a) goverment is unnecessary
b) everyone knows right from wrong, good from evil
c) everyone is motivated by the desire to make society work
d) crime, poverty, and all manner of suffering will cease to exist once anarchy reigns
~~
Anarchists are the ones with their heads in the clouds. Sometimes they call themselves Libertarians in an attempt to fool us. :shameonyou:
um i think you are wrong about the assumptions of anarchy.
a. government can be about service provision etc and not about enforcing majority values.
b. it does not matter if a few people do not know right from wrong or good from evil if the majority respond to all actions in ethical ways.
c. ditto
d. i dont think that the elimination of crime, poverty and suffering is a goal of anarchy. I think it is an ideal. Isn't that the same for democracy? Should we get rid of democracy because not everyone in society lives according to democratic principles?
I am tempted to look up Hever's Law. What are you talking about?
Okay, I'm done giggling. What makes it even funnier is that you look so serious when you said it. Anyways...
Democracy looks good in theory. I think it is impossible for people to live together without wanting to kill each other eventually if we rely on outside forces to modify our behavior rather than take personal responsibility for our thoughts and actions.
Do you think that our government is heading toward a cult like Christian Coalition? Palin scares me. I'm concerned that religion is sneaking into our government and seeking to control the minds of people through herd mentality training which comes at us through the media.
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
Sling
Sea Gull
Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 215
Location: Oakfield, Ryde, Isle of Wight, England, UK
1. Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial.
(A date for this quote is being sought): Edmund Spenser,
For whatsoever mother wit or art Could work, he put in proof.
(A date for this quote is being sought): Ford,
You shall have many proofs to show your skill.
(A date for this quote is being sought): Ure,
Formerly, a very rude mode of ascertaining the strength of spirits was practiced, called the proof.
2. The degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments which induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.
(A date for this quote is being sought): William Shakespeare,
I'll have some proof.
(A date for this quote is being sought): Ralph Waldo Emerson,
It is no proof of a man's understanding to be able to confirm whatever he pleases.
1990 October 28, Paul Simon, “Proof”, The Rhythm of the Saints, Warner Bros.
Faith, faith is an island in the setting sun / But proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone
3. The quality or state of having been proved or tried; firmness or hardness which resists impression, or doesn't yield to force; impenetrability of physical bodies.
4. Firmness of mind; stability not to be shaken.
5. (printing) A proof sheet; a trial impression, as from type, taken for correction or examination.
6. (mathematics): A process for testing the accuracy of an operation performed. Compare Prove, transitive verb, 5.
7. (obsolete): Armour of excellent or tried quality, and deemed impenetrable; properly, armour of proof.
8. (US) A measure of the alcohol content of liquor. Originally, in Britain, 100 proof was defined as 57.1% by volume (not used anymore). In the US, 100 proof means that the alcohol content is 50% of the total volume of the liquid, and thus, absolute alcohol would be 200 proof.
-Proof adj -> vb combining form secure against (damage by); (make) impervious to: waterproof; mothproof; childproof [from PROOF (adj)]
Proofread (‘pru:f,ri:d) vb –reads, -reading, -read (-,red) to read (copy or printer’s proofs) to detect and mark errors to be corrected > ‘proof,reader n
Proof Spirit n 1 (in Britain and Canada) a mixture of alcohol and water or an alcoholic beverage that contains 49.28 per cent of alcohol by weight, 57.1 [er cent by volume at 51 F: up until 1980 used as a standard of alcoholic liquids 2 (in the US) a similar standard mixture containing 50 per cent alcohol by volume at 60 F
Proof Stress n engineering the equivalent of yield stress in materials which have no clearly defined yield point
Proof Theory n the branch of logic that studies the syntactic properties of formal theories, esp the syntactic characterization of deductive validity.
Have a good job dealing with reality =]
I have not, quote, lost, unquote, anything considering you have not been able to refute anything or back up anything you have said (as if this were a serious debate anyway). So either you are making things up or are wilfully misrepresenting and distorting information to support your view and nothing you say has any intrinsic value. Unless of course by “lose” you actually mean, “present non-stop facts” then yeah, you've got me =] If you want to talk about the original "point", or better still THE ACTUAL TOPIC then feel free, otherwise stop feeding the trolls. Thanks for proving my point… again. =] You are making this far too easy.
Oh and Dostoevsky is awesome!
_________________
"The capacity to hate is a frightening reality. We are always ready to blame another of the circumstances can free us from our own self guilt"
What reality? Your reality?
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/ ... cimeth.htm
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Proof
There is no proof in science
There is no proof in science
And last: there is no proof in science
If you really knew more than me (at least on scientific subjects), it would be very strange for you to have missed such a basic fact.
And don't ask lexicographers; they don't know. Ask scientists.
Whatever
_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"
I agree with Magnus and Sling on the potential of scary Palin getting into the White House and generating her own brand of mayhem. People who claim the Republican Iraq war and deregulation were the principle faults of Bushie's white house admin, are only partially right, unfortunately. The Bushie Admin was also responsible for closing files on government business normally open to public access and running dissenting voices from their closed circle (like Colin Powell -- remember him?) I haven't even touched on the rest of their sins, but Scary Palin is fully capable of promulgating more of the same sins, secretiveness and an ability to throw a clog in any investigative system. WE're seeing that now with Troopergate and the lack of power in the Alaskan legislature to get around the Executive branch's obtuseness. That's giving way too much power to the Executive branch to begin with, even if they had nothing to hide,but of course by the way that governor's office is acting, they must have plenty to hide. Otherwise, why refuse to testify?
"But in these cases, we still have judgement here" as Shakespeare's MacBeth said, and that judgement will not be benign, I believe in the case of Troopergate, but what is important to me anyway is that anarchy affords little protection and comfort to people in these types of cases. Anarchy, in fact, assumes that people don't need protection because anarchy lives only in the absence of need, of need for leaders, material products, religion, government. (But you can't have anarchywith people like Palin and Cheney in the world.) A lot of the things that are poison to everyday lives, anarchy conveniently says we don't need. But there is no protection under the umbrella of anarchy from anyone who would abuse the system.
In fact, anarchy in its purest form, assumes the end of the need for systems, but that of course is also an invitation to abuse by people with the power hungry mindset that drives all greed and ambition. Why do we have power, war, money? Why are these things exchanged bartered for and fought for? I don't know, but get rid of the need to rely on systems that take the place of intelligence, religions that take the place of spirituality, and governments that take the place of thinking and there you have a place for anarchy to grow. But you see it everywhere, the undeniable human ego, even in this thread, which would take the place of what is important, of what is immediate, and subjugate all else to this restless quest for dominance. So I guess I find I'm coming to the conclusion that to live in the purest form of anarchy is to live without the human ego, and then maybe we are then giving up some part of being human.
I suppose I'm hearing echoes of Ayn Rand's Objectionism in my meanderings too. I think that might be a different thread altogether though!
Incorrect. Chever is generally only rude to baffoons. I apologize for whatever direction the transitive property of binary relations shall take you.
It's spelled B-U-F-F-O-O-N. You buffoon.
Great writing Jul.
Spirituality in America is categorized in the DSM book of psychological disorders as schizophrenia. People are taught that they are crazy if they believe they can commune with God. We are taught that it is normal to follow rules of religion without questioning. But, isn't that exactly what Jesus did? He rebelled against the religion of his day. He added to the bible of his day. He was a pariah for disobeying the laws. He talked to angels and spoke to God directly. The pope says that we have to go to church and confess to the priest if we want to seek forgiveness for our bad thoughts and actions. We are told that the pope is infallible and his teachings are dogma and if we so much as have an original thought that may contradict the religion then we are sinners and must repent for being led astray. I think that should go in the book of psychological disorders.
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
Last edited by Magnus on 20 Sep 2008, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Incorrect. Chever is generally only rude to baffoons. I apologize for whatever direction the transitive property of binary relations shall take you.
It's spelled B-U-F-F-O-O-N. You buffoon.
Spelling flames are too easy
_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"
It's harder to spell words that you don't see very often. I take it you must have seen this one many times in response to your posts.
Chevor, you are funnier when you are not mean spirited. I appreciate having a few good laughs...words...
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
Incorrect. Chever is generally only rude to baffoons. I apologize for whatever direction the transitive property of binary relations shall take you.
It's spelled B-U-F-F-O-O-N. You buffoon.
Spelling flames are too easy
I know but I just couldn't resist.
Sorry, I was meaning to offend you Slowmutant.
Can we get back on topic again?! !! ![]()
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
You're all out of order!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bM_l443VV4[/youtube]
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
