Anarchism

[Zottistan]

False, actually. Humans found ways to enjoy themselves, like in any other period. Primitive communist hunting-gathering peoples had much more leisure time than their farming descendants. They had more sex, and women spent less time taking care of children. Famines were rare in comparison to later farmers, and a healthier diet, as well as a healthier lifestyle meant that these people lived longer, were significantly taller, led healthy lives.

...Because they knew no better, if you inflicted that kind of lifestyle on people today they would hate it.

Care to give some sort of evidence that these early societies were healthier and lived longer?

They lived longer than early farmers.

They lived much shorter than people nowadays.

[Liberaxia]

Common property cannot just be appropriated as private property just because there's an equivalent available to others.
"I'm taking this money from our treasury - don't worry, it's okay because an equivalent amount of money is left"

Don't move the goal posts. You said that natural rights correspond to negative liberties. Private property does not correspond with negative liberties. There is no natural right to accumulate property. Accumulation of property requires action, thus it corresponds with positive liberties.

If I take one-hundred US dollars from you, but then leave you an envelope with a cheque for one-hundred dollars with a note attached reading "cash it in in ten days", my actions of taking the one hundred dollar bills are the initiation of force, and you have been placed at a lower place on difference curve (not satisfying the proviso), so I had to compensate in order to not make you worse off. After the ten-days are up (this part of the example was used to make it more realistic-- if I had a hundred dollars to give you after taking your hundred dollars I wouldn't have taken them in the first place), you collect your money and the theft has been cancelled out. If money is taken from the treasury, but the treasury is no worse off than it used to be (I compensate in one way or another so that there is exactly the same amount of money in the treasury left), then it was a malicious act at first (theft; initiation of force), but it was rendered just, I guess you could say, by the compensation. Where's the problem?

Negative liberty as in "freedom from coercion", yes. How does property accumulation not satisfy this? Positive liberty is empowerment: "freedom to do what you want", in a sense, being granted the means to do so.

Swapping out $100 with $100 is neither forceful nor something to get worked up over.

[Arumdaum]

False, actually. Humans found ways to enjoy themselves, like in any other period. Primitive communist hunting-gathering peoples had much more leisure time than their farming descendants. They had more sex, and women spent less time taking care of children. Famines were rare in comparison to later farmers, and a healthier diet, as well as a healthier lifestyle meant that these people lived longer, were significantly taller, led healthy lives.

...Because they knew no better, if you inflicted that kind of lifestyle on people today they would hate it.

Care to give some sort of evidence that these early societies were healthier and lived longer?

Because they knew no better than to have lots of leisure time, have lots of sex, be healthy, and not die of famine?

Well no shit, if you took someone from the 21st century and placed them somewhere 20k years ago, of course they would hate it. That's not what I'm talking about.

You can find it in virtually any book on history, especially textbooks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... _structure

[Zottistan]

It was the 2.75% where all the interesting stuff happened. :b

Hey, fire was pretty interesting! It must have been. We analysed it very closely for 97.25% of our history.

I guess it's kind of humbling that we only properly figured it out, what, two hundred years ago tops.

[Arkolon]

If I take one-hundred US dollars from you, but then leave you an envelope with a cheque for one-hundred dollars with a note attached reading "cash it in in ten days", my actions of taking the one hundred dollar bills are the initiation of force, and you have been placed at a lower place on difference curve (not satisfying the proviso), so I had to compensate in order to not make you worse off. After the ten-days are up (this part of the example was used to make it more realistic-- if I had a hundred dollars to give you after taking your hundred dollars I wouldn't have taken them in the first place), you collect your money and the theft has been cancelled out. If money is taken from the treasury, but the treasury is no worse off than it used to be (I compensate in one way or another so that there is exactly the same amount of money in the treasury left), then it was a malicious act at first (theft; initiation of force), but it was rendered just, I guess you could say, by the compensation. Where's the problem?

Negative liberty as in "freedom from coercion", yes. How does property accumulation not satisfy this? Positive liberty is empowerment: "freedom to do what you want", in a sense, being granted the means to do so.

Swapping out $100 with $100 is neither forceful nor something to get worked up over.

Taking $100 from you is forceful. Giving you $100 back cancels out the force through compensation.

[Arkolon]

Hey, fire was pretty interesting! It must have been. We analysed it very closely for 97.25% of our history.

I guess it's kind of humbling that we only properly figured it out, what, two hundred years ago tops.

And yet we've managed to put man on the moon...

[Arumdaum]

...Because they knew no better, if you inflicted that kind of lifestyle on people today they would hate it.

Care to give some sort of evidence that these early societies were healthier and lived longer?

They lived longer than early farmers.

They lived much shorter than people nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... _over_time

Not just early farmers. People living in the Upper Paleolithic had a greater life expectancy than the average person even in the early 20th century.

Which is pretty cray. I am glad I was born recently :-)

[Arumdaum]

False, actually. Humans found ways to enjoy themselves, like in any other period. Primitive communist hunting-gathering peoples had much more leisure time than their farming descendants. They had more sex, and women spent less time taking care of children. Famines were rare in comparison to later farmers, and a healthier diet, as well as a healthier lifestyle meant that these people lived longer, were significantly taller, led healthy lives.

And they had much less leisure time, many more famines and died much younger than people nowadays.

Nowadays.

Not what I'm talking about.

[Conscentia]

it worked pretty well for 95% of human existence

Notice how most of that existence was spent in abject misery.

It was not. Don't believe me? Go ask contemporary hunter-gatherers.

[Zottistan]

They lived longer than early farmers.

They lived much shorter than people nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... _over_time

Not just early farmers. People living in the Upper Paleolithic had a greater life expectancy than the average person even in the early 20th century.

Which is pretty cray. I am glad I was born recently :-)

Huh, this is new to me.

Still, see how it sort of evened out with fluctuation on both sides post-Iron Age? Many of the problems faced by early farmers probably evened out once we actually got good at farming.

Also, I'm skeptical as to why it doesn't say what populations are taken into account in the "early 20th century" statistic. Bear in mind and awful lot of the world was very poor and living a life not remotely resembling life in developed countries at the time.

I guess it's kind of humbling that we only properly figured it out, what, two hundred years ago tops.

And yet we've managed to put man on the moon...

Weird, isn't it?

And they had much less leisure time, many more famines and died much younger than people nowadays.

Nowadays.

Not what I'm talking about.

Well, we live nowadays. Defending hunter-gatherers by saying that they lived longer than early farmers and other groups is a bit silly, when we have a much better alternative now.

[United Dependencies]

so did shitting in the woods and fighting lions with sticks

so what

So I suspect we won't be seeing you anymore after this post. After all, not having the internet also worked for 99% of human existence.

[Arumdaum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... _over_time

Not just early farmers. People living in the Upper Paleolithic had a greater life expectancy than the average person even in the early 20th century.

Which is pretty cray. I am glad I was born recently :-)

Huh, this is new to me.

Still, see how it sort of evened out with fluctuation on both sides post-Iron Age? Many of the problems faced by early farmers probably evened out once we actually got good at farming.

Also, I'm skeptical as to why it doesn't say what populations are taken into account in the "early 20th century" statistic. Bear in mind and awful lot of the world was very poor and living a life not remotely resembling life in developed countries at the time.

Actually, I was assuming that that was the reason why it was only 31 years.

Nowadays.

Not what I'm talking about.

Well, we live nowadays. Defending hunter-gatherers by saying that they lived longer than early farmers and other groups is a bit silly, when we have a much better alternative now.

I've never argued that a Paleolithic lifestyle is superior to the ones we live today.

This is how it generally goes

poster #1: communism/anarchism could never work!!
me: yeah it can look here
poster #1: but disease and famine and tribal warfare
me: that is not exclusive to these societies, also it was a lot better in these societies than later sedentary farming ones
poster #2: why the fuck u wanna live like caveman bro
me: i dont

[Arumdaum]

so what

So I suspect we won't be seeing you anymore after this post. After all, not having the internet also worked for 99% of human existence.

Let's not jump to conclusions, deary.

[Arkolon]

poster #1: communism/anarchism could never work!!
me: yeah it can look here
poster #1: but disease and famine and tribal warfare
me: that is not exclusive to these societies, also it was a lot better in these societies than later sedentary farming ones
poster #2: why the fuck u wanna live like caveman bro

And we're just over the 10% thread limit...

[Arumdaum]

poster #1: communism/anarchism could never work!!
me: yeah it can look here
poster #1: but disease and famine and tribal warfare
me: that is not exclusive to these societies, also it was a lot better in these societies than later sedentary farming ones
poster #2: why the fuck u wanna live like caveman bro

And we're just over the 10% thread limit...

??

either way, this is just like that time when people thought i was pro-nk since i didnt want to invade them lol

[Arkolon]

And we're just over the 10% thread limit...

??

either way, this is just like that time when people thought i was pro-nk since i didnt want to invade them lol

Or the way people think all libertarians are racists because we disagree with affirmative action.

Threads are locked at page 500, so the debate will go back and forth for a long time.

[Zottistan]

poster #1: communism/anarchism could never work!!
me: yeah it can look here
poster #1: but disease and famine and tribal warfare
me: that is not exclusive to these societies, also it was a lot better in these societies than later sedentary farming ones
poster #2: why the fuck u wanna live like caveman bro
me: i dont

Me: Anarchism/anarchist communism could never work in large-scale societies like the ones we have today.

Or alternatively,

Me: So why exactly is anarchism/anarchist communism preferable to modern Western states?

[Arkolon]

poster #1: communism/anarchism could never work!!
me: yeah it can look here
poster #1: but disease and famine and tribal warfare
me: that is not exclusive to these societies, also it was a lot better in these societies than later sedentary farming ones
poster #2: why the fuck u wanna live like caveman bro
me: i dont

Me: Anarchism/anarchist communism could never work in large-scale societies like the ones we have today.

Or alternatively,

Me: So why exactly is anarchism/anarchist communism preferable to modern Western states?

Anarchist schools of thought don't base themselves on consequentialist arguments.

And you only referred to ancomism: what about ancapism?

[Vissegaard]

...Because they knew no better, if you inflicted that kind of lifestyle on people today they would hate it.

Care to give some sort of evidence that these early societies were healthier and lived longer?

Because they knew no better than to have lots of leisure time, have lots of sex, be healthy, and not die of famine?

Well no shit, if you took someone from the 21st century and placed them somewhere 20k years ago, of course they would hate it. That's not what I'm talking about.

You can find it in virtually any book on history, especially textbooks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... _structure

I'm sure Wikipedia is a relevant source for a claim like that. *sarcasm damn obvious*
The early "communist hunter-gatherers" probably had some reason to start farming, organize themselves and have less leisure time. The noble savage mythos died a long time ago with J.Rosseau.

Give a strong point of evidence or go to -.

[Casita]

Zot.

I didn't read the anrchocapitalist page because you quoted directly from it. Did you not? Why not say wiki instead of anarchocapitalist page?

This goes to show further your nonsense.

The wiki page on anarchocapitalism. I mean, my other quotes had been from wiki, so the use of the word "page" instead of "site" should really imply that I was still using wiki.

One mildly vague sourcing that really shouldn't be that hard to figure out does not make my points nonsense.

Yes it does.

No one should have to guess, When you are the one quoting directly from a source.

Pattern of nonsense:

1) you had to take back your very first premise.And you blamed it on being tired. HA!
2) you said we are not debating on what stirner might think. So, I posted links, one of a particular person and one with actions from many, that have moved out of juvenile theoreticism to actually applying the philsophy. Yet, you went on to discuss that stirner might think,. To prove yourself right.
3) I linked right-wing economics to natural law, via Darwin and Malthus, after you implied that stirnerists reject natural law. It is not my fault you haven't done your investigation.
4) Never denied that people claim to be stirnerists and right-wing but you continued to imply that I did. Which is absurd.
5) I have pointed out that right-wing economics are linked to institutions that any stirnerist would be against, the state which is an external manifestation that assaults internal liberty etc; The church, right wing politicians are the one that propose economic treatise and are almost always tied to the church. You are familiar with the concept 'debt is sin,' right? It's riddled throughout right-wing propaganda. Yet, some how, the logical conclusion is right-wing stirnerist? Makes about as much sense as an ancap.

6) you are confused about the difference of praxis and theoreticism. Anyone can theorize and come up with fantastic conclusions; however, theory must be tested, hence why I offered the links of people that have tested it, none of them have the conclusion you are proposing. You can argue that egoism is against altruism and so is right-wing economics, but this is taking the meaning out of context (which is a fallacy) to obscure the actual context. People did it with Darwin and came up with social Darwinism. People are doing the same with stirner. To be against altruism in the context of stirner is to encourage people to liberate themselves from the very constructs of right-wing philosophy and economics. Right wing economics doesn't allow for an association of liberated individuals. It relies on people to be weak and subservient. Sounds like stirnerist, right?

At any rate, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. It's pointless. do what you must with this reply. I'm sure you'll be compelled to prove yourself right. So, enjoy

I'm out of this discussion.

[Arkolon]

Because they knew no better than to have lots of leisure time, have lots of sex, be healthy, and not die of famine?

Well no shit, if you took someone from the 21st century and placed them somewhere 20k years ago, of course they would hate it. That's not what I'm talking about.

You can find it in virtually any book on history, especially textbooks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... _structure

I'm sure Wikipedia is a relevant source for a claim like that. *sarcasm damn obvious*
The early "communist hunter-gatherers" probably had some reason to start farming, organize themselves and have less leisure time. The noble savage mythos died a long time ago with J.Rosseau.

Give a strong point of evidence or go to -.

People tend to forget that Wikipedia isn't a source, but a collection of sources. Here's your source.

[Arumdaum]

Because they knew no better than to have lots of leisure time, have lots of sex, be healthy, and not die of famine?

Well no shit, if you took someone from the 21st century and placed them somewhere 20k years ago, of course they would hate it. That's not what I'm talking about.

You can find it in virtually any book on history, especially textbooks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... _structure

I'm sure Wikipedia is a relevant source for a claim like that. *sarcasm damn obvious*
The early "communist hunter-gatherers" probably had some reason to start farming, organize themselves and have less leisure time. The noble savage mythos died a long time ago with J.Rosseau.

Give a strong point of evidence or go to -.

just get an advanced history textbook if you dont trust the internet. jeez.

farming happened gradually over time. people didn't immediately take it up.

also, you don't know what the noble savage thing is do you lol

[Arumdaum]

poster #1: communism/anarchism could never work!!
me: yeah it can look here
poster #1: but disease and famine and tribal warfare
me: that is not exclusive to these societies, also it was a lot better in these societies than later sedentary farming ones
poster #2: why the fuck u wanna live like caveman bro
me: i dont

Me: Anarchism/anarchist communism could never work in large-scale societies like the ones we have today.

Or alternatively,

Me: So why exactly is anarchism/anarchist communism preferable to modern Western states?

I can posit a reply to the question, but it'll come under the assumption that anarchist communism can work in societies like the ones we have today.

With the destruction of the capitalistic social order and the state, societies would be much freer and equal. Poverty wouldn't really exist. With the destruction of hierarchies in which there are heavy disparities in race, there will be less racism. Black and Latino people won't really be committing more crime than white and Asian people, so there'll be less connections race and crime.

Also, colored people will feel less inferior to white people.

The status of women would also be greatly raised in a similar manner.

oh right, you wouldn't also be forced to study things just because careers in those fields make lots of money, or forced to take jobs you don't like due to money issues

there'd be less homeless people

also more but i forgot and am lazy and i should be studying rn

Of course, it's not like any of these changes would be immediate if an immediate switch happened.

[Dityakastan]

Look at Freetown Christiania, an anarchist city in Denmark. Look it up, it's been there for 53 years and up and running. ANARCHY WORKS. (Yes I know about the drug trade, but if you think about it, rules are just abstract ideas that don't have to be followed. Sure you get in jail, but that's punishment for some abstract ideas. This logic makes the drug trade OK.)

On an unrelated note, raise your hand if you are an anarcho-communist who supports Leninism.

[Vissegaard]

I'm sure Wikipedia is a relevant source for a claim like that. *sarcasm damn obvious*
The early "communist hunter-gatherers" probably had some reason to start farming, organize themselves and have less leisure time. The noble savage mythos died a long time ago with J.Rosseau.

Give a strong point of evidence or go to -.

People tend to forget that Wikipedia isn't a source, but a collection of sources. Here's your source.

Eh, I've read it, but all I learned is that "archeologists/anthropologists argue over", ranging from the levels of violence to sexual parity. Not good.
Sorry, but seriously - Wikipedia is a source not suitable even for schoolworks (I remember that by the time I wrote my project researches several years ago, they had a special guy to search the sources' section and if he found "Wikipedia" there, you were in a real problem).