NP, I have some rage to vent

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Once you've created a system of law is it really anarchy and free of coercive force?

I mean if you make a law that people can't kill, for instance, and someone kills somebody, what do you do about it? If you use force to stop him or remove him from the community you are using coercive force. If you don't use coercive force what's to stop him?

The point is that he voluntary associated with the law. He didn't have to join onto it. This is one of the problems though. Both options have been argued - either he accept the rules he helped shape or expel him from the collective good which is a large punishment in its own right. It is arguable how satisfactory this is.
The main idea is that once private property goes the need for most crimes will disappear though crimes of passion will remain.

Isn't this more mobocracy than true anarchy?

Mobocracy I always saw as more brute force rule but they similar. The key difference is that the collectives in anarchy have no negative power, only positive. By working with them you get a collective benefit but if you don't work with them you will not be punished whereas mobocracies tend to force you to join or to leave. I do have a bit of a conservative view on this issue.

The more anarchic communists argue that you don't need any form of organisation. There is no private property, no wage labour, people are free to do what they want and their natural tendencies will lead to the collective good. Some argue that there can be voluntary associations which may help to direct work if necessary- particularly workers collectives in factories and such like- but they are completely voluntary and are suggestive only.
It is important in such a system to have no private land/property- except as necessary for production. In such a system people are free to develop however they like and do what they want with maximum freedom which can never be obtained in a system where private property exists because that will always imply a coercive force is around. Without the restrictions imposed by a socialist/capitalist state people will be inherentely more productive and society will reach super-production where demand is satiated.

I don't know how well I'm explaining the theory, I'm not very good at explaining things. You can read the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
but it seems a bit dated.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of corporations having that much power for a whole SLEW of reasons. Like I said, I hate the idea fervently, but discussing the more communist anarchistic ideals is pretty interesting to me.

I really don't understand how anarcho-capitalism works, it seems a bit odd to me. Any form of private property means that a form of coercion exists- people won't be completely free.

[MasterOfMagic]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

The point is that he voluntary associated with the law. He didn't have to join onto it. This is one of the problems though. Both options have been argued - either he accept the rules he helped shape or expel him from the collective good which is a large punishment in its own right. It is arguable how satisfactory this is.
The main idea is that once private property goes the need for most crimes will disappear though crimes of passion will remain.

So, if you commit murder the anarcho-communist way of dealing with it is cutting them off from the collective food/resource supply, and that's it? This sounds like a recipe for more murder, so I'm sure I misunderstood.

The more anarchic communists argue that you don't need any form of organisation. There is no private property, no wage labour, people are free to do what they want and their natural tendencies will lead to the collective good. Some argue that there can be voluntary associations which may help to direct work if necessary- particularly workers collectives in factories and such like- but they are completely voluntary and are suggestive only.

Its interesting that you talk about factories. How would things like this be handled, generally? Who decides who runs the factory? What makes people listen to this person? If the people who decide they want to work in the factory end up being the ones who make the rules, it won't run efficiently at all. In both plants I've worked in, the people doing the actual work mostly had no idea how the general process worked, and so would make decisions that made their life easier, but messed up the finished product. They also tend to not believe the manager's word about why they need to change what they're doing, they only do so because they don't want to lose the job. I don't see the same incentive coming from the anarchist system.

After these thoughts I read this:

It is important in such a system to have no private land/property- except as necessary for production.

So, would someone owning the factory be seen as necessary then? How would this person get people to want to work the jobs? Alot of factories make things that the people in them would have no use for. There's no money...would we have to give up technology for this sort of system? I don't like that idea, nor do I think people in general would.

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by MoM

If the people who decide they want to work in the factory end up being the ones who make the rules, it won't run efficiently at all. In both plants I've worked in, the people doing the actual work mostly had no idea how the general process worked, and so would make decisions that made their life easier, but messed up the finished product.

But that is in present society. You see, anarchy in this form (the way I see it) basically requires a change in the way we think. Which requires a change in the form of society.

What I mean is, people in the plants you worked in might not know that much about what's going on (in terms of factory function etc.), but we don't live in any form of anarchy. They know what they "have to know", what they are required to know, in the terms of the current form of society.

Am I making any sense?

[Madcow9000]

It's been my experience in life that anarchy wouldn't work due to willful public ignorance and general laziness.

The problem with not having any laws or governance means that if someone suddenly discovers, oh say for instance, that the Earth is round and not flat, and then shares it with his brethren, they run the risk of their ignorant brethren lynching his sorry ass for making them uncomfortable.

It doesn't matter how far we've progressed as a people. The stupid ones will have their voices heard even if they have to rape pillage and kill their way into power.
There's always a pecking order, people naturally follow each other. Society or not, there's always an alpha dog. It's just the way humans are programed.

[Geminex]

All of this comes down to one simple statement: For an ideal society to function well, something has to alter human nature so drastically that everyone immediately ceases being an asshole. The problem with the current world lies less in the way society is constructed (though that's part of the problem) and more in the way people will think and interact.

[Osterbaum]

Social evolution.

[Krylo]

You should go into more detail on that, Oster.

I've heard of it before and have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about, but as I'm not a proponent of anarchy and rarely hear of it outside of the context of preparing a society for anarchy or communism, I'm not sure I'd do the idea justice.

[MasterOfMagic]

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

But that is in present society. You see, anarchy in this form (the way I see it) basically requires a change in the way we think. Which requires a change in the form of society.

What I mean is, people in the plants you worked in might not know that much about what's going on (in terms of factory function etc.), but we don't live in any form of anarchy. They know what they "have to know", what they are required to know, in the terms of the current form of society.

Am I making any sense?

Yes, but let me write it out to be sure: you're saying that in the new anarchical society, the people would be forced to learn more about their job in order to do the same thing. And so they would, in order to survive.

There's still no driving force though, what do they get out of doing their job well? Because without that they'll still just understand enough to bluff their way through most things, and not enough to actually make decisions (even though they still will anyway). Also, why do they have the job in the first place? What are they getting from it if there's no money and the factory makes nothing they need?

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by MoM

Yes, but let me write it out to be sure: you're saying that in the new anarchical society, the people would be forced to learn more about their job in order to do the same thing. And so they would, in order to survive.

They would learn about it because it benefitted them. And then they could still decide to run the factory another way.

Originally Posted by MoM

Also, why do they have the job in the first place?

It's for the benefit of their group, commune, society, whatever and so it is benefitial for them. As long as it remains that way, there is incentive to work at the factory. But nobody is actually in a position to run the factory, so to speak.

This is how I rationalize it. I'm guessing Smarty has another response for you.

Originally Posted by Krylo

You should go into more detail on that, Oster.

Social evolution is not evolution in the genetic or physiological sense. One of the oldest examples of social evolution is the evolution of a common language for a group. In todays society there are certain morals most of us consider to be the norm. They are the result of social evolution, for obviosly it wasn't always like that.

EDIT: So I see no reason why social evolution could not reach a point where a lot of things could be possible.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Meister

Being a dick about something and later coming back and saying "wow I've been a dick about this, sorry guys, my bad" already strikes me as a great deal more mature than going "hey this guy's been a dick a few times let's remind everyone of it again and again and again." You can't very well "earn your respect"*(a pretty bullshit concept in itself) if there's always someone guaranteed to quote your old stupid posts at you no matter what you say.

Originally Posted by Meister

No one's forcing you to be an asshole back at him, you're choosing to.

Like, right now if I was Nightshine I'd say "hmm, I should tone down the single-line dick posts and check with myself if I'm just about to post in a thread only to say whatever people are talking about sucks" and if I was nearly everyone else I'd say "so okay this dude's a real dick but whelp, I don't have to deal with him, here's my Ignore list" or "that seems worthy of a post report, let's go for it." You can't like everyone who visits the same public places you do.

Jesus Christ.

No Meister it's not unfair to quote his day-old posts back at him from when he was being an asshole to someone else about their personal problems, when he turns around the next day and demands that everyone else sympathize with his (and completely against the rules, the reason for which is utterly demonstrated by his first post) "FUCK RELIGION YALLZ" ridiculousness.

This is just another iteration of the same damn four-part Nightshade trollshtick, to wit:

- "Ha ha [huge group of people which includes a bunch on this forum] is stupid, fuck them!"

- "You guys are INSULTINGdisagreeing with me, that is mean and not fair!"

- "You have feelings and things, you're a loser!"

- "You criticized me thereby hurting my FEELINGS, that is inappropriate and not-right behavior!"

Plus religious discussion and some backseat modding thrown in for good measure, and it's exactly what I banned him for the first time around, except swapping religious people for women and religion-posting for gravedigging and also when I banned him he'd been spamming a whole hell of a lot.

Yes Meister someone is forcing Noncon and whoever to "be an asshole" to him - you are, by not doing your job and banning him*. Why would anyone report his posts, when literally nothing he does will get him banned, to the point that you'll fire people for trying to ban him?

It's not the community's fault that you'd rather keep on getting angrier at people for being annoyed by trolling than at the troll causing the problem in the first place. I mean goddamn you even admit right in there that Nightshine's being an asshole, but still instead of taking him to task for being an asshole, you jump on Noncon for not being tolerant enough of assholes.



*I mean not 'your' job because you 'quit', or whatever version of that includes you 1. still being an admin 2. still lecturing people on when they are or aren't obligated to report posts.
--------------------------------------------

And since I'm on this subject now, I wanna make something clear from the "fired lol" thread

Originally Posted by Meister

I honestly didn't think anything was wrong with Nightshine's posts and still don't really. But I can pretty much guarantee you if the infraction had been something like, hey Nightshine, two points for spam, instead of heaping six or seven different offenses on it, I'd have gone "huh kinda weird, but whatever, works for me" and moved on. I can safely say that much because that happened practically all the time and apparently for everyone of us at some point.

I banned him for those six or seven different offenses because those were the things I saw him doing. Well before I banned him, I told you, in the mod forum, "Hey from what I can see the dude is ___________, __________, ___________, ___________, and _______________," and you ignored that post in favor of closing that thread with another passive-agressive insult against the forum at large. After this I said "Oh well" and banned him for all the things I'd seen him doing, cause I thought the guy needed to go for all the reasons I clearly spelled out.

Going back to something Shiney said in that thread,

Originally Posted by shiney

While I can confess to a lot of people that it seems very sudden, it also is a situation that has arisen too many times within the staff, and regardless of Meister's treatment of ole Bellsy that doesn't change what happened here. Some folks want to compare it (Meister banned Bells and it was so not cool so Nightshine had it comin') or whatever but realistically, they were two entirely separate administrative decisions linked only by a common thread. Bells was a repeat offender with infractions and trouble prior so was banned more harshly because of those offenses, Nightshine was a relative newcomer with posts that were certainly unpopular but not necessarily rule-breaking. He should have received an infraction, one or two points perhaps, and sent on his way. He should not have been banned for two weeks after Meister had already entered into the matter and finalized it. That, is the primary reason this happened. An admin had ruled on a decision, a different admin decided he didn't like the outcome and changed the decision without consulting the first.

I'm sure Brian or someone will say I'm getting "screedy" or whatever, but that's a bunch of total horseshit.

I didn't unban Bellsouth, I didn't reopen the thread, I banned a poster for reasons I had plainly spelled out to anyone who wanted to read them, and because you two disagreed with my decision, you decided to overturn it by way of throwing me off the fucking modstaff with zero warning.

I ended up not bothering to respond to this and a lot of other things from that because it just really obviously wasn't going to do any good regardless, but I want to make this one thing clear before I hear anymore lying shit about how I was the one who was getting angry or reversing people's decisions or whatever other excuse you guys want to invent for why you're defending trolls and attacking the rest of the forum in doing so.

I didn't quit the forums over all that three weeks ago because I thought to myself man why should I quit a community I like just because the most ridiculous .01% of it happens to be in charge of it, plus I figured dang, maybe it really was just my completely mean-ass unreasonable personality that made this situation somehow impossible for you to deal with and if I just let things go on whatever semi-not-totally-unpleasant note ya'll would start doing the job on your own, but nope, here you are three weeks later jumping on anyone else who tries to explain it to you by whatever other means. So at this point I honestly should just leave because why the hell do I want to be part of a community whose leadership is this intent on coddling its shitty elements to the detriment of absolutely everybody else? Or wait around until whenever I get banned by people who apparently have every intention of continuing to allow shitty behavior and attack people who have a problem with it?

------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Krylo

Huh.

I... don't know what to make of this thread.

Nightshine: FUCK HOMOPHOBES, and also religions.

Everyone else: NO FUCK YOU!


I mean, what?

Is this really the level of maturity we have going here?

There were some lulz to be had, but it was hard to make them out through the pain of watching every single person in this thread smash their heads against the proverbial brick wall.

I mean, shit, Nightshine may be an ass, and as an (assumedly) atheist highschool kid he's got a good god rage boner going on, but really NPF?

Your response is the blanket statement we've been hearing from people trying to defend institutionalized homophobia, racism, and other not-good racisms since the beginning of time? "Why can't you be tolerant of our intolerance!?"

Really?

Really really?

Jesus.

Christ Krylo I can't speak for everyone oh what the hell I will go ahead and speak for absolutely anyone and everyone who jumped on him; who were doing so for 1. his two blanket "fuck all religion ever" paragraphs --

Originally Posted by Nightshine

To this very moment, I feel such a passionate rage not only towards this person, but to the very words themselves. "Godless". That implies that the person who wrote this is religious. I've never liked religion...but now, at this point, I want it abolished. Religion is not only fiction, but the cause of all this hate to begin with. What's so wrong with being a homosexual? Nothing. It's not a choice. It's not a dysfunction. It's a natural occurrence. And some overzealous idiot thinks he/she has the right to express his/her ignorant views upon everyone else.

I honestly think the world would be a better place if this person had no rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if religion was abolished forever.

-- and the fact that his anger comes off as completely insincere given his well-established history (established in like a hundred and forty posts, natch) of telling anyone with an opinion on anything else to shut the fuck up because lol, internet. And because you know --

Originally Posted by Krylo

I mean the guy finally shows a modicum of respect for humanity, after you all dogpiled on him for defending misogynistic internet musicians, and he gets dogpiled again because he's, holy shit, a highschool atheist that doesn't like religion.

-- It's possibly just kind of hard to buy this sudden swerve toward defending the equal rights of homosexuals from the same guy who like three weeks ago was piping up proudly in defense of violence against women.

I mean like I said maybe he's a troll or maybe he just occupies one of the upper percentiles for teenage douchery but either way I really don't get why you think anyone would be inclined to respond to him by taking anything he says seriously.