Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
because it's plain as day in the portion that you quoted that I was chiding you for your lack of ideas about "how to proceed in the absence of a political leadership."
|
Sorry if I did not take your bait. Which is all you can do given that you do not have the ability to define YOUR anarchism.
How to deal with the absence of political leadership is a stupid evasion. Anarchists oppose RULERS -- in other words, people who coerce their way to leadership and maintain it by force. Anarchists do not oppose leaders who lead with the consent of their followers. That is a simple concept.
Are you sure you are talking political "leadership" or "rulers" now? You want to back-track on your fucking stupid question?? or not?
Maybe not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
In short, if anarchists won, and all the authoritarian political leadership all over the world withered away, I don't think you'd have a fucking clue what to do next,
|
Barring coercion and forcing one's will on other people, it really does not matter what people do -- for real anarchists, that is. For you, it would not surprise me if you felt it was your mission in life to tell people how to organize their affairs under their own roof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
because the whole of your 'anarchism' can be summed up in "the gubmint sucks". That's not a program for revolutionary change, and it isn't even worth that much as a stand-alone notion.
|
Good for you.
I will take your unfounded and baseless criticism as seriously as it deserves to be taken from YOU who do not have the ability to define anarchism in any concise manner.
[By the way, I believe in starving the state of its resources as a strategy. I bet you have no capacity to understand that. Your old history books probably never talk about that either.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Samuel8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
If you want a refresher, the community can decide for itself.
|
If you want a clue, not everybody in the whole entire world is the same. Therefore, your Community is not in isolation. |
I think I made this point to you in the context of explaining why your naïve individualism was meaningless. Of course, you were either too stupid or too illiterate to understand, and merely pronounced it "frightening" absent understanding. |
I am naive??? I made the point that not everybody was the same.
You are the one who is supremely naive to state that "the community can decide for itself" without recognizing that not everybody outside of your frat house is the same as you.
If you think arriving at a consensus is attainable for anything outside of your house, you are stupid.
You demonstrated what I wanted: YOUR concept of property rights are both real but limited to a geographic area, your frat house, outside of which you have no moral authority. That is what I wanted to draw out of you. Thank you. Thank you
ever so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
Again, functionally illiterate. I only brought up our collective house arrangement as an illustration of the concept of property for use.
|
-- which was good enough for me.
You demonstrated that you DO accept property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
No, I use it because I'm sick and tired of your stupidity, and hope that somehow you will be led to read something written from the tradition that you misrepresent.
|
That is your cover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
You mangle everything you read, you know nothing about anarchist history and thought, and then you dismiss it when people who are versed in this history try to correct you while proclaiming yourself the "authentic anarchist".
|
I dispute that Anarchy represents historical accounts. Therefore, I reject any need to read YOUR books. Now, continue to go on and on and on and on how I need to read all of these books, like Anarchy was some secret philosophy that only the elite can understand. Here is a challenge for you:
Forget about me, can YOU define Anarchism to anybody who does not profess to be an anarchist????? I bet you can not. According to you, the only people who can even KNOW what anarchy IS are people who read your literature. Shit, that is a convenient cover.
I insist that Anarchy represents a code of behavior akin to "Live and let live" whereby it is anti-anarchist to steal and coerce people. Nobody has to read a book to understand that. It really is a simple definition. We may go to great lengths to explain property rights and what constitutes coercion, etc. but the basic principle is quite simple. Even people who reject Anarchy as a moral code should be able to understand what it means. That is where we differ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
You are nothing less than a crank, someone who has an equivalent style of argument to a creationist, a geocentrist, a relativity-denier, etc.
|
Fine. I look forward to you being able to contest anything I say in any other discussion in this forum -- if you can.
It tickles me to know that my natural "Live and let live." reflexive spirit pisses you off.
Before I forget, once an anarchist re-claims [you used the word "expropriation" which describes theft, usually by the state] unjustly-acquired property from the state or from state privilege -- a concept I whole-heartedly accept and NEVER once said I rejected --
that anarchist has claimed property rights.
Oh! Sorry! I made that point already.