Latest posts of: ukjeff

Quote

I did define what harm was, you just didn't accept it, that's why it could be democratically decided.

Was this it?

Quote

For brevitys sake, harm could be defined as any deliberate act causing permanent injury.

So thats your law?
So as long as I don't cause someone permanent injury I can do what I like? Huh

?
Fucking LOL......
Good luck living in that society.

Quote

I could fix his roof. If he didn't go home, I could go live over there

Having read your previous posts the scenario is highly unlikely, you would probably beat him to a pulp and throw him in the street.

Quote from: E-Kul on May 23, 2013, 12:57:55 PM

For brevitys sake, harm could be defined as any deliberate act causing permanent injury. We could play semantics all day, what does injury mean? what does permanent mean? You seem to have an objection to any replacement model that isn't PERFECT. Anarchy may well be an even worse system, but due to the poor functioning of the current system, an alternative is worth a try. 'If nothing changes nothing changes'

Exactly my point, you have to establish what harm is before you even get to first base.
I agree with you with the fact that there are things that need to change but your way is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote

Why would anyone want to do that?

Why would anyone want to assault someone for having a different belief?

Quote

The small minority that remain dissatisfied with the system and prove to be rebellious or reactionary for the sake of it, I am sure would be democratically dealt with.

He isnt doing anything wrong at all, you have no property, it doesn't belong to you, it belongs to everyone.
Now you want him "dealt with"?

I have already told you, people are twats.
You are sitting there minding your own business and some lazy fucker who cant be bothered mending his roof decides to come to your home and bunk on the sofa.
He's an annoying twat as well.
What do you do?

Quote

I think it needs to be scrapped and we start again.

So we scrap it without anything to replace it?
You keep saying its shit at the moment but your alternative is that you just scrap it?
Come on, I have highlighted way too many flaws in your current philosophy already.

I notice you avoided the issue of defining "harm"

Quote

LOL at trespassing, an anarchist system would have to do away with capitalism and private property.

Lets just run with this little gem for a minute.
So anyone can just walk into your home any time they like, you have no private property so your home is their home?

Are you sure about that?

Quote from: deadpan on May 23, 2013, 12:17:02 PM

ukjeff, you're clearly trolling

no one could possibly have an oversimplified interpretation of everything you read quite the way you seem to. he's just saying we need less government intervention in our lives. many libertarians in my country are self-described "anarchists", but they all believe in basic human rights like liberty and the pursuit of happines, but that extends to self defense and freedom from the government's oppressive actions too. there's varying degrees and principles of anarchy. you getting mad at him for calling the cops is like saying "oh you're a democrat, why aren't you an athiest pot-smoking tree-hugging communist hippie? omg contradiction!"

Trolling? ya think?
Most libertarians want to have their cake and eat it.
They want their rules and fuck everyone who doesn't agree.

Quote

hat's an easy one, some people may still harbour dangerous animals. Not to mention wild animals.

You have to let the dog thing go, its eating away at you?
What about the rights of the animals not to be harmed?
I take it you don't mind killing animals who's land you are trespassing on?

Quote

The group does. I am sure serious issues would have to be dealt with democratically.

Democratically?
So the group decides if Im a pain in the arse and throws me out?
Can I drive around drunk all the time and fire my gun randomly around outside a nursery school?
Remember, I have not caused anyone any harm yet.

Quote

I think they would prefer your joke about believing "You create your own reality". It would be seen as the equivalent of a dentist causing his patient pain to fix his teeth. I think once they see I relieved someone of a dangerous delusion they will show mercy. I could simply argue using the victims logic, that he manifested the beatdown with his own mind. hardly anything to do with me. Once they realise the victim actually wanted to be beatdown and manifested it with his own mind, then only he can be held responsible. If the victim didn't want to be beat-down all he had to do is NOT mind manifest such a reality.

So someones opinions are to be ridiculed in your little gang of thugs?
What about people with mental illnesses, will they be beat down and cast out?

Oh , and you could try a bit of tolerance, you know, the stuff you quoted earlier.

Quote

how come you can post a normal sized pic of your postman

but only tiny ones of you

yet another very funny post, well done.

Do you know he wrote that in 1935?

Quote

I didn't necessarily suggest a gun, but in an anarchistic society, a gun may be a necessary item.

I thought your idea of anarchy was peaceful cooperation?
Why would you need a gun or any weapon for that matter?

Quote

And no, there would be little to no rules, that's the point, a group would simply outcast someone who caused disunity through their actions, they could either choose being part of a cohesive co-operative group or they could simply leave.

So they dont have to cause harm then?
They just have to not follow what everyone else does?

Quote

The so called 'RULES' would be determined by the tone of the group.

Who decides ultimately, do you have someone who makes the final decision.

Quote

And my comment about beating people up who believe that "They create their own reality" would be a compassionate act, it was merely to demonstrate the foolishness in someone believing they manifested their own beat-down with their own mind. Relieving someone of such a dangerous delusion is the ultimate act of compassion.

Would you say that when you got brought before the mob for causing harm to someone?
Im sure your society would love you making a joke about an assault.

Quote from: E-Kul on May 23, 2013, 10:42:01 AM

I disagree, under an anarchist system I would fare better than under our current one. As it stands now, I am not allowed to carry any defensive weaponry on my person. In an anarchist system, there would be no such restrictions. I dare say, that even under anarchistic conditions that pitbull ownership will remain the realm of the uncouth and imbecilic, those types wouldn't fair well in an anarchistic system and more than likely find themselves outcast. And anarchy doesn't imply no rules, but minimal rules, peaceful relations and non violence are crucial for it to work, anything that threatened that would be frowned upon.

Fare better?
How by being able to get away with doing things that currently you cant?
You have already admitted you have trouble with authority figures, maybe you need keeping on a tight leash (like a pitbull)
You want to carry a gun, why?
Current gun laws allow us to jail people for carrying guns without them having to kill anyone, unlike your society.
Outcast? So you make the rules on what dogs people have?
Do they have a say if you carry a gun?

And as for peaceful non violence you have already admitted to having fun beating people up for no reason at all.

Quote

First, I say that people would be free to do what they like, and you respond with, you want to enforce your rules on others. I seriously have to question someone who sees offering one freedom as forcing a rule upon them. This is some of the most bizarre logic you have offered up so far.

You missed the bit about "as long as they don't harm others", that was you imposing your rules, now lets try and define "harm".

Quote

What an anarchist system does is reduce the motivation to do dumb shit, so people can still do all the dumb shit they have ever done, but under such a system they will not be rewarded for it, and therefore less likely to indulge in such behaviour.

Under your system no one can be taken to task about anything until they have harmed someone. (we still need to define "harm")

Quote

And legislature isn't preventative. You simply can't prevent people doing dumb shit. Legislature is a deterrent and a punitive mechanism. That's it, if it could prevent crime there would already be no such thing.

Legislation makes people think twice about doing something that the legislation forbids.
People tend to stop doing something if there are potential consequences.
Less people drink and drive because they fear their licence being taken away, remove the legislation and we will have piss heads behind the wheel way more often.
In your world a 12 year old can have 10 cans of cider and get behind the wheel of a car and drive around, its only when he 'harms' someone that you stop him.

Actually about two inches less than they look.
Calorie restriction is your friend.

Quote

They would be free to do what they want (as long as it didn't cause harm to others).

So you want to force your rules on others?

Quote

Under a well functioning anarchist system though, it would be self defeating to go against the grain (so to speak). Those who co-operated would more than likely be the most successful. The goal is to eliminate the motivation to harm or hinder others in the first place. If people are benefiting from a system, they are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them.

Thats pretty much what we have already.

Quote

And anarchism doesn't imply utopia. There would still be problems, but our current system has lots of problems. The goal of the system is to minimise them or make them less than we have under the current system. The idea is, if we are going to have to tolerate shit in our lives, the way we do under the current system, well better to endure that shit in a system of near absolute freedom. Make the shittiness worthwhile. I am not suggesting anarchy will solve everything, just that it could possibly be a better system than we currently have.

Minimise the problems by reducing the restrictions on what people can and cant do?
News at 11, some people are twats (take the two guys in the OP), in your world we would couldn't do anything until they harmed someone.
Its why there is preventative legislation, its to try and prevent crime, in your world no one can be stopped from doing something until they have harmed someone.

My common sense tells me it's not impossible at all, I suppose they don't all go to bed at 1.55 do they,I also presume that the squatters them selves are walking around without all getting mugged or murdered.

You make it seem as though the probability of being killed/mugged is higher than it not happening, I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote from: E-Kul on May 23, 2013, 08:46:00 AM

While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation. In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

So what does your Anarchist society (oxymoron granted) do when someone says, "fuck you lot and your rules I'm doing what I want?"
Do you let him do what he likes or do likeminded people band together and stop him, you know, like a government of sorts?

Quote

And what does me being an anarchist have to do with it. Do you even understand what anarchy is? Do you imagine an anarchist is someone who walks around with a machine gun and a baseball bat doing whatever they like.

No, your anarchist doesn't believe in any type of government, you said so earlier.

Quote

I am actually an anarchist, I would like to see virtually zero government intervention, but this is unlikely to happen unless deeply enlightened beings raise the level of awareness of the average citizen.

So I ask again if thats your stance why do you keep phoning the police all the time?
In your world they wouldn't exist, so try and get used to not having them around.
Oh and these "deeply enlightened beings" are the type of people who would say "you create your own reality" Wink

Quote from: E-Kul on May 23, 2013, 07:13:19 AM

See, you never said murdered. You said 'HURT'. And of course I would ring the cops if I found a family member murdered. I have a legal responsibility to do so. Not only that, any other course of action could be deemed suspicious. I have no problem ringing the Police when I am obliged to do so, but as for asking them for personal help, they are about as useful as TITS on a BULL.

So when "big brother" orders you to do something you jump to it?
I thought you were an anarchist?

Quote from: booty on May 23, 2013, 07:11:16 AM

Jeff don't be a prick. It was more than a dog bite...the dog mauled E-kul....it tore his archilles tendon. Of course he would be in shock and too much pain to do anything. Family and friends look out for you...they would do the calling in a situation like this.

A prick?
Im just highlighting the hypocrisy of his posts, the guy wants anarchy and yet relies on public services when it suits.
Im not disagreeing that he should call the cops/council, I saying he should.

Quote

I actually said the opposite. That I wouldn't ring the police after the crime had taken place.

Im sure you are trolling me now, thats the dumbest thing I ever heard.
A family member is murdered in their bed and you dont call the cops?

Yeah , right. Roll Eyes

Quote from: booty on May 23, 2013, 07:01:38 AM

If a pitbull mauls someone then yes you have to phone the police. There are too many horror stories in melbourne/victoria related to vicious dogs in particular pitbulls mauling and killing children and elderly people.

I agree 100%, old e-kul wants us to believe hes this anti hero who walks around like a coiled spring aware of the dangers that are around him, "Expecting the unexpected" (the stupidest term I have heard, do you keep looking up for meteorites in case one flies out of the sky and hits you?)
He's a self claimed anarchist who gets someone to contact the council when dog bites him FFS.

Quote from: E-Kul on May 23, 2013, 06:57:21 AM

No, it's a council matter. My family rang the council, I told them not to worry about it.

Hahahahaha.......so when its for someone else you ring the authorities and when its for you someone rings them on your behalf.

Keep this up, its comedy gold.

Quote from: E-Kul on May 23, 2013, 06:55:13 AM

I have been burgled, and no I didn't call the cops. And if someone in my family was hurt by someone else, the decision to call the cops would be there's not mine. I certainly wouldn't ring them. My experience with the police, is they quite often make matters worse, about the only time they are good for anything is if they intervene during the committing of a crime. After the fact they are next to useless. Because of my criminal record, the police don't serve much purpose for me. So yes, I don't ring the police for anything related to me. As a general rule, police are looking for ways to lock me up, not help me.

So someone in your family gets hurt and you would call the cops for them who you admit are next to useless?

Why?

Lol, you think you are fucking "Rambo", every post you make you try and make out you are this dynamic killing machine, cool under pressure, always making the right moves.

Did you phone the cops about the dog attack?