>>1859
This said, the anarcho-fascism that can be described is not the true anarcho-fascism.

hahaha this is fucking stupid

An anarcho-fascist is kind of something you are secretly.

It's about lying and algorithmically performing the steps to get into a position of power, only to use that power to destroy power itself.

Here's a story about Emily, an anarcho-fascist. When Emily was 16, she began to grasp the concepts of nihilism and existentialism. She began to ask herself, "To what ends does the social system exist today? To who's benefit? Why must the common person's liberty be restricted and prohibited by legal consequence when the common person has done nothing to restrict and prohibit the liberty of anybody?"

"Do what thou wilt ought to be the extent of the law," she believed. Emily soon realized, however, that even while believing this, she was still subject to being perused by those who believe in government. She despised how people felt similar to her, but only whined and accepted the role of the victim. She knew that she couldn't rely on the indolent, and soon realized that only she could do what had to be done. She devised a step by step plan to achieve power and sacrifice her acquired power to destroy the existing social system.

Emily decided that she would hide her true beliefs and pursue a position of power within the system she despised. She studied capitalism and started her own business. She began to advertise her business, and sales began to grow. She reinvested the revenue into more advertising. As things progressed, Emily soon had enough to purchase large companies. She bought Electronic Arts, Warner Media Group, and AT&T. Emily became a household name, and her influence frightened others business moguls. It was then, when everybody was watching, she took off her mask and showed the world that she was not a greedy capitalist, but instead, an anarcho-fascist.
She abandoned all goals of earning more and sold everything to fund an overly extreme extensive advertising campaign; prime time television spots; viral marketing; billboards; asking the question, "To what ends does the social system exist today? To who's benefit? Why must the common person's liberty be restricted and prohibited by legal consequence when the common person has done nothing to restrict and prohibit the liberty of anybody?"

This move instantly discredited her. But because of her selfless heroism, more people learned that they where anarcho-fascists.

Infiltrate the existing machine and rot it from the inside. Gradually and meticulously spread chaos and freedom.

Anarcho-capitalist here. Flying the black and gold.

Wait...THAT's anarcho fascism? HAHAHAHAHAHA...OHOHOHOHOH...oh wow. You realize you will never be able to work through the system itself if you wish to destroy it? To become successful you'd have to work to expand the system, and you'd undo any destabilization you could attempt. Become a cult leader or a terrorist or something, you MIGHT have an effect. The infrastructure, I mean the physical connections that society relies on is actually incredulously vulnerable.
Ask yourself this, what is the one thing that society relies on completely for it to not dissolve and collapse?

>>1867
You are stupid. Look how awesome the logo is.

I fear that anyone able to attain enough power to dismantle the state would not feasibly let it go..

When wise people hear about anarcho-fascism, they practice it diligently.

When mediocre people hear about anarcho-fascism, they doubt it.

When the foolish hear about anarcho-fascism, they laugh out loud. If they didn't laugh, it wouldn't be anarcho-fascism.

>>1890
Nice ad hominem veiled in parable form to make it sound sophisticated.

BEEKEEPER.

>>1890

Yes you are right. Everyone else is stupid and wrong.

If only people saw things exactly as you did everything would be perfect.

Why doesn't anybody understand you?

>>1890
I know I'm no genius but I'm no fool either and I lol'd till the cows came home when I heard of anarcho-fascism.

Um, maybe 711chan isn't ready for anarcho-fascism yet.

>>1909
Maybe because we aren't fucking stupid, and actually understand how humans act within a social dynamic.

>>1910
>Maybe because we aren't fucking stupid

You don't know that.

>>1911

Goddamn overly subjective people are annoying.

>>1911
Yes I do.

>>1911
All people are stupid but people like anarcho fascists who think they know something that should be applied to everything they can conceive of are mentally impotent scat addicts.

You people don't even know what you mean; just hooked on half soaked ideals and the buzz of controversy.

Do you even know of Isaiah Berlin? The concepts of positive and negative liberty? That anarcho fascist imbeciles are merely pawns of the polar flux between the establishment of governments aligned with either positive liberty, negative liberty or a bastardisation of both which inevitably sways to one side?

I have a good knowledge of dao/tao and its westernised isms but not once in all I've read have I seen such as " AN ANARCHO-FASCIST MUST BE STRONG ENOUGH TO RISE TO THE TOP AND STRONGER STILL TO GIVE EVERYTHING AWAY. WHEN THEY FAIL TO GIVE EVERYTHING AWAY, THEY ARE NO LONGER AN ANARCHO-FASCIST, AND A TRUE ANARCHO-FASCIST WILL TAKE THEM OUT."

I have however read that the dao is in chopping wood and carrying water.
Humble yourself fool for you know nothing.

>>1916
DAAAAAAAMMMNNNN

>>1916
How about YOU humble YOURSELF.

Caps mean you must do it.

don't mind the mindsplosion

>>1925
No. Shutup. Anarchism is stupid. You are stupid.

>>1925
>>1926

Best. Arguments. Ever.

>>1915
Prove it.

>>1916
Anarcho-fascism itself is a block of wood.

>>1928
>>Prove it.
Go Google "social dynamics of large groups". Seriously it's such a huge fucking topic there's a whole fucking SCIENCE based on it. Jesus fucking Christ you're like a Creationist saying "hurrr durrr prove Biology". Get the FUCK out.

>>1929
When you claim that the people 711chan aren't "stupid," and that they understand how humans act within a social dynamic, telling me to do a Google search on "social dynamics of large groups," doesn't prove it. The burden of proof is on you if you intend to convince me that what you say is true. Besides that it is not up to me to do your research, it is especially redundant to tell me to read up on social dynamics before you confidently know whether I already know about social dynamics or not. Your assumptions and emotions make your arguments weak.

Remember that I am a human like you, and like you, I have experienced many things. We have each experienced life subjectively though--what you have read is different from what I have read. This difference in point of view ought to be our strength, not a weakness. You do not have to respond to what I say with anger. I understand that you feel adamant about what you believe, but you don't have to be angry when we are just discussing. I am not angry when I say the things I say, and it isn't my intention to make you angry with the things I say.

>>1936
Just...shut the fuck up. Anarchy was already proven to be an absolute failure during the Spanish Revolution. Communism was shown to be a failure after the USSR collapsed and China gradually switched over. Guess what remains? Capitalism wins. End of story.

>>1937
Anarcho-fascism is honest about itself and admits that anarchy inevitably fails.

>>1938
then what's the point?

>>1937
Any system can fail under unfavorable conditions nitwit, capitalism included. Ever heard of the V.O.C.?

Vergaan onder corruptie.

>>1926
I never said I'm an anarchist, limpdick. I just said don't act like an arrogant cock when expounding the virtues of humbleness (unless ofcourse you're being ironic).

n e way what nobody seems to realise is it isn't systems that fail it's people that fail.

>>1859
>>1941
He is angry because you(I think it was you) suggested that we(711/int/) "just aren't ready for anarcho" BEEKEEPING. You acted like a christian who says "you just don't know". All this you(I'm again assuming)did after tweeting some bullshit teen-age angsty slogan crap about how people who laugh at anarcho- BEEKEEPING are"foolish"...as in if you don't see things the way I/we do you must be stupid.

>>1944
I can see how identity can be a problem....

>>1941
1916 here, I have made only one tweet in this thread. You are a retard. My suggestion was that you humble yourself to your own MASSIVE AMOUNT OF RETARDATION. I don't see how anyone could possibly take that as irony, RETARD.
As for your closing statement; ideas can't fail because they are IDEAS, RETARD.

>My suggestion was that you humble yourself to your own MASSIVE AMOUNT OF RETARDATION. I don't see how anyone could possibly take that as irony, RETARD.
As for your closing statement; ideas can't fail because they are IDEAS, RETARD.

I didn't say ideas didn't fail I said it's systems that fail. And I'm not 1911 so no you didn't suggest to me that I humble myself you suggested it to somebody else but you'd do well to take your own advice. And if the irony isn't obvious to you then let me spell it out for you: you're acting like an arrogant flaming homo by telling people that they don't know anything and that they're RETARDED and at the same time telling them to display humility whilst you yourself don't fucking have any. That's hypocrisy, unless it's used in the ironic sense and you're pretending to be an arrogant idiot to highlight the why being humble is needed. But since you didn't get that we can just assume you're a moron.

>>1958
You're the BEEKEEPER, BEEKEEPER. Systems are ideas. I'm telling you that nobody knows shit, we are ALL fucking stupid. I'm not telling you that I'm not a fucking retard too, I am telling you that we are all fucking retards and the fact you're arguing with that and taking it up the ass so personally makes you a double fucking retard like you're constantly getting DVDA gang banged by the four monster cocks of retardation and when someone points it out to you, you say they're arrogant!? Sorry bud but you're the arrogant one for thinking you know something.

>>1959
>Systems are ideas.
Lol, no they're not.

>I'm telling you that nobody knows shit, we are ALL fucking stupid.
Well holy shit welcome to Phi 101. Next you'll tell me that all human striving is ultimately pointless? Maybe you'll spout some line about the overman?

Look regardless of whether or not anybody knows anything; that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about shit otherwise there's no reason for you to even tweet here is there?

>the fact you're arguing with that and taking it up the ass so personally makes you a double fucking retard like you're constantly getting DVDA gang banged by the four monster cocks of retardation and when someone points it out to you

I'm not taking anything personally I just say when I disagree with you.

I'm saying your arrogant because you act like a cockbag.

Instead of saying something like 'well who really knows anything at all' you opt for 'I am telling you that we are all fucking retards and the fact you're arguing bla bla bla cocks'. But it's not the fact that you act like a cock that I take issue with it's your hypocrisy.

Furthermore, fuck you. I'm not pretending to be the almighty judge of knowledge all I'm saying is be reasonable instead of sharting some obvious shit out of your mouth straight out of Socrates' wikipedia page rather than attempting an intelligent contribution to the discussion.

>>1960
firstly, stop fucking quoting wikipedia bullshit in an intelligence tweet fuckhead. Socrates can suck my balls and you can fuck your ugly swan, duck fucker. I don't want to discuss with a pathetic little wank stain the merits of courteous discourse while subtly hinting throughout the duration of said discourse that one may find themselves ignorant when faced with the crunch aka the fucking abyss aka star wars deep space ten.
If the fact that people don't know shit was obvious this thread wouldn't fucking exist would it YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Human striving is not pointless, you must be one of those superficial philosicunts who thinks they know something when really they are RETARDS. Oh wait I think I touched on that theme previously, sorry.
Maybe I'm just a complete loser but I haven't noticed myself being hypocritical, or is that a hallmark of a hypocrite? I don't know, maybe you do seeing as you're not taking anything personally with your high pitched bitch yelps of "Fuck You" I bet you tuck your cock between your legs as you type that too, BEEKEEPER, why not push your OCTOFUCKERPOTATOCANNON further and ram it up your ass, BEEKEEPER.

In all seriousness, the thing I don't like about you is that you obviously think you are clever, whereas I actually am and you're not.

Oh yah, systems are IDEAS, when you get that through your fucking retarded braincase maybe I'll entertain the idea of you being better than a jew with downs syndrome.

>>1961
>I don't want to discuss with a pathetic little wank stain the merits of courteous discourse.......wall of text

Stopped reading there.

>>1962
Ah, so you're the namefag.

ITT: SAVAGE NEGRO BEAST SAVAGE NEGRO BEAST SAVAGE NEGRO BEAST SPIC KIKE BABY ANAL RAPE ASSFUCK KILL ALL JEWS BEEKEEPERS KEEP BEES SHIT IN MY ASSSHOOOLLLEEEEE

>>1964
best tweet ITT

Sage goes in every field.

>>1964
This is not /RAGE/. This is /int/.
OP is also a BEEKEEPER. Anarchy fails because there is always a % of the population that are sick, twisted freaks, and given enough time/resources, they could dispose of enough people to become a majority.

>>2009
Anarchy is what we have now, this is anarchy, right now.

>>2009
You see anarcho-fascism, see the anarchy part, and then miss the fascist part.

Anarcho-fascism or ANY type of anarchy is still a social and economic system that a society agrees to live by.

Now to the real matter at hand. I will assume you are American by your spelling and hyper-emotional message.

OP, you talk of freedom yet fail to see the absurd paradox you create when you "impose" your type of freedom on "the people."

Define "freedom" please. Freedom is relative and to believe that your version of freedom is best for all mankind, moreover, that your completely unproven and Busch League, College Freshman fantasy, at best, contains a special ingredient that will make history an invalid factor is laughable. The very essence of your Utopian society exposes your limited knowledge of man's nature. To not recognize man as a complex creature that will hate, murder, steal, and be driven by the desire for power and personal achievement is a mistake. This next point will be lost on you since you apparently have zero perspective, yet it must be said. When you step into the real world and face true responsibility like having a wife, kids, property, assets, a job and everything else that goes along with being a responsible member of society, your perspective will change dramatically, unless you value your opinions more than your loved ones so much that you are incapable to consider another point of view. Or in other words, will you become so emotionally invested you paralyze the natural state of thought evolution that comes with life experience?

It is also silly to believe there is a difference between rulers and leaders as it relates to the real world in opposition to your theory based on a fantasy world created inside your head, yet in contradiction to history. Believing you can force 10 random people to believe what you believe is absurd, but to believe anyone could make a society of millions to think alike is stupidity personified.

If everyone thought alike would anyone truly be thinking? What ideas would be off limits to force on the people? An example is your belief that man is somehow more powerful than nature. Common knowledge and consensus science state global warming exists, yet all scientific evidence proves that man is insignificant in the eyes of Mother Earth. Nature, while complex, is also predictable. She will always clean herself making sure to scrub away any real threat. Man poses no significant threat to this earth. Yet you would have me ignore my study and conclusion, by force, so I would think like you?

I urge you to take courses in philosophy and study the basic foundation of Logic. The very fact that you do not understand and recognize the many baffling paradoxes in your argument is just sad. Do you not see that imposing your utopia that "values compassion, tolerance, optimism, personal sacrifice, honesty, and complete liberty" absolutely robs me of my basic rights to value my personal prejudice, love of greed and selfishness because it creates products and services that improve my life as well creating as billions of jobs worldwide, not to mention denying me the right to define liberty? The very nature of authority over anyone is in of itself an infringement.

I am not a fan of Government, yet understand the need for a basic democratic or a democratic republic structure for a large society. Our basic infrastructure would collapse without City, State, and Federally elected officials. Without "rules" or our legal system, America would become a 3rd world country, coned by monopolies and organized crime.

Do you truly understand the three branches of Government and the value of our system of checks and balances? Do you not see that they are always in a power struggle keeping each other in line and how that benefits the society? Do you honestly believe your unproven fantasy society could create a civilization that would grant Americas a better quality of life? Are you childish enough to believe you have wisdom that stretches beyond what Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of our founding fathers could comprehend?

Like every Country in the history of the world, America has a flawed past, a turbulent present, and a future that will produce countless mistakes. With that said, by my personal standards based on anecdotal evidence, unbiased statistics, life experience, historical knowledge, and a self defined "down to earth, anti-jingoist" perspective, I can say with full confidence that America is the greatest country for opportunity and quality of life in the history of the world. Trying to take that future away from me or my loved ones by force would result in a shotgun blast to the face.

ZMU out.

>>2023
Holy shit. I fucking love you.

>>2024
Seconded.

except that we already live in a state of anarchy. governments pretend that they can control us, but it is easy to just ignore their imposition. As long as you act responsibly and are a nice guy then you won't really come into conflict with the government or the law. that is why communism and anarchism are stupid; we are already there. the government can only obtain more power when we impart excess power to the government. thus we can, through apathy, reach a state of perfect anarchy

>>2023
>Anarcho-fascism or ANY type of anarchy is still a social and economic system that a society agrees to live by.

In fascism, the social and economic systems are being forced on society. A citizen either agrees or dies.

>Now to the real matter at hand. I will assume you are American by your spelling and hyper-emotional message.

I am emotionless with my message. I have stated this before. My spelling is poor because 711chan discussions are informal. Still, how does my being American or European or Japanese have to do with the validity of my statements?

>OP, you talk of freedom yet fail to see the absurd paradox you create when you "impose" your type of freedom on "the people."

True words seem contradictory.

>Define "freedom" please.

When I say free in this situation, I mean free from the supposed legal restrictions on behavior--free from a person threatening to punish another's behavior. In actuality, everybody is already free in the sense that they can do as they please. For the purpose of this discussion though, I mean freedom as freedom from law.

>Freedom is relative

Yes.

>and to believe that your version of freedom is best for all mankind, moreover, that your completely unproven and Busch League, College Freshman fantasy, at best, contains a special ingredient that will make history an invalid factor is laughable.

Where does anything I have said say that history is an invalid factor?

>The very essence of your Utopian society exposes your limited knowledge of man's nature. To not recognize man as a complex creature that will hate, murder, steal, and be driven by the desire for power and personal achievement is a mistake.

There are men who place their morals above their biology. There are leaders who, while they don't have thee title of a ruler, show people how to behave by being an example. This is why giving achieved power away is a crucial point in anarcho-fascism.

>This next point will be lost on you since you apparently have zero perspective, yet it must be said.

Saying things like this only discredit your argument.

>When you step into the real world and face true responsibility like having a wife, kids, property, assets, a job and everything else that goes along with being a responsible member of society,

Am I to conclude that you believe that society is the real world?

>your perspective will change dramatically, unless you value your opinions more than your loved ones so much that you are incapable to consider another point of view.

I fail to see how anarcho-fascism prevents me from properly loving a wife and raising children and providing helpful labor for others.

>Or in other words, will you become so emotionally invested you paralyze the natural state of thought evolution that comes with life experience?

Do you know what you are saying?

>It is also silly to believe there is a difference between rulers and leaders as it relates to the real world in opposition to your theory based on a fantasy world created inside your head, yet in contradiction to history.

Anarcho-fascism creates this distinction. A ruler is a man with a fancy title. A leader exhibits exemplary behavior for humanity. This doesn't contradict history.

>Believing you can force 10 random people to believe what you believe is absurd, but to believe anyone could make a society of millions to think alike is stupidity personified.

Anarcho-fascism is far more subtle than you realize.

>If everyone thought alike would anyone truly be thinking?

Most people do think alike.

>What ideas would be off limits to force on the people?

This is a good question worthy of further discussion.

>An example is your belief that man is somehow more powerful than nature. Common knowledge and consensus science state global warming exists, yet all scientific evidence proves that man is insignificant in the eyes of Mother Earth. Nature, while complex, is also predictable. She will always clean herself making sure to scrub away any real threat. Man poses no significant threat to this earth. Yet you would have me ignore my study and conclusion, by force, so I would think like you?

In anarcho-fascism, you could safely believe what you just stated about nature, as it does not interfere with the will of others.

>I urge you to take courses in philosophy and study the basic foundation of Logic.

Your assumptions make your argument weak.

>The very fact that you do not understand and recognize the many baffling paradoxes in your argument is just sad.

I fully understand what I am trying to communicate.

>Do you not see that imposing your utopia that "values compassion, tolerance, optimism, personal sacrifice, honesty, and complete liberty" absolutely robs me of my basic rights to value my personal prejudice, love of greed and selfishness because it creates products and services that improve my life as well creating as billions of jobs worldwide, not to mention denying me the right to define liberty? The very nature of authority over anyone is in of itself an infringement.

Anarcho-fascism has never proclaimed to be a utopia. You are the person who is claiming it is a utopia. Anarcho-fascism robs you of power over others. If you don't like that, get out of the way.

>I am not a fan of Government, yet understand the need for a basic democratic or a democratic republic structure for a large society.

Do you understand the power of advertising and marketing over influencing democracy? An honest democracy is dead with contemporary knowledge of advertising. The next American president will win because of viral marketing. Mark these words. Democracy is just as idealistic as communism.

>Our basic infrastructure would collapse without City, State, and Federally elected officials. Without "rules" or our legal system, America would become a 3rd world country, coned by monopolies and organized crime.

This is almost the point.

>Do you truly understand the three branches of Government and the value of our system of checks and balances? Do you not see that they are always in a power struggle keeping each other in line and how that benefits the society? Do you honestly believe your unproven fantasy society could create a civilization that would grant Americas a better quality of life?

I am not American.

>Are you childish enough to believe you have wisdom that stretches beyond what Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of our founding fathers could comprehend?

Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of our founding fathers lived in a far less specific world than the world we live in today.

>Like every Country in the history of the world, America has a flawed past, a turbulent present, and a future that will produce countless mistakes. With that said, by my personal standards based on anecdotal evidence, unbiased statistics, life experience, historical knowledge, and a self defined "down to earth, anti-jingoist" perspective, I can say with full confidence that America is the greatest country for opportunity and quality of life in the history of the world. Trying to take that future away from me or my loved ones by force would result in a shotgun blast to the face.

You live in a country where people are punished and humiliated for love between two sexually and philosophically mature individuals on the basis of age and tradition.

>>2026
Ok bro, decide to stop paying taxes, ignore zoning restrictions when you build your house, fuck some 16 year old girls consensually, smoke some weed on your porch, and see how that goes.

>>2027
>>True words seem contradictory.
Hurrrr durrrr I'm so deep.
>>There are men who place their morals above their biology. There are leaders who, while they don't have thee title of a ruler, show people how to behave by being an example. This is why giving achieved power away is a crucial point in anarcho-fascism.
And this is why your system is retarded.
>>Where does anything I have said say that history is an invalid factor?
The very implication that gthis could work at all shows it. All societies have rules and leaders, even when they collapse into temporary anarchy rules and leaders arise quickly, and consolidate over time.
>>Am I to conclude that you believe that society is the real world?
You are to conclude that you don't understand a goddamn thing about anything.
>>Anarcho-fascism is far more subtle than you realize.
No, it's far more retarded than you realize.
>>Do you understand the power of advertising and marketing over influencing democracy? An honest democracy is dead with contemporary knowledge of advertising. The next American president will win because of viral marketing. Mark these words. Democracy is just as idealistic as communism.
And so is Anarcho-Fascism.
>>Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of our founding fathers lived in a far less specific world than the world we live in today.
Hahahahah, you think the world has changed somehow?
>>You live in a country where people are punished and humiliated for love between two sexually and philosophically mature individuals on the basis of age and tradition.
Define "sexually and philosophically mature".
Just what country do YOU live in anyway?

>>2033
>The very implication that this could work at all shows it.

Prove how implication that it could work shows that I have said that history is an invalid factor.

>All societies have rules and leaders, even when they collapse into temporary anarchy rules and leaders arise quickly, and consolidate over time.

Did you read the first tweet? It says, "It is inevitable that a state of anarchy will cause new governments to sprout. When a restrictive government begins to blossom, an anarcho-fascist becomes the leader and destroys the government, setting everybody free again."

>And so is Anarcho-Fascism. (in reference to the idealism of democracy and communism)

Yes. Right now, Anarcho-Fascism is only a rough sketch. But when the core ideology of Anarcho-Fascism is implemented specifically and algorithmically, it will be effective.

>Hahahahah, you think the world has changed somehow?

You would be foolish to think that anybody saw the world then as intricately as it can be seen today.

>Define "sexually and philosophically mature".
It is subjective, yes. The point is that one's behavior ought to not be compromised to agree with the majority's opinion. In contemporary society, the majority's opinion is whatever somebody who pays enough in advertising wants it to be. Your kings are the people who can afford subtle marketing campaigns. Anarcho-Fascists realize this, obtain a powerful position of propaganda by lying and cheating and acting, then spread their virtues of honesty, liberty, self-sacrifice, optimism, and tolerance. It's a parasite that uses the existing system to spread the concept of honest liberty. But at the same time, Anarcho-Fascism is empty--it's whatever you want it to be. If you think it's retarded, it's retarded. But just because it's retarded doesn't mean it's not useful.

>Anarcho-Fascism

epic

>>2039
;)

This thread has led me to believe that the majority of 711chan users are from the United States, and as a result have a deeply skewed view of the world not based upon facts or historical perspective, but upon propaganda and marketing. On both sides of this argument, base insults and moronic slogans constitute the majority of the "intellectual discussion". The pro-AF guy/s haven't the slightest clue about how utterly opposed "The People" would be to this sort of plan, and the 'America, FUCK YEAH' guy/s can't possibly comprehend the misery and damage on a global level that is caused by their sick fucking country.

Sage. That is all.

>>2069
Eurofag can't comprehend that his country has been sucking the dick of America since before WW2, that he would be speaking Russian if we didn't give a fuck about Europe, and that he is a pretentious BEEKEEPER just like 99% of Europeans.

YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN AMERICA YOU IGNORANT CUNT.

>>2069
>>America, FUCK YEAH' guy/s can't possibly comprehend the misery and damage on a global level that is caused by their sick fucking country.

BAWWWWWWWW. What misery? A few million dead sandSAVAGE NEGRO BEASTs? BOO FUCKING HOO. What about the BILLIONS in aid money we give to countries every year? How much does yours give BEEKEEPER? What about the fact that it's OUR military and OUR nuclear capabilities that keep the Ruskies from just shitting all over you pussies? You would be NOTHING without America, you dickless, pacifist, pretentious BEEKEEPER son of a Gypsy methwhore. Learn some fucking respect.

Do you have your tickets, world? Welcome to the gun show!

Unfortunately I've seen all things past present and future with the help of drugs and I already know the eventual fate of America and on a greater note mankind.

Anarcho-Communist reporting in. Fuck all of you, I love you all.

I actually am one, though.

Anarcho-fascism kinda reminds me of the matrix. lol. This has truly become a thread. But to be honest, my problem with the "idea that is anarcho- BEEKEEPING" is that you admit to it failing, where it is supposed to temporarily set people "free" and then be re-consumed by another system. I'm not saying that demo-capitalism is perfect, and the way things are looking it may very well fail because of the change in people. My "philosophy" is that regardless of what system you use, it is still made up of people who are constantly variable in their intentions, wants, needs, etc. Sooo Unless a system is able to adapt in a natural manner to changes in population, public opinion, general acceptability of ethics, perspective, blaa blaa etc, it is destined to fail. If we were all immortal, and there was a fixed number of people on earth, you could probably get away with making certain systems last a really long ass time, but as people evolve mentally (which is what we are doing here), it would eventually have to change to accommodate the increase (or atrophy) of so-called "intelligence" within a community/civilization. Opinions?

>>2239
Damn straight. And that's basically what naturally happens. The masses were stupid and followed orders from kings and lords religiously. Then they got a tiny bit less stupid and stopped taking their shit and revolted. Then for a short time the stupid majority ran shit, then the more intelligent people decided it was time to take back the power. But they had learned from history, so they made the stupid people think that they still held power in majority and that's what you have today and I want it to last for as long as possible.

>>2242

That's right, they are just "stupid."

Way to completely generalize

>>2243
Yes. Generalizing. That's what I was doing. You get a sticker.

>>2242
Well I guess I can't quite fathom the idea of people getting to the top or w/e and then selling it all/using it to bring down the system.. I'd say that's really just a sub-section of ways to go about committing into an anarchist state.. Anarchy itself would be closer to the show "lost" imo.. atleast the aftermath of the revolt against the current system. The issue I have with all of this is like I said, people change with time. Status-quo, I doubt that it would happen, because the powers that be would sqaush it. Plus, people are greedy/narcissistic, and would once in the position of power become the mob boss per se. Then I would assume that there would be numerous mini-anarchist movements withing the anarchy until absolute power were discovered through influence/money/force etc. Then you'd have more revolts that would end up in a system much like the British or American. Soooo I guess my point is, what's the point of trying to support this movement if its inevitably inevitable, and doomed to fail? Such a paradox :O Is this an inherent point of Anarchist-fascism, or just some dumb theory that is just being put into words with a pretty label?

>>2246
All empires and systems are doomed to fail eventually. All of them. Social entropy.

>>2247
right but whats the purpose of the anarchy-fascism if its doomed to fail much quicker? wouldn't we want to evolve to a better system instead of going backwards to a mafia type system?

>>2249

I think it would be better if rulers simply ruled with tyrannous power and instead of giving their power up, their objective was to horde as much of it as possible.
Everyone else's objective would be either to serve him or if you don't like serving him and don't mind risking your life: Become superior, overthrow the ruler and become ruler yourself.

>>2255
So like the riddick series? Honestly I think that will eventually be what happens. Dictatorship succeeds, and a huge inter-galactic army will take over and then one man will assume kingship. But not for a while of course.

hey guys did I amass enough power yet?

>>2260
yes, but you have one major flaw. I can destroy you with one blast to the inner power core of your death star. so, yea..

>>2264
You may think that, but really all you've done is give me an excuse to move a shitload of troops into Hoth and fight a big guerrilla war.

>>2265
lul

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about Anarcho-fascism. Anarcho-fascists are already here if you know how to listen for us. We're hiding, but we're telling you everything you need to know, in plain sight. I don't know how many of us there is--there could be just ten, or hundreds of thousands. There definitely isn't much more than this because that's just how things are. We're teaching you how to be one of us, all you have to do is observe and be willing to learn.

>>2311
recognized it but didn't realize it was meant as a joke

>>1859
You expect people to "lead" and acquire power, just to give it the fuck away? Good freaking luck. Not all men are of equal capacity, and that makes what you are talking about impossible.

If it were so damn foolproof, why hasn't it happened before.

Men need their lives to motivate them, but when you make him work for another man, he won't give two shits.

>>1890

now you are calling people who don't agree with you foolish? Before any arguments are given?

>>1859

Anywho, if you are advocating some kind of society like Galt's Glutch from Atlas Shrugged, then sure, but if you are advocating th ekind of people who claim to act "selflessly" then you have clearly lost your mind.

I cannot determine which of those two options you are advocating. Response?

>>1929
Yo, humans have fucked up worse before. We've studied as a science shit that doesn't even exist.

"Societal Trends" is bullshit. Individuals make indi-fucking-vidual decisions.

That "science" is just like when humans called alchemy a science. bull shit.

>>1859

So what happens when it goes the other way? A ruler pretends to be a leader? Pretends to be all buddy-buddy with your secret club until he gets to the top, and then seizes power for himself and has a grand old time?

Sure, you knock him down. But then another one of these guys takes control. It's human nature to do this.

"oh but we'll kick him out if he does that" What if some people want to work together and share in a little bit of that power? We humans LOVE being conspiratorial.

>>2327

"Impossible" to you is not impossible to me. Sure it might be hard, but it has to be done. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it is impossible--it is very much possible. Why hasn't it happen before? It happens more often than you realize. For example, the founding fathers of America gave the finger to their British rulers and then gave their newly acquired power to everybody.

Anarcho-fascism is not advocating a kind of society like Galt's Gulch nor is it advocating the kind of people claim who to act selflessly. While one could argue that our imageboards are a kind of gulch, the concept of an actual Galt-style gulch is far too idealistic and romantic to apply to the current state of society. Anarcho-fascism is more of a personal secret you can communicate with a wink than a place you can visit. Now, all reasons for motivation aside, the kind of people who claim to act selflessly are different from the kind of people who perform selfless acts. In this sense, Anarcho-fascism is honorably humility, not a neat title for persuasive liars.

>>2337
This will happen. Actual leaders have a keen sense of whether somebody is being honest or not, and can adapt accordingly, so this doesn't bother me. An Anarcho-fascist doesn't "kick a ruler out of their club," but rather, algorithmically removes power from a ruler.

Be patient, be subtle, be honest, and do what has to be done.

>>2352

>For example, the founding fathers of America gave the finger to their British rulers and then gave their newly acquired power to everybody.

lol

I think I can grasp the concept of it but the two properties of Anarcho-fascism are contradictory. Not saying it could not work, but the ideals are morals are just not correct. It's like saying it's a democratic-dictatorship, where you can choose the person who will lie to you, steal from you and make you suffer. It abandons the purpose of democracy as well as the purpose of dictatorship, and one will cancel the other out, and the cycle begins again, just like in Anarcho-fascism.

I do endorse your perspective on rulers and leaders.

If you have a ruler, in your terms he would be called a dictator, monarch, king, mostly just wielding power for himself. Making the nation greater so he has more power, but attacking any threat to his power.

If you have a leader you have someone acting out of ideals, someone who does not need to gain anything and only needs wealth to do his job better. Someone who is not afraid to sacrifice his power to sustain the future of the people. This is something most people find inspirational and a good example, as someone with ideals is much less likely to fall for corruption.

And here is the important part, there is only one thing that can make a system, any system great, and that is purity.

In our capitalism monopolies and cartels are illegal and a poison the the system, yet they are so abundant at this time they are integrated into the economy, and actually rule! over the state, all because of corruption of the system.

In communism you should share everything with everyone, yet the power the dictators had were not shared at all, this form of corruption spread inside the system and made the working mans dream into a nightmare, all because of corruption.

Any system can work, and people want a system that works, because it creates stability.

(Here have some loli-chan with that)

>>2360
The point on corruption is very interesting. How will we prevent corruption?

>>2367
You can't. The only solution is to decentralize power as far as you can without it endangering the possibility of complete dis-cohesion.

>You can't. (prevent corruption)

Why not?

If corruption is a bearing upon which society rolls is it really corruption?

>>2370

No I guess the system would just change, its not capitalism anymore but something else (Like Communism and Mao'ism)

>>2367


How do you prevent corruption, by making the system more transparent, and judging corrupt acts for what it is. If you have a good legal system this should work, but our current legal system is so corrupt the corruption supports itself.

It's when a honest cop gets pushed out of the force by the crooked cops(chiefs, judges etc.) or the crooked cops get caught and judged like they should...

Of course corruption is a human property and to prevent most it should begin with hiring the right people, not just anybody.

(Here have some Bow-chan with that)

>>2371
>>by making the system more transparent
In any system where power is centralized, those with the power to do it will inevitably work to reduce transparency.
>>hiring the right people
How is this achieved? The idiotic popularity contest that is "Democracy"? Hahahaha.

The fact is, nearly ANY society will eventually degrade due to corruption, especially those that establish "legal precedents" because this causes past fuckups to amplify newer ones and create a disgusting tangled web of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is what allows corruption, as the "legal system" becomes nothing more than a "game" for those with the power, money, and abilities to manipulate according to their will. THIS is what "politics" is.

>>2386

Ok let me explain this to you

You hire the right people (make sure their objective is not just money and they have high morals and good ideals), if you have good people they will keep it transparent, and any place where this transparency is disappearing where it shouldn't there is possible corruption and in need of investigation...

Simple no...

And please note that you should not hold this against any current system because there is a power present which is endorsing and maintaining corruption. Consider this a new start...

(Here, have some Rabbit-chan that)

and no matter how hard you are there is always gonna be something softer. imbalanced systems is imbalanced.

down with anonymous and Israel. you're both brainless BEEKEEPERs. stop thumping your chest.

>>2407
"You"
Who is that?
You really don't understand what the fuck you are talking about. You have no knowledge of how the real world works and how people work. You are an idiot. Please do not talk about politics if you can't even figure out why this one is fucked.
PROTIP: The government wasn't always corrupt (at least not to this degree). Why did the government, why does EVERY government, organization with power, company, even charity, become corrupt?
You will NOT find an example of one that doesn't.

>>2407
Also I can garunfuckingTEE you have never run a business, run an organization, or even contemplated as such, or you would realize why you are full of shit.

>>2413
you are so chock full of shit if i took a shit on top of your shit you'd transmute into a diamond from the pressure of shit upon your existence of absolute shit. freedom is about choice, people can choose to be corrupt or people can choose to be free. when people are intelligent they are also altruistic and choose a freedom aligned with the good of the people as they see fit if it is otherwise it is terrorism.

>>2371
>If you have a good legal system this should work, but our current legal system is so corrupt the corruption supports itself.

Good point.

>it should begin with hiring the right people, not just anybody.

Ideally, you are right. But it's too late for that. How will we fix the current legal system?

>>2386
>In any system where power is centralized, those with the power to do it will inevitably work to reduce transparency.

That only makes our work harder then, doesn't it?

>Bureaucracy is what allows corruption, as the "legal system" becomes nothing more than a "game" for those with the power, money, and abilities to manipulate according to their will.

How can this be prevented?

>>2407
>there is a power present which is endorsing and maintaining corruption

Then we must endorse justice and harmony louder than them.

>>2419
>when people are intelligent they are also altruistic and choose a freedom aligned with the good of the people as they see fit if it is otherwise it is terrorism.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but are you saying that generally people are intelligent?

>>2424

Yes I am one of those that thinks the large majority is stupid, irresponsible and short-sighted. I do not see myself as much better yet, but I strive to rise above every chance I get.

You must be one of those idiots that makes an ad hominem claim without any proof to back it up. It seems like it would be obvious, but if you'd like I can point out a few of the many examples that exemplify the majority's stupidity.

ug say
Strong feed on weak!
Must EAT!

>>2424
It is the truth though. The majority of people are "unwise", this has always been. Ever heard of a bell curve? You must be one of the people who think they are smarter for pointing out that others think they are smart but they aren't.

HURRRRFEN UND DEERRFEN

>>2420
>>How will we fix the current legal system?
We won't. I suspect it will be one of many factors leading to a collapse in the US. One of those so-called "black swan" events. Many seemingly unrelated factors are beginning to come together and will create a new paradigm....probably very violently.
>>That only makes our work harder then, doesn't it?
"Our?" Who is we? I have no intentions of trying to even think about "reforming" a system. It's not possible for reform to bring about the actual desired effects that you want, there will always be some unintended consequence, and at this stage of development, the entire Western world is only headed for collapse, probably taking the entire world with it, back to a basic industrial level.

The problem is simply resource limitations. We are hitting our carrying capacity, and it's showing, moreso in the poorer nations. Our energy production capacities are reaching their maximum point unless the relevant technology can be developed and (here's the important part" DISTRIBUTED. The current push for "green" technology has nothing to do with global warming.

>>2444
Look at the world. I was in fact NOT referring to those who score badly on standardized tests, and never make it to college, because they could probably do a better job at running things than the people who "think" they know what they are talking about. THOSE are the true problem in the world today, not people who are simply "regular", but people who go to college, get a 4 year degree in PolSci or economics, come up with some bullshit thesis to get their Masters, and now they think they are big fucking shit. Then they go and write policy that is utterly fucktarded and makes no goddamn fucking sense and doesn't work at all ever.
These people are so wrapped up in their own bullshit that they are honestly insane, they cannot be expected to have a rational view of how the world works. Then, due to their "enthusiasm" (aka: fanaticism) they start to gain a small following, their ego swells even MORE so, they have reached the point of no return, you will NEVER convince them they are wrong, there is no point in debating that their entire methodology is flawed (for which they build up a considerable repertoire of "logical" arguments, counterpoints, and thinly veiled personal attacks, combined with elitism), they've at this point dedicated most of their productive lifespan to.

There you have it. 99% of "intellectuals" actually don't know a goddamn thing about the world they live in, and could in fact be considered batshit insane. They lack something that cannot ever be taught or learned from a book: wisdom.

>>2444
You also fail for assuming I was talking about standardized tests, I said no such fucking thing. The bell curve can be shown to apply to every natural variable within every species, it's a "normal curve". Most people are normal, some people are "more" than normal, and some people are "less" that normal. This applies to height, weight, cock size, EVERYTHING that has an average, and you take a bunch of subjects, you will see a curve like this unless something weird is going on, a shift.
In other words, most people are stupid, some people are REALLY fucking stupid, a small number of people are functionally unable to cope with reality, and a similar very small number succeed and overcome, hopefully passing on traits (mostly non-biological in the case of humans raising children) to their offspring.

>>2447
>>2448
This.

>>2444
I wasn't only talking about intelligence, I'm also talking about inferior character, work habits, culture, ambition, physical condition etc. etc.
You don't need a standardized test to see the majority is poor in the faculties of intellect, spirit, ambition and even physical fitness.
How often do you see people in classrooms put off a huge project until the night before, over and over again even though they know its bad for them? Hey, I do it too.
Look at what the most popular shows are on TV. If the masses aren't generally of poor taste and intelligence, why is Twilight a best-seller? How come if you walk up to someone and ask them if they can do a mere 20 push-ups they look at you like you're insane?

Have you ever been to the gaybar? Have you seen the idiocy that inhabits a place that is open to a huge demographic?

>>2352

Thanks. Good Fucking thread guys.

>>2352
You will fail just like every other "leaderless" society has failed.
It will fail even harder for another reason...people don't WANT anarchy. Apart from a tiny tiny subset, most people would choose to live within the safer confines of a state. The other issue is that Anarchies are completely COMPLETELY antithetical to the ability to organize and hold territory. What happens when a group of people comes and decides to conquer you? They WILL subjugate you since they will be better organized and better able to utilize resources.
Oh, and if your theory was in any way not complete bullshit, it would have happened already. The problem is anarchists are too goddamn idealistic, and they do not have the traits to become successful leaders. You will never make it in an entrenched bureaucratic political system.

>>2462

This. Security and organization > self-government and freedom.

>>2470
>>2462 here.
Get the FUCK out. I never said anything of the sort. Move to China if you want that shit. The issue is that a basic rudimentary government will always be needed to do the following things:
1. Protect it's citizens from external/internal violence. (Even this must be carefully balanced so that the government itself doesn't become an internal threat. The evident choice is strong protection for the right of self defense of one's bodily health and individual freedoms)
2. Provide a defined social/economic framework.
(What that framework IS is 99% of politics)
Without these 2 things existing in a stable environment, a group WILL come into place and fill the power vacuum, because humans organize themselves into hierarchies in every single social environment, be it a company, government, church, or your drinking buddies. Anarchy is simply COMPLETELY against innate human nature that has been reinforced by natural selection since we were little more than upright chimp-like mammals.

>>2482
Wait, how is the government going to protect its people from internal threats without taking away a substantial amount of their freedoms?

>>2485
Are you serious?

>>2492

Yes. I apologize if I said something incredibly stupid.
But isn't it a basic concept that a large amount of freedoms will have to be taken away from the people in order to build a social contract that will keep them safe from each other? I mean this shit is government 101.

>>2495
I completely agree. Here's the issue. Freedom is inherently subjective being that it is an IDEA. If I think true freedom is being able to kill whoever whenever, I would be free in doing so. BUT "truth" is a compilation of multiple perspectives of relative rightness. So, the overwhelming ideas of others, that is: it is wrong to take someone's right to life, would nullify my idea of freedom (or otherwise make me a sociopath) But the point is, it is natural for any governing body to take away freedoms for the betterment of a society as a whole. Social contract comes into play when people try to interfere with another persons rights given by that government (again be it societies, jobs, churches, drinking buddies.) They take freedom all the time, and to assume the contrary is ignorant. Speed limits are a great example; they are in place to protect people from injuring themselves and others, but at times can obviously restrict freedoms due to a persons want or even need to go faster (especially on a fucking four lane highway -_- geez). Oh, but if this were a policy debate, I would rip you a new asshole >>2495 because the usage of the word "substantial." I guess it would have to come back to the perspective argument, but I wouldn't say government takes away a substantial amount if you mean it in a quantitative way. If you mean it in the sense that it is substantial:noticeable:tangible:existent
then I suppose that would work lol.

Oh and pic related. I'm reeeeeaallly high. this took like 20 minutes to type because I keep looking up at the football game.

>>1859
So by your system people are completely free and you use the word "force" in your description. If the system truly gave complete freedom it would allow people to create and live under rules as they generally have the tendency to do anyways.
I'm not saying it will fail horribly, I'm just saying that your description contradicts itself and assumes that people with power aren't corruptible.

>>2499

I am arguing that the government SHOULD take away a substantial amount of freedoms, not necessarily that it does in the country I live in. But then again, I am a meritocratic fascist so you will most likely disagree.

>>2495
>>2499
Fucking disgusting utilitarian pieces of shit. Governments do not have to take away significant freedoms to protect the populace, and when it does, it becomes the thing that the populace must be protected from. You're both cowardly subhumans and I would like nothing more than to remove you and anyone that thinks like you from the face of the earth.

>>2508
I hope you realize that in a meritocratic facist society your basement dwelling worthless ass would probably be "retroactively aborted".

>>2509
utilitarian>narcissistic nihilist.
Unless you defy the government to the fullest degree by breaking all laws you can't disagree with me.. I admit some laws are idiotic and unnecessary, but if some laws weren't in place to restrict some freedoms, you wouldn't have a home with internetz to argue about it. Namely because you would be dead, but if not you would have to pay immense amounts of money to an unnatural monopolist who coned everything because a government wasn't in place to stop him or her from owning everything. Just look at Chad/Niger.. its a pseudo-anarchist state especially in Darfur, where there is a lack of government intervention. Granted the wars/genocide/whathaveyou are ongoing for reasons outside of just a lacking governing body, but it still has its merit. Dictatorships take away all freedoms, anarchy creates certain freedoms depending on who, where, and what you are (i/e mafia effect), and as it stands American democracy takes away some freedoms to attempt (tho not necessarily efficient [government never really is]) to bring safety and security to it's people. I don't like some of the things that the gov restricts, but I at least fathom their logic in doing so.

>>2511

Yes, I realize basement dwelling worthless people would be crushed by the system. I am not looking for a self-serving system you infinetley selfish bastard. And how would you know that I'm a worthless piece of shit sitting in a basement not contributing to society anyways?

>>2509
Your unsupported claims will be ignored.

>>2501
Adding to my tweet because I feel like it.

You have to take something very large into account. We know what corruption looks like because we are exposed to it, we are told about it and we see its effects. 3 or 4 generations down the road your system won't have that luxury of knowing corruption when they see it. After that it only takes one person to lead a group to do something for him personally because "what's the harm in that" and from there the system is pushed back to square one.
I know I'm being pessimistic, that doesn't take much. If someone can find solutions to these problems they would have my support.

This is the Anarcho-Communist reporting in. Actually, Anarcho-Communism is the closest label I can get to what I believe in (please help me if you can see otherwise) and am aware that it is not perfect.

Aaaanyway, let's begin.

░ I believe that during the path of human evolution, and societal change, there was a clear split in our governmental choices; I believe that most people chose someone to be a leader of them so that they could feel secure, in the same way that animalistic Alpha Males took control over their female partners (don't worry, I am talking about a long, long time ago). From this point, the 'leader of the tribe' or whatever would have appointed people to help him. Such is a government of sorts created.

▒ I believe that had we not taken this precept and evolved along a path suchly, we would have evolved differently - indeed it has existed in parts of the world where they have not had global contact; sometimes it is only with external influence that these societal options have been suggested, and have thusly been adopted (usually in accordance with a trade agreement from the higher powered country - c.f.: United States offering waivering of tax boundaries and trade barriers in exchange for various S. Americas joining their 'globalised' ideology). Had we evolved along this path, as opposed to that which obviously led to Capitalism, I believe the Communist system would very much altered and advanced than what we have seen.

▓ Most people see an 'obvious' objection to Anarcho-Communism as the abolition of currency being a bad thing - 'wut, we just trade shit liek pokeman cards?'. It would not have to be this way, necessarily. In the beginning, we had trade, and along a capitalist trade route, we gained the idea of trading for what has now evolved into currency, and now has no actual worth other than to be an enormous I.O.U.; if trade had evolved along a communist route and with an anarchic ideological support, there is no knowing what it would have evolved into - it could be far more successful and sophisticated, and, before you shout it down, there is *no way of knowing*, so you can't deny that it *may* be different.

▒ I volunteered for three weeks in Argentina, in La Boca, helping orphans and homeless people. They had a 'Comedor' which is basically a communal kitchen for the people of the community. Everyone is welcome, and everyone makes food, and then is allocated the amount of the total food that will be necessary for nutrition of, for instance, themselves and their family. It is not allocated on how much work you do, but you ony get the food if you work. This is as similar to Anarchic Communism as I have ever seen in actual everyday life, and it does not just extend to food. They are currently building a home to house 30 families from scratch, with all of their structural know-how coming from library books (libraries are probably the only existent form of communist capitalism anywhere - LAWL). Again, only those who helped build it may live there, but they are allocated what they need, rather than what they built - this works in both cases because it is in their best interests to help out with the labour.

░ In conclusion, I am aware that my views are more idealistic than ideological, but that does not stop me wanting to see a change. I want to see what I saw other volunteers and members of the community sharing worldwide. There's a huge problem: We have bred greed into our young since the day 'Rightism' came about - capitalism is all about profit, as we all know, and these people gain only a moral reward, which for today is not enough. People will not give up their money to help others - not all of them, anyway, and usually not all of their money. Currency is keeping the wheels of capitalism turning, and whilst it exist, capitalism is king. We would need a social *devolution* before we could evolve to become the stronger community Anarcho-Communism *could* offer. I don't know what would happen, but it would be a hell of a show.

>>2703

I think the idealism of this is limited only to simple creating circumstances such as the example you pointed out in which "more food = more good", but it would quickly degrade when it came to decision making where people would have to choose which action was better. And even then, often times one action is in the favor of some and not others so there is constant opposition. If EVERYONE is involved in the decision-making process, then nothing gets done. So we would be left with two general options: let the majority decide or appoint leaders to decide. The majority of people are rather stupid and bad at decision making so direct democracy leads to a horribly degenerate system. And if you appoint a set of leaders then it is no longer really anarchy. They make the decisions and the people follow them through. At this point it is decided whether it's going to become fascism, socialism, monarchy etc. etc.

>>2704
But, in my view, instead of being governed by law, people would have still evolved with indicative and inherent moral fibre (well, most). Laws originally came about by people formalising what is commonly believed to be a bad idea, yes? So what's wrong with just having the morals. In 'my' system, I believe that objective utilitarian-style morals would come about, with a tinge of a hedonistic view. This is a possible combination (see: 'chaotic good') , and I think it would work. Obviously we would still have 'criminals', but they exist now. In this kind of system, victimless crimes are rendered moot. I think because it is in everyone's best interest to align in a 'good' way, the system would work. I think if we transferred from he system now, there would be a period of chaotic uproar before people settled, and it probably wouldn't work, but I'm talking idealistically - from an evolution standpoint.

(Sorry, not all that was directed at >>2704)

>>2705
Trip BEEKEEPING self-deleted.

Your logo was cool. But your argument was far from convincing.

I liked the bit about leaders rather than rulers, but it was mostly rhetoric. Care to elaborate?