let them think they're on the right course, that way when society collapses it'll be a suprise

I'll say within 150 years. thats my prediction

I despise capitalism

free trade is a contradiction

etymology will tell you that lol

i'll give you his evolutionary biology - but his atheist conclusion, that is where i see crap. i think you have a valid point - don't get me wrong. yes, i am applying my experience and translating that into broader values. i don't think there is anything wrong with that to the extent you consider the information. critically, for me, is that while respect, for elders but also for anyone, is important and essential to social stability, i think individual freedom is paramount. in my opinion, emphasis on individual freedom represents the most advanced politics and ethics because it is grounded in the gift that each soul is given at birth. which is not to say, that community centered or ecologically minded ethics and politics should be rejected, but they should orbit around the individual, rather than the other way around.

also, i don't think any uniformitization of philosophy or ethics is desirable or necessary - however i do think that it is important, when defending structures commonly associated with amorality, raw power, discarding of ethics, etc., such as nationalism - to bring again to the center of that discussion the intellectual heritage behind such structures as nationalism.

100% free trade is as bad as 100% controled trade is bad... like market, neither free (liberal capitalistic), neither controled (communistic) market is good...
trouth is in balance between those two...
you should read about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes, one of the greatest economist in history of economics...

what's bad about "100% free trade"?

I believe in the really really free market, the gift economy

heh

yes?

I think he was laughing at you, small as he is

no... fuck my bad english.... :D
well, no gift market, but market that is enough for itself, liberal market which changes depends only on free market rules (supply and demand and stuff...), market that works without any intervention buy government...

from Adam Smyth (father of modern economics), until John Maynard Keynes (1930-es) there was opinion (if we exclude Marxism) that only free market works properly... and that made Great Depression in USA and economic crisys in whole world, generaly speaking...

adam smith? laissez faire only leads to a wide gap between the rich and the poor. thats what capitalism is, constant struggle

actually i was laughing with, jerk.

you know I was being serious right

the gift economy works great, I've seen it. it wouldnt work on the scale economies operate on now, but you all know how I feel about that anyway

Pandora, maybe you should think a little bit about whether we are all cynical or if we are simply closer to the truth. Naturally, I can't tell you for sure which it is, but writing us off so quickly and reactively sticking to your guns does a disservice to yourself.

The reason that I said Communism is inherently unfair is that its conception of fair flies in the face of all we know about humanity. People are all different and this notion that all people are equal is one of the biggest lies of our time. Communism pretends that all are equal, thus treating the disciplined man the same as the lazy one. Capitalism may be inhumane at times but at least it's honest. Capitalism wears its flaws on its sleeve, admitting to them, while Communism tries to hide its flaws, lying about them.

Another thing is that you are perfectly welcome to return to the stone age, and take your boyfriend along with. If you live in the USA, it's especially easy, since there is so much land that isn't inhabited or really monitored by people. I hate to use this argument ("if you like it so much then why don't you marry it?"), but I do wonder why you support the system by continuing to live in it. You don't need permission to be free so don't wait until you get it. Go out there and be free, already!

I find it really funny that the authors of this document, "Fighting for our Lives", thinks that Quakers are anarchists. As a Quaker, I can tell you that they never were nor are anarchists.

why don’t we run off into the woods already?

There are two issues here; the first is education. We were all raised within civilization, which has a vested interest in ensuring its children have as little independent survival value as possible. The civilized cultural system has adapted well–it reinforces itself memetically in precisely those areas where individuals are closest to self-sufficiency, creating a feeling of dependence even where little actual dependence exists. Regardless, most primitivists no more possess the skills of survival than your average suburbanite–skills every six year old “primitive” would have. Most primitivists are working to remedy that situation, but in the same way that you wouldn’t tell a !Kung man with dreams of brokering stock to just go to Wall Street already, but to learn a thing or two about the stock market first, so we are learning the skills we will need before hanging our lives on such skills. “Running off into the woods already” is a goal, ultimately, but one we must work towards, not one we can simply pick up and go with. If it were that easy, well, you wouldn’t be reading this, I can tell you that.

Secondly, there is the issue of lands and laws. Civilization has precluded “running off into the woods” as an option fairly well. Hunting regulations pose serious encumberments, to say nothing of the fact that some meager income must be maintained to pay for hunting and fishing licenses, as well as taxes on land. Ultimately, such a “micro-collapse” is impossible so long as civilization still exists–the pressing needs of ever-increasing complexity will lead to our re-absorption, by force if necessary. There is the essential problem; if civilization were willing to coexist with us, we would be happy to return the favor. But ultimately, civilization is incapable of letting anything but itself exist. We’re happy to live alongside anyone who’s willing to live alongside us–but civilization is not. “Running off into the woods,” so long as civilization remans, merely ensures our eventual, violent destruction at civilizaton’s hands.

I beleive it was fwancophile who was speaking of chaos and order.
I think a lot of people misunderstand what anarchy actually is. “Anarchy” means “rule by no one.” The “-archy” element indicates that there is still some kind of rule–only that no one is doing the ruling. That’s what true anarchy means to me. No biological entity will ever exist in a world of true chaos for very long. Chaos theory is correct, but out of that chaos emerges order. Evolution is order; tribes are an order. This kind of order is organic. It develops on its own, it adapts to changing circumstances, it is flexible, it accepts things as they are and fits them into a context that works best for all.

Other forms of rule–monarchy, theocracy, democracy, whatever–are anything but. They have an ideological vision of what that order should look like, and they are intent on imposing that vision on the world. They want order, but they want their order. They want to shoe-horn everything into that vision, however maladapted it may be. Where anarchy’s order is organic, their order is ossified; where anrchy’s order is adaptive, theirs is reactive; where anarchy’s order accepts others for what they are and builds a system around that, theirs builds a system, and violently pushes everything into it no matter how ill the fit. Anarchy’s order is elegant and gentle; it gives meaning and context. Theirs is rudimentary and violent; it is oppression and despotism.

Order is inevitable, but laws and governments are unnecessary contrivanes, unnecessary evils that afflict us. They burden us without benefit, they drain us without giving anything back. They take, but they do not give.

Anarchy’s order accepts humans for who they are, and does not need any higher, better form to work well. Adams commented that if men were angels, governments would not be necessary. Yet it seems to me that governments are not necessary because men are not angels–it is governments that require angels, and anarchies that require men.

I disagree with just about everything you say but there's no way for me to begin to reply because there weren't any examples, historical or otherwise, to latch on to. I hope you understand what I mean. I do think the fact remains that the burden of proof is on the anarchists because we honestly do not know what anarchy looks like. We only speculate about how it was in the stone age and the other examples provided by Pandora (which were lifted verbatim from the document he or she referred us to) had other failings. We DO however know how alternative systems work. At the very least, we know how our own system works. Can you dispel my expectation that some sort of tribal anarchy would not turn into a very violent scene?

I also take issue with the idea that anarchy is organic and other systems are not. Why, I would say that monarchy is a very organic outgrowth of anarchy. Other systems are equally organic simply by virtue of the fact that they were invented by man, an organism.

Can you dispel my expectation that some sort of tribal anarchy would not turn into a very violent scene?

if you refuse to take pre-history as an example, use the American Indians as an example. and while tribal warfare existed, I hope you understand that the indigenous peoples of america are falsely portrayed in almost every book and movie, and a fair number of history books as war-like savages who thirst for blood

How do you know they are falsely portrayed? At any rate, it's useless to get into a history fight because none of us actually knows. What might be of more use to the discussion is the fact that they were all but destroyed. Now, I happen to believe that might doesn't make right but the fact remains that their questionably "superior" ways did not live on. Do you, then, demonize the Whites? If so, why do you think they were so much "worse" than the natives?

It is well established that American Indians are falsely potrayed in the entertainment industry

Huh? You mean the entertainment industry has established that they are falsely portrayed or the entertainment industry has falsely portrayed them? I don't really follow why you bring the entertainment industry into this in the first place... I'm not talking about entertainment, I'm talking about history.

I'm saying the public has a very skewed view of natives, and history books dont do alot to dispel the misconceptions. well, there are some , but the aveage history book is full of shit anyways, like all the stuff about columbus

Okay, I'm pretty sure I'm finished with this thread. I thought there was some hope for an enlightening discussion between thoughtful people but I get the distinct impression that everyone is playing one big joke on me. Sicarius and Pandora, you both are not really thinking when you post but are using the information provided to you by someone else. I realize that this is a somewhat harsh accusation but I really can't see it any other way at this point. I'm sorry if I've wasted your time but I also feel like you've wasted mine. I entered this with an open and curious mind but found the pickin's to be quite slim. Unless this gets any livelier, I'm out...

well recovering from the tangents a bit, what do you think of the american patriots on this forum?
not saying they're right or wrong, good or bad, I'm asking what you think