Should we ban the impovershed from having children?

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Which is why we need to work toward them.

I have no interest in working toward a fantasy.

Oh what basis?

Please don't use Somalia as an example because it isn't affiliated with Anarchism.

[Shiraan]

use a real argument or get out

Okay then.
Explain why "anarchy" has cause him to "lose all credibility".

see my other post

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You took one word from my statement and told me I'm no longer credible. How is that a valid argument?

because anarchism is a social stance for a) whiny teenagers or b) conspiracy theorists that live in the woods with $100k worth of automatic weapons

So I was right about you having never heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, Tucker, or even Chomsky or Carson.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Which is why we need to work toward them.

I have no interest in working toward a fantasy.

Said a man who wouldn't finance the Wright Brothers.

[Immoren]

I bet they said same about heavier than air flight.

Steel ships?

I guess that too.

You took one word from my statement and told me I'm no longer credible. How is that a valid argument?

because anarchism is a social stance for a) whiny teenagers or b) conspiracy theorists that live in the woods with $100k worth of automatic weapons

That's objectivism.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Okay then.
Explain why "anarchy" has cause him to "lose all credibility".

see my other post

Your other post is bullshit. Try again.

[Shiraan]

because anarchism is a social stance for a) whiny teenagers or b) conspiracy theorists that live in the woods with $100k worth of automatic weapons

So I was right about you having never heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, Tucker, or even Chomsky or Carson.

introduce me to them, then. explain why anarchism is the superior stance.

[Shiraan]

see my other post

Your other post is bullshit. Try again.

okay... that wasn't for you. keep getting mad though

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So I was right about you having never heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, Tucker, or even Chomsky or Carson.

introduce me to them, then. explain why anarchism is the superior stance.

Not what this thread is about.

I'd love to discuss this with you if you'll post a new thread about it.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

I have no interest in working toward a fantasy.

I bet they said same about heavier than air flight.

Or that the Heart circulates blood rather than the traditional view that organs used blood as a food source (which is why bloodletting partly stuck around so long since excess blood was viewed as bad for the body).

[Imperial Esplanade]

From all the statistics, it would appear to be the case. However, it's all still very early to truly brandish this as a complete, undeniable success story. Granted, it's been 10 years since Utah has their 'war on poverty' with immediate success, but there are many, many reasons as to why people are homeless and/or jobless in the first place. I just think we should really focus on those underlying reasons as well, since homelessness is really just a mere symptom of perhaps a greater societal, or perhaps even human health, problem. It's amazing to get homeless off the streets and into homes, but there are still many are skeptical that it's the best and most cost-effective way to handle it... but few will argue that what we're doing right now is it.

Certainly, but part of the point of the program is that it's immensely difficult to address these underlying reasons when people are on the streets. It's nearly impossible to improve one's mental health, to get off of drugs, to stop drinking, to find gainful employment, or to in any way improve one's life without a permanent address to go to at night and a phone number that one can be reached at.

I fully agree, I'm just stipulating that there are those who suggest it might not fully be the best thing for them - and outside of the 'they ought to get their asses out to find a job to get out of poverty' crowd either. I'm not anything but among those who fully support this program, but also one who advocates taking care of both the immediate issue and the background ones simultaneously.

[Imperializt Russia]

You took one word from my statement and told me I'm no longer credible. How is that a valid argument?

because anarchism is a social stance for a) whiny teenagers or b) conspiracy theorists that live in the woods with $100k worth of automatic weapons

Only the stances of anarchism that demand total destruction of authority, which are indeed juvenile fantasy.
There is more than one sort of anarchy.

[Shiraan]

introduce me to them, then. explain why anarchism is the superior stance.

Not what this thread is about.

I'd love to discuss this with you if you'll post a new thread about it.

just TG me

[Prussia-Steinbach]

because anarchism is a social stance for a) whiny teenagers or b) conspiracy theorists that live in the woods with $100k worth of automatic weapons

Only the stances of anarchism that demand total destruction of authority, which are indeed juvenile fantasy.
There is more than one sort of anarchy.

Well, every form of anarchism demands for a lack of hierarchy.

That does not imply a lack of laws or government.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not what this thread is about.

I'd love to discuss this with you if you'll post a new thread about it.

just TG me

I don't like TG conversations. Let's stop this here, regardless.

[Valkalan]

What are the alternatives to capitalism that you mean to imply are better at advancing the poor? I imagine some variety of socialism. Classic socialist states existed in a state of economic stagnation with equality through shared wretchedness. Of perhaps you refer to the welfare states of today can only exist through on the backs of capitalist production.

Fuck the economy, I care about people.

Libertarian socialism is the answer. Anarchy.

Anarchy is merely chaos. It is whimsical to believe that society will simply behave itself in the absence of law. I presume that you mean to reform society prior to the introduction of anarchy, but this would necessitate a vast state presence. The term libertarian socialism is simply an oxymoron.

[Shiraan]

because anarchism is a social stance for a) whiny teenagers or b) conspiracy theorists that live in the woods with $100k worth of automatic weapons

Only the stances of anarchism that demand total destruction of authority, which are indeed juvenile fantasy.
There is more than one sort of anarchy.

then explain

[New Werpland]

because anarchism is a social stance for a) whiny teenagers or b) conspiracy theorists that live in the woods with $100k worth of automatic weapons

So I was right about you having never heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, Tucker, or even Chomsky or Carson.

19th century dinosaurs type
Leftist academia type
Nobody but Anarchists know about type

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

So I was right about you having never heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, Tucker, or even Chomsky or Carson.

19th century dinosaurs type
Leftist academia type
Nobody but Anarchists know about type

Hey now don't insult the paleontologists of the 19th century by muddling their political, and ideological affiliations.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Anarchy is merely chaos. It is whimsical to believe that society will simply behave itself in the absence of law.

The anarchy of anarchism is not chaos. Anarchism does not reject rule of law. In fact, law is the only "ruler" in anarchism.

I presume that you mean to reform society prior to the introduction of anarchy, but this would necessitate a vast state presence.

Direct action, collectivization, socialization, etc, would be useful prior to implementation of anarchy, yes. And no, it would not.

The term libertarian socialism is simply an oxymoron.

...how?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So I was right about you having never heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, Tucker, or even Chomsky or Carson.

19th century dinosaurs type
Leftist academia type
Nobody but Anarchists know about type

You are neither being funny, nor contributing.

But seriously, let's stop the threadjack. We need an anarchist discussion thread, perhaps I'll make one.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Then who is?

Germany.

They have a more comprehensive welfare system than the United States (even with recent cutbacks) and universal healthcare, meaning that people are able to move up more easily, as they're more likely to have access to food and shelter even in times of economic crisis, and less likely to go bankrupt from medical costs. Employers are also legally required to give at least six weeks of sick leave at full pay. The nation is capitalistic, which is fine, but it also has measures in place to ensure that workers are not ground underfoot by the system.

[New Werpland]

19th century dinosaurs type
Leftist academia type
Nobody but Anarchists know about type

You are neither being funny, nor contributing.

But seriously, let's stop the threadjack. We need an anarchist discussion thread, perhaps I'll make one.

No not again, let's have something constructive like a niqab ban thread.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Then who is?

There are lots of capitalist countries with higher social mobility than the United States.

Yes. They tend to have better social safety nets, employee protections, stronger unions, and universal healthcare.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Certainly, but part of the point of the program is that it's immensely difficult to address these underlying reasons when people are on the streets. It's nearly impossible to improve one's mental health, to get off of drugs, to stop drinking, to find gainful employment, or to in any way improve one's life without a permanent address to go to at night and a phone number that one can be reached at.

I fully agree, I'm just stipulating that there are those who suggest it might not fully be the best thing for them - and outside of the 'they ought to get their asses out to find a job to get out of poverty' crowd either. I'm not anything but among those who fully support this program, but also one who advocates taking care of both the immediate issue and the background ones simultaneously.

Naturally, and you didn't come across as anything else. I was simply pointing out the problems with that stance.