 	I don't know...
> 
> Don't know what.. how 'anarchy' got associated with violent chaos?
> 
> Get reading.

	"I don't know..." meant I'm not buying state propaganda.
	Anarchy was associated with chaos long before the beginning of
	the 20th century. 


> 
> > 	Well, that's a lot harder if people are living in a statist
> > 	society. You can have your alterative help system for
> > disabled persons but you will still be subjected to taxation,
> > regulation and whatnot.
> 
> Yeah its hard. What makes you think getting rid of the biggest, global
> mafia EVER was gonna be easy? You think its gonna be romantic like
> some fucken Hollywood movie? You get to hang out with yer buddies in
> a bad ass bunker, get a cool nickname carved on your rifle, shoot
> some bad guys, get a sweet scar, and get the girl?
> 
> No. It's fucking busting your ass to do the shit people don't want to
> do. All the shit that people don't want to do, gets shuffled to the
> state. 

	That's only partially true. 

> They don't want to police their own neighborhoods and confront
> violent criminals they want to call the cops. They don't want to
> fight fires. They don't want to hang out with 30 unruly kids and try
> and teach. 

	All those things can be done without the state, and have been
	doing without the state, and the state provides mediocre and/or
	expensive services. 


> They don't want to provide services. They don't want to do
> SHIT. They want to be coddled, and taken care of by Mama state. 

	Ah but a few altruistic leaders will do all the work that
	thousands of millions of people don't do. I don't think that
	makes sense.



> They
> want to fuck around, live in the basement, buy their toys, and take
> as little responsibility as possible.
> 
> Laziness is no virtue.
> 
> I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I'm willing to listen to
> any practical ideas that would be faster, or more efficient.
> 
> But FAILING that, I'll do the work, laying the foundation as best I
> can, pebble by pebble, with far few too few workers, and far to few
> fucking pebbles.


	Well, if you want to...




> 
> If nothing else, in my last days, I'll know I truly did try. It
> wasn't a theory, or a "political leaning" or a dream. It was my life.
> And along the way, I meet a lot of rad people doing it, I learn a
> lot, and I grow as person.
> 
> You really can't beat it.
> 
>