Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#17 - lackofcareingerer
Reply +28
(02/23/2012) [-]
best of the repblicans, but thats not saying alot
#22 to #17 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
12 year old liberals.
Hate republicans, don't know anything about them.
#82 to #22 - secern
Reply +2
(02/23/2012) [-]
its liberal vs. conservative    
democrat vs. republican    
there is overlap   
 learn your ****   
 twat
its liberal vs. conservative
democrat vs. republican
there is overlap
learn your ****
twat
#127 to #82 - kindofcool
Reply +1
(02/23/2012) [-]
Exactly. I only identify as a republican because it's all a conservative can really vote for in America.
#23 to #22 - IamWhoIam
Reply +21
(02/23/2012) [-]
Growing up with two very Republican Christian parents. I think I know enough about them...
Growing up with two very Republican Christian parents. I think I know enough about them...
#40 to #23 - kindofcool
Reply +3
(02/23/2012) [-]
Your parents must have been bad Republicans.
#67 to #40 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
lol so what's a good one haha?
#118 to #67 - kindofcool
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
I would like to believe that I am a good republican.
I would like to believe that I am a good republican.
#19 to #17 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
He ran on an independent vote last election, he is only in the GOP now because without he wouldn't get much publicity, and god knows he needs it.
#20 to #19 - lackofcareingerer
Reply -25
(02/23/2012) [-]
im not saying hes bad, i personily am an anarchist, so i agree with him on almost everything, almost
#24 to #20 - akimbobears
Reply +14
(02/23/2012) [-]
Anarchist? Man do I hope you can't vote
#68 to #24 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +1
(02/23/2012) [-]
yeah sure, not everyone should be able to vote. Yep, that's the Republican way all right. Good god you're a cunt, i bet you can't even sum up what anarchism is.
#70 to #68 - speedvirus **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#72 to #70 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +1
(02/23/2012) [-]
....pretty mature for a 16 year old, way to go man
#73 to #72 - speedvirus **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #24 - lackofcareingerer
Reply -17
(02/23/2012) [-]
im not a ratical anarchist, u nimrod, i beleive in direct democricy, not go burn down all buildings, but im glad to see ur not a retard, oh wait...
#27 to #26 - akimbobears
Reply +10
(02/23/2012) [-]
I think you mean you are a libertarian. Anarchism means that there is no government. Libertarianism wants limited government.
#28 to #27 - lackofcareingerer
Reply -13
(02/23/2012) [-]
no, i hope one day we can live in a world free of control and opressive authority, but if that can not happen for a long time. so yes, i supose i am a libertarian, but my dream is anarchy, and not the loot every building in sight kind
#69 to #28 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
ask him for the definition of anarchism. Go ahead, this should be fun!
#29 to #28 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
without laws and restrictions the world would be an even ******** place than it is now. yeah, some laws are probably ********, but if you let everyone do whatever the **** they want without punishment the world would burn. YOU may not want the "loot every building in sight kind" of anarchy, but if you give everyone the freedom to do whatever they want, without any rules, then how can you be sure nobody else wants to loot buildings either? You say you want anarchy, yet you want it structured, which inherently is not anarchy.
#74 to #29 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +1
(02/23/2012) [-]
Hoho, kind sir, i do believe your mind has been untouched by the joy of political science. Let me shed some light on the political model of anarchism.

It all starts in the Antiquity. You see, the basis of all Occidental culture actually originates from anarchism. Your republic, your democracry, your timocracy, even your good old fashioned oligarchy originates from the anarchist model of Ancient Greece.

But, you say, how can this be when anarchism is the mere absence of political rule? Well, good sir, let's quickly recap on the definition of anarchism. Anarchism is the division of the State into regional independant territories following the model of the greek Polis. You may think of it as a federation, however with no federal Constitution, only State ones. Another way to see this would be the division of a confederation into microterritories.

But, you say, in general culture, it is always assimilated to chaos! Of course, because of two reasons. The first reason is that of your American Civil War. Indeed, after the war the federal government quickly sought to empower the federal Constitution, leaving no chance of another rise of confederationalists. From that point on, America kept following a certain disgust of territorial division, a sense which trickled down to our Europe as well. The second reason is the rise of anarchist activists in the 1920s, incarnated by many famous revolutionnaries, however bent on terrorism and violence. Whereas Marx sought to impose a model through law, Mikhail Bakounin (i don't know how to spell it in English) expressed disregard with following the law (not personally, but purely theoritically).
Indeed, after the 1920s from anarchists and general masses from that point on anarchism was linked with violence forever.
#30 to #29 - lackofcareingerer
Reply -11
(02/23/2012) [-]
i want people to understand that looting would be bad, but people dont understand that yet thats why we r not ready for anarchy yet

#39 to #30 - kindofcool
Reply +1
(02/23/2012) [-]
What do you mean you "want people to understand that looting would be bad" ? Evil people are going to do evil ****. That is the beautiful thing about nature and the human condition. There are the good people (Mother Teresa) who only want to help people, and there are the evil people (Joseph Stalin) with no clear motives other than to hurt people. People who want to loot places are going to loot places if you allow them to.


In anarchy, whoever is the biggest and the strongest wins. Pure survival of the fittest.
#75 to #39 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +1
(02/23/2012) [-]
Hoho, kind sir, i do believe your mind has been untouched by the joy of political science. Let me shed some light on the political model of anarchism.

It all starts in the Antiquity. You see, the basis of all Occidental culture actually originates from anarchism. Your republic, your democracry, your timocracy, even your good old fashioned oligarchy originates from the anarchist model of Ancient Greece.

But, you say, how can this be when anarchism is the mere absence of political rule? Well, good sir, let's quickly recap on the definition of anarchism. Anarchism is the division of the State into regional independant territories following the model of the greek Polis. You may think of it as a federation, however with no federal Constitution, only State ones. Another way to see this would be the division of a confederation into microterritories.

But, you say, in general culture, it is always assimilated to chaos! Of course, because of two reasons. The first reason is that of your American Civil War. Indeed, after the war the federal government quickly sought to empower the federal Constitution, leaving no chance of another rise of confederationalists. From that point on, America kept following a certain disgust of territorial division, a sense which trickled down to our Europe as well. The second reason is the rise of anarchist activists in the 1920s, incarnated by many famous revolutionnaries, however bent on terrorism and violence. Whereas Marx sought to impose a model through law, Mikhail Bakounin (i don't know how to spell it in English) expressed disregard with following the law (not personally, but purely theoritically).
Indeed, after the 1920s from anarchists and general masses from that point on anarchism was linked with violence forever.
#117 to #75 - kindofcool
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
You, good sir, have your facts rather mixed up.


A collection of City-States doesn't constitute as anarchy. They are, well, City-States. Anarchy is the lack of a formal government, right? A City-State IS a formal government.


And the problem with you mentioning Marx and Bakunin is that both of those men were mad. Bakunin's ideas on liberty DO include "revolt against... collective... authority." This means that you follow no ones rules. This sort of liberty "can only be realized in society," not in isolation. Marx's doctrine totally disregards human nature and it foolishly assumes that I care about you, when in reality, I don't care about the man who lives three doors down from me. These two men were fools in ideology and philosophy.
#123 to #117 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +2
(02/23/2012) [-]
As a retort, let me just assert that Marx purely based his political model on a theoretical level, the Kapital never exhorting people to enact it (it was chosen later on by Lenin as the new organization following the Russian revolution).
Also, anarchism differs from city-states, as anarchism does not promote a reinforced judicial branch and other institutional organs. However, nowadays the most advocated form of anarchism descends from Proudhon (which personally i'm ashamed to admit is from the same country as mine). Proudhon advocated a form of mutualism caracterized by extra-liberalisation and federation, indeed resembling to a city-state.

#125 to #123 - kindofcool
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
So it's not really a form of anarchy, but rather a small republic? I wouldn't call Ancient Greece's City-States anarchy.

Marx's theoretical political model doesn't even work on that level if you truly think about it. Unless you believe in the extraordinary-man theory (which is from Crime and Punishment, but it helps to promote communism/socialism), his theories are wrong from the start. How can there be a leader in a system where everyone is equal?

Oh, you are a french-man? France is my favorite country and I plan to get my Ph.D in French History, but more specifically Napoleon. Tell me, is that a foolish investment?
#128 to #125 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +1
(02/23/2012) [-]
First off, i'm in law school so I don't know much about what future you can get with history degrees (although my history of law teacher has a doctorate in feodal law and has a great job teaching at my university, makes good wages and seems to have fun).

Also, don't forget Ancient Greece's city-state is at the very root of the anarchist model, although I agree it has long differed since then. I would tend to think of it more as an Athenian agora democracy rather than an empowered Spartan oligarchy (at the time when the very notion of Republic hadn't riped yet).

Finally, I'm a bit pessimistic too about the extraordinary man idea (I had to look it up so I don't know it very well). But keep in mind there was a time when tolstoism was nearly put in motion in the entirety of the Russian Empire. If several other historical events hadn't occurred, could we really have ruled out a tolstoist utopia? Tolstoi once let a thief take his belongings, only to bring them back to him and stay as his helper (I think someone told me this in his War and Peace notes). Couldn't this model have worked?

Nowadays, I really don't think so because of the variations of morals in our population and the intensive spreading of Smith and Nash ideas. I really don't think we could all live as Tolstoi's village did.
#129 to #128 - kindofcool
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
I have a hard time believing any Tolstoyan society could work, and for the same reason I don't believe a communist country would work. Sure, when Ghandi managed a commune, it worked, but that was a small scale example where he intimately knew every individual. In a Tolstoyan/Communist society, it would be impossible to know everyone. So their suffering wouldn't inspire me to do/be better.

But even within an Agora, was there not protection for the people who were involved in the exchanges to ensure that they weren't simply mugged and taken advantage of?
#130 to #129 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
Nowadays tolstoïsm can't work, i agree. Maybe in micro-societies such as Inuits?

I don't know much about Ancient Greece, yes they must have had police, but that must have been an aspect anarchism didn't retain. When anarchists boast 'the return to the Polis', they must be talking about the decentralization of power mostly, aiming for a feodal regime without a lord.
However though, the anarchist model predicts a society in which the absence of focused judicial power would instead place this power within the direct hands of the community (because yes it would be a community and not a society, i believe). I don't know how it would really work, but I guess it would be everyone turning on you the moment you cross a small pack of Essential Laws (murder, i guess).
The modern anarchist logo announces 'order without power' (it's way cooler in french), in which the enforcement of much more liberal and much less restrictive laws would be diluted as much as possible.

I'm not an anarchist. I think people would just turn into packs of wolves after a while.
#131 to #130 - kindofcool
Reply +2
(02/23/2012) [-]
I feel the same way. Atrocities would be committed left and right.

Thank you for this discussion. Until next time.
#33 to #30 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2012) [-]
Ok, that makes more sense. I respect your ideals and views on human behavior.
#35 to #33 - lackofcareingerer
Reply -5
(02/23/2012) [-]
thank you
#76 to #35 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +2
(02/23/2012) [-]
that was sarcasm...
#152 to #76 - lackofcareingerer
Reply -1
(03/21/2012) [-]
no **** sherlock, that was a sarcastic reply. *******...
#153 to #152 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0
(03/21/2012) [-]
uh..february 23rd? What, have you been meditating on a reply for two months or what?

And sorry if you suck ass at sarcasm, you look more like an idiot than anything else.
#154 to #153 - lackofcareingerer
Reply -1
(03/21/2012) [-]
hmmm, ya i guess not going on the internet for 2 months lowers my intellegence?