U.S. Politics: Register to vote, the election is nigh

[TrueMetis]

Okay, so along that line of reasoning, what do you think about my saying, "Death is inevitable, to complain about murder is to ignore reality"?

Nah it's more like complaining about death in general. Murder's can be realistically prevented, the use of force cannot be.

Please elaborate.

Well there's pretty much the entire "free man on the land" idiots. Don't pay taxes but still make use of services. Course they still pay sales tax so that's a limited example. Still let's go with a more specific example, the Town north of mine is in need of a new water treatment facility the selected site is in a residential area so there was concern about smells. The people in the area of course worked against this, and had the lot where the original water treatment facility (Ironically also in a residential area) not ultimately had space for the new one this could have prevented the facility being built at all, which would cause severe issues in the long term. So we got an example of a bunch of idiots trying to block critical infrastructure because the "burden" of bad smells, which probably wouldn't be an issue since the much older original facility doesn't have this problem.

[Athias]

Nah it's more like complaining about death in general. Murder's can be realistically prevented, the use of force cannot be.

But I have not complained about force in general. Though, I will concede that I do have a tendency to conflate "force" with "coercion."

Well there's pretty much the entire "free man on the land" idiots. Don't pay taxes but still make use of services. Course they still pay sales tax so that's a limited example. Still let's go with a more specific example, the Town north of mine is in need of a new water treatment facility the selected site is in a residential area so there was concern about smells. The people in the area of course worked against this, and had the lot where the original water treatment facility (Ironically also in a residential area) not ultimately had space for the new one this could have prevented the facility being built at all, which would cause severe issues in the long term. So we got an example of a bunch of idiots trying to block critical infrastructure because the "burden" of bad smells, which probably wouldn't be an issue since the much older original facility doesn't have this problem.

Where was the "force?"

[Inigima]

How can an individual coerce oneself? If my stated position is that people should form their own arragements, then what scope of said position would allow for "things [i[ think should be coerced?" I can only assume that you're referring to a capacity to coerce others, in which case, I'm against it.

I'm not sure what you're responding to -- I was replying to Ramsay's exclusion of someone using force or presenting a threat.

You're being presumptuous. You don't know me, so let's abandon the pretenses.

What exactly am I presuming? Do you, in fact, live in an anarchist wonderland?

[all swedes are racist]

Ahem, individualist

[The Undead Martyr]

No, I am against democracy. I'm against force, as well--primarily more so than democracy. You're correct in that I would not begrudge anyone for setting up a democratic atlernative, which is not excluded in my "people should form their own arrangements," statement, as long as it's voluntary. But as Onion and Terra elucidated, I, too, do not believe that democracy can exist without coercion--otherwise, there'd be no need for votes or elected officials since all goals would be achieved through perfect unanimity. The need for a democratic process would not be necessary.

Majoritarian rule, by its nature, is an abuse to minorities (dissenters.) As you pointed out, you can't see any democratic system that would not run afoul my defintion of coercive force to extract compliance.

Then you might as well commit suicide, because you will never escape the use of coercion. You are immersed in a social fabric that constructs your identity, puts food on your table, keeps you alive when you get sick, has built the roads you drive, the house you live in, the school you attended, the laws that allow you to speak freely and exercise your religion without fear of invaders, or a mob, or the government itself. Your clothes come from China, your food from South America. The language you speak owes itself to a Norman bastard a thousand years dead. To speak of yourself as an atomistic free agent, outside of the immense array under-girding your existence, is naive in the extreme. Humans are and always will be predominantly social creatures.

Compromise and coercion are facts of life in a civilized society. We have chosen to vest these powers in an institution that is publicly accountable to all adult citizens (barring prisoners) and allows for the peaceful removal of leaders. This is something of a historical oddity and a privilege we should exercise as responsible human beings.

[Athias]

I'm not sure what you're responding to -- I was replying to Ramsay's exclusion of someone using force or presenting a threat.

Sorry. I thought you were speaking to Ramsay's response to Lord Mord's response of me.

What exactly am I presuming? Do you, in fact, live in an anarchist wonderland?

How would you know? What isn't presumptuous about your assuming "it's easy" for me to be consistent in my oblivion to the consequences? I'm well aware of the consequences of maintaining these principles--in fact, I favor them.

[Inigima]

That's why I'm asking! If you do live in an anarchist wonderland, and it's as great as you thought it would be, I'll recant and apologize. But I think probably what's actually happening is your opinions are childish and you're shielded from their consequences because you don't actually have to experience them!

[Athias]

Then you might as well commit suicide, because you will never escape the use of coercion. You are immersed in a social fabric that constructs your identity, puts food on your table, keeps you alive when you get sick, has built the roads you drive, the house you live in, the school you attended, the laws that allow you to speak freely and exercise your religion without fear of invaders, or a mob, or the government itself. Your clothes come from China, your food from South America. The language you speak owes itself to a Norman bastard a thousand years dead. To speak of yourself as an atomistic free agent, outside of the immense array under-girding your existence, is naive in the extreme. Humans are and always will be predominantly social creatures.

Compromise and coercion are facts of life in a civilized society. We have chosen to vest these powers in an institution that is publicly accountable to all adult citizens (barring prisoners) and allows for the peaceful removal of leaders. This is something of a historical oddity and a privilege we should exercise as responsible human beings.

And here I thought, Inigima was being presumptuous.

There's no "we" The Undead Martyr. You're merely projecting a paternalism on to a supra collective as a means to justify coercing individuals. But I suppose you're correct: anyone who dissents should just committ suicide.

[The Undead Martyr]

TM,

The real question and the real bone of contention is when it is and is not proper to use coersion. For example I take the position that if no one else is harmed by an activity the State should have no role in regulating an adult individual's choice to engage in that activity, drug use for example. Others will say the tangential effects of drug use mean the State should have the power to regulate its use.

Bingo. I also agree vis a vsi drug use. As to the rest, while I have flirted with anarchism in the past I am more convinced by Karl Polanyi and the Fabian socialists that our overarching concern should be working within a democratic framework to achieve general equality and prosperity over time. Blind dogmatism is dangerous and counterproductive, be it of the neo-liberal or bolshevik variety.

As to equating money with speech- leaving aside the ridiculous notion of corporate personhood (are governments people as well? What about unions? The Red Cross?) I am uncomfortable with equating an economic utility with a political right, especially given the concentration of wealth. I believe this to be an issue that needs to be addressed. I do not believe simply dismissing these concerns as impractical is an acceptable rebuttal.

[Athias]

That's why I'm asking! If you do live in an anarchist wonderland, and it's as great as you thought it would be, I'll recant and apologize. But I think probably what's actually happening is your opinions are childish and you're shielded from their consequences because you don't actually have to experience them!

No, you didn't ask. You presumed. Here's your statement:

I mean, it's easy to be consistent when you don't have to actually face the consequences of your decisions.

You posed a question only after I called you on it. And this notion that you can't appreciate the consequences of something without direct experience is faulty. I'm not trying to experience "Anarchy;" I'm trying to experience free and voluntary associations, authority over choices concerning myself, voluntary dependence and independence, complete authority to behave property as I desire, etc. I do appreciate these consequences, and the notion that you believe you're some authority on how well i appreciate these consequences, without knowing a single thing about me, is presumptuous.

[Inigima]

Cry me a fucking river.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

So I guess we'll mark that down as "No, I do not, in fact, live in an anarchist wonderland."

[Inigima]

How dare you presume something that is clearly true, OAR. How dare you.

[Athias]

@Inigima:

There's no need. You're the one that's getting emotional because I called you out. You can own up to it--or not, the choice is yours--or you can continue to be reactionary.

[TrueMetis]

But I have not complained about force in general. Though, I will concede that I do have a tendency to conflate "force" with "coercion."

For the purposes of my point the same thing applies to both.

Where was the "force?"

Having to put up with things you find unpleasant, from taxes to not being able to punch everyone who annoys you in the face. Though perhaps I'm being overly broad on the definition of force. Perhaps you could give me your definition?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Childish, feeble troll is childish and feeble. Don't feed it.

Besides, that would be a violation of its individuality, to assume it needed feeding or any response from us. Just let its go on its' intellectually superior way.

How obnoxious. Whether or not you agree with Athias' political ideology or not, (s)he is polite, respectful, and responds to posts in a substantive manner. In response (s)he gets a bunch of dismissive nonsense, personal attacks, and a campaign of apparently deliberate caricaturization, of which your post is just one example.

[Wise Fool]

@Inigima:

There's no need. You're the one that's getting emotional because I called you out. You can own up to it--or not, the choice is yours--or you can continue to be reactionary.

I do believe that little rant you just performed, all merely toward the effect of calling someone who dissents from the would-be tyranny of your opinion "presumtious," indicates there may be a wee bit of emotionality on your part.

In any case, one doesn't have to know you with the intimacy of a lover or a twin in order to realize that you suffer from a type of almost romantically doomed idealism bordering on naivete. You examine everything through the lense of your, to be frank, anarchist paradigm and as a result, are (as would be expected) inevitably offended because of all the coerciveness you see. The question posed was, though - are you? - constantly offended whenever and wherever your choices and authority are influenced, even coerced, or otherwise dismissed, that is. If so, then you are at least consistent in your schadenfreude-inducing idealism. But if not, then it seems more like just that you have opinions (like anyone) and things you choose to cast as the good olde fight of coercion-vs-liberty are just those topics and positions you invest in more than others, whereas other topics are no real cause for concern - in which case we should take your principles no more seriously than you do, ignoring them when convenient.

[Inigima]

I'm not sure scorn is an "emotion."

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I do believe that little rant you just performed, all merely toward the effect of calling someone who dissents from the would-be tyranny of your opinion "presumtious," indicates there may be a wee bit of emotionality on your part.

In any case, one doesn't have to know you with the intimacy of a lover or a twin in order to realize that you suffer from a type of almost romantically doomed idealism bordering on naivete. You examine everything through the lense of your, to be frank, anarchist paradigm and as a result, are (as would be expected) inevitably offended because of all the coerciveness you see. The question posed was, though - are you? - constantly offended whenever and wherever your choices and authority are influenced, even coerced, or otherwise dismissed, that is. If so, then you are at least consistent in your schadenfreude-inducing idealism. But if not, then it seems more like just that you have opinions (like anyone) and things you choose to cast as the good olde fight of coercion-vs-liberty are just those topics and positions you invest in more than others, whereas other topics are no real cause for concern - in which case we should take your principles no more seriously than you do, ignoring them when convenient.

Are you really taking the position that the substance of one's political philosophy should be judged by how significantly they are personally offended by violations of it?

Because if so, that's absurdly stupid.

[Suttree]

Whether or not you agree with Athias' political ideology or not, (s)he is polite, respectful, and responds to posts in a substantive manner. In response (s)he gets a bunch of dismissive nonsense, personal attacks, and a campaign of apparently deliberate caricaturization, of which your post is just one example.

Hey Nestor, what's it like up there on the moral high ground? Perhaps you can swing the conversation to a better place by commenting on her stance in a substantive manner.