Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Debate on Anarchism in Grafton
Topic Started: Aug 18 2010, 05:44 PM (1,085 Views)
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 11:19 AM
Again, I am unconvinced by your assertion that there is a difference between a group of Americans going to a town and actively violating its laws and a group of Mexicans going to a town and passively violating its laws.
Just being in the US without immigrating through the proper channels is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, for which they should be arrested and deported prior to even having the chance to passively break any local laws.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

The USA is a representational democracy.

Ergo, its laws should represent the people.

If a group of American Citizens (you know, the people the government claim to represent) want to change laws (so that the government represents them) that is a good thing.

If a bunch of Muslims want to have a Muslim town, that's a good thing. Let all the Muslims live there, and they can live in peace without bothering anyone else.

If a bunch of libs want to have a "no government town", that's a good thing. Let all of them go there.

So long as they're citizens.

They have the freedom to move.
They have the freedom not to be oppressed for their beliefs.
These are cornerstones of living in a free state.

To oppress these people would make the USA no better than *random totalitarian state here*.

Now as for the people living in Grafton who have been "invaded"...

If the majority opposed the movement, they would have opposed the Free Staters.
They are free to employ the same tactics (moving in non-Free Staters or moving themselves somewhere else in the USA).
They're free to fall back on other recourses legal in the USA.

Saying these people (who I'm calling Free Staters, erroneously because y'all know what I mean) are carrying out an Invasion is like saying that Nag is invading Bedford by moving there starting a bookclub where there wasn't a book club. Or that Star Bucks is invading when it opens a new franchise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
The act itself is not invasion - the purpose is.

If a group of Muslims or Hispanics moved to Grafton for the purpose of changing it into a model town, by their standards, I would also oppose it. Start your own town.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Union
Aug 23 2010, 02:12 PM
The act itself is not invasion - the purpose is.

If a group of Muslims or Hispanics moved to Grafton for the purpose of changing it into a model town, by their standards, I would also oppose it. Start your own town.
Please tell that to the Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Hey so if anarchism becomes they way of the world, what would happen to non-state communities and social structures? Would the idea of the nation be gone?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

You know what would be a great way to solve this problem? A nuke......
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Nah. Discrimination is a good thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Ulgania
Aug 23 2010, 02:35 PM
Hey so if anarchism becomes they way of the world, what would happen to non-state communities and social structures? Would the idea of the nation be gone?
Those who'd want a government would be free to form one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Seriously, this whole "nuke" thing lately is getting annoying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Nag Ehgoeg
Aug 23 2010, 02:45 PM
Ulgania
Aug 23 2010, 02:35 PM
Hey so if anarchism becomes they way of the world, what would happen to non-state communities and social structures? Would the idea of the nation be gone?
Those who'd want a government would be free to form one.
And the cycle begins again. :gnarkgnark:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
T.O.
Aug 23 2010, 02:10 AM
Scythirus
Aug 23 2010, 12:17 AM
Still failing to get it, I see. I'm not surprised.
What is there to get :huh:
That Quaon is trying to compare apples with oranges. Yes, they're both fruit, just as moving somewhere else is moving somewhere else, but that's where the similarity ends and the large list of differences begin. Furthermore, I was hoping Quaon would read and understand this paragraph.

Esternarx
 
I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself, but I feel like Union has collectivized and as a result misinterpreted some of the views of people within these various movements, and I'd like to address them.

First of all, I don't endorse working within the political system, even on the local level. Some people within these movements do, and that's cool, I guess. I'll applaud whenever they achieve any step toward individual liberty, but I won't help them "take over the town." Not everyone in these movements is an anarchist. Not everyone in these movements doesn't pay taxes. We're quite a diverse crowd.


Sadly, because he fails constantly and consistently at reading comprehension, I have to bold the last sentences and spell it out for him.

And likely, after my doing so, he'll still manage to misread it and think E was only talking about himself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rhadamanthus
Aug 23 2010, 02:46 PM
Seriously, this whole "nuke" thing lately is getting annoying.
Jeeze, have a sense of humor. :P Fine, I'll stop.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Atticus
Aug 23 2010, 03:05 PM
Rhadamanthus
Aug 23 2010, 02:46 PM
Seriously, this whole "nuke" thing lately is getting annoying.
Jeeze, have a sense of humor. :P Fine, I'll stop.
It was funny the first time. A little. Diminishing returns.
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Aug 23 2010, 03:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
New Harumf
Aug 23 2010, 01:06 PM
Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 11:19 AM
Again, I am unconvinced by your assertion that there is a difference between a group of Americans going to a town and actively violating its laws and a group of Mexicans going to a town and passively violating its laws.
Just being in the US without immigrating through the proper channels is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, for which they should be arrested and deported prior to even having the chance to passively break any local laws.
You are still missing the point. I am aware that moving for a United States citizen is legal whereas for an illegal immigrant it is not - that is what I was referring to when I said "passive". My point is not that both things are legally the same - they obviously aren't. What I am saying is that it's hypocritical to support one group in its breaking of the law while condemning another for breaking the law in a less fundamental way.

And Scy, really, quit with the moronic snide attitude. Of course I fucking read that paragraph, considering I referenced it in my last post. There are anarchists in Grafton. E is one of them. You seem to be supporting E. So your whiney stonewalling still is not relevant.
Edited by Quaon, Aug 23 2010, 03:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
See? He still missed it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 03:32 PM
New Harumf
Aug 23 2010, 01:06 PM
Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 11:19 AM
Again, I am unconvinced by your assertion that there is a difference between a group of Americans going to a town and actively violating its laws and a group of Mexicans going to a town and passively violating its laws.
Just being in the US without immigrating through the proper channels is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, for which they should be arrested and deported prior to even having the chance to passively break any local laws.
You are still missing the point. I am aware that moving for a United States citizen is legal whereas for an illegal immigrant it is not - that is what I was referring to when I said "passive". My point is not that both things are legally the same - they obviously aren't. What I am saying is that it's hypocritical to support one group in its breaking of the law while condemning another for breaking the law in a less fundamental way.
Did Scy say he supports breaking the law? I thought he just supported the efforts to change the laws there, i.e. reduce the budget, cut taxes, cut programs, etc. While I have expressed my concerns about the project (and don't see any need to repeat myself), I don't think Scy advocated anything illegal.

Of course, as always, feel free to show me if I am wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
Rhadamanthus
Aug 23 2010, 03:37 PM
Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 03:32 PM
New Harumf
Aug 23 2010, 01:06 PM
Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 11:19 AM
Again, I am unconvinced by your assertion that there is a difference between a group of Americans going to a town and actively violating its laws and a group of Mexicans going to a town and passively violating its laws.
Just being in the US without immigrating through the proper channels is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, for which they should be arrested and deported prior to even having the chance to passively break any local laws.
You are still missing the point. I am aware that moving for a United States citizen is legal whereas for an illegal immigrant it is not - that is what I was referring to when I said "passive". My point is not that both things are legally the same - they obviously aren't. What I am saying is that it's hypocritical to support one group in its breaking of the law while condemning another for breaking the law in a less fundamental way.
Did Scy say he supports breaking the law? I thought he just supported the efforts to change the laws there, i.e. reduce the budget, cut taxes, cut programs, etc. While I have expressed my concerns about the project (and don't see any need to repeat myself), I don't think Scy advocated anything illegal.

Of course, as always, feel free to show me if I am wrong.
Hoo-HAY! Thank goodness you get it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Considering that Scy is explicitly supporting E (whom I am not accusing of hypocrisy, again) and has previously described herself on his blog as an anarcho-capitalist, or more specifically "The Angry Tranny Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist", my point still stands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 03:42 PM
Considering that Scy is explicitly supporting E (whom I am not accusing of hypocrisy, again) and has previously described herself on his blog as an anarcho-capitalist, or more specifically "The Angry Tranny Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist", my point still stands.
Didn't Scy specifically describe himself as minarchist earlier in this thread? Or was that someone else?

Also, he might express some sympathy for Esternarx' way of life, without actually advocating specific actions. I often sympathize with people on some counts, even if I disgree fundementally on others.
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Aug 23 2010, 03:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Right. My mistake. I would willing to acknowledge Scy as not a hypocrite if she was willing to acknowledge that E and other anarchists in Grafton are undertaking actions which by her standards ought to be considered immoral. Likewise, that applies to New Harumf.
Edited by Quaon, Aug 23 2010, 03:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
I have admit that I frowned at the traffic violation mentioned elsewhere. There are better ways such as changing the law, as far as I'm concerned. But RD is quite correct that I sympathize for his cause.

Concerning my view on anarcho-capitalism, I envision a system much like what they had at the Old West where there was minimal government interference if any at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
If I believed that people would be willing to cooperate with one another in a communitarian-style system, then I'd agree.

But I think the mob is incapable of self-rule, libertarianism without a complex system of checks and balances, at least in today's world where financial services are so important.

EDIT: Mind you, I believe in something that's akin to neo-feudalism, without the douche-baggery, so. Yeah.
Edited by Ulgania, Aug 23 2010, 04:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 03:45 PM
Right. My mistake. I would willing to acknowledge Scy as not a hypocrite if she was willing to acknowledge that E and other anarchists in Grafton are undertaking actions which by her standards ought to be considered immoral. Likewise, that applies to New Harumf.
Your deliberate intermingling of pronouns greatly offends me, and convinces me you are nothing but a homophobic jerk. You can make your points without attempts at backhanded insults.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

New Harumf
Aug 23 2010, 05:19 PM
Quaon
Aug 23 2010, 03:45 PM
Right. My mistake. I would willing to acknowledge Scy as not a hypocrite if she was willing to acknowledge that E and other anarchists in Grafton are undertaking actions which by her standards ought to be considered immoral. Likewise, that applies to New Harumf.
Your deliberate intermingling of pronouns greatly offends me, and convinces me you are nothing but a homophobic jerk. You can make your points without attempts at backhanded insults.
I don't think that was an insult. There was another thread where Q asked Scy whether Scy preferred to be referred to as "she". Scy said "it'd be a start".
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Aug 23 2010, 05:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Union
Aug 23 2010, 09:43 AM
E has as much legal right to change Grafton, NH, as Muslims have to build a mosque ON ground zero, and not two blocks away. Just because he corresponds with your political beliefs does not make it right. This is doublethink.
I have as much legal right to do anything as anyone does. I am a sovereign nation, I can make and remake laws at will. :P

Quote:
 
They are invaders. They are not natives, and moved there with the intent and result of changing the local system. They are no different than French Algerians crying for Sharia law in Paris.
Invaders! Lol. Some people have chosen to concentrate their efforts at freeing themselves in a particular location. They're not moving in and forcing anyone else to do anything! They're moving in and living peacefully with the natives.

Quote:
 
A bunch of commies should move to Grafton with the same purpose. Let's see how you howl.
As long as they're peaceful, I don't care. And even if they're not, it doesn't change my strategy in the slightest. But I don't think most commies would like it in Grafton, (no welfare,) and plus they've already got the Free Lunch Project, (mascot: raccoon,) trying to get them all to move to Massachusetts.

Quote:
 
But you don't recognize the same issue with anarchists like E doing the same thing - and all of you are ignoring the irony in an anarchist coercing a community towards his viewpoint
It's funny to me that you insist on using the term "coerce" even though I've advocated nothing of the sort. I think you're projecting a bit, Mr. "I'm a fascist."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply