Favorite War Room Posters

[VivaRevolution]

That's a damn flattering honor to have. I noticed we identify the source of the problems differently, although, interestingly, it seems like we end up identifying and addressing the same ones.

I think I have developed this pseudo Taoist POV. I both agree with you, and disagree with you. So while I call myself an economic progressive, there are individual situations where I would look to a purely market driven solution.

You changed my mind on the idea that their is a moral argument for collectivism though. I view the argument now in terms of pure hard power.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's a fine distinction, but at that point they were pretty undeveloped for me to be opining. My original objective was to push you on to him, because I would have rather read your rebuttals than try to make up a depth for his argument I didn't have.

I getcha and that's fair and understandable. Just that how you went about it chapped my ass at the time. I'm better now, thanks.

That dude can't interact with me on a civil level and he's not particularly bright enough to warrant exposure to posting I can only describe as unnecessarily mean-spirited and vile. I don't read his posts and only saw his thoughts on that matter because I read yours and you quoted him. Since I like you and have interest in what you think I pursued it.

 

[VivaRevolution]

this one is good:

I still like this one:

So corny, it was actually funny.

 

[Greoric]

I think I have developed this pseudo Taoist POV. I both agree with you, and disagree with you. So while I call myself an economic progressive, there are individual situations where I would look to a purely market driven solution.

You changed my mind on the idea that their is a moral argument for collectivism though. I view the argument now in terms of pure hard power.

So nihlist?

 

[VivaRevolution]

So nihlist?

Lol, no, I just recognize my allies, and my enemies. There is no such thing as morality on a battle field.

My collectivism is tribal. At least until we find that magical post resource scarcity economy.

 

[Greoric]

Lol, no, I just recognize my allies, and my enemies.

My collectivism is tribal. At least until we find that magical post resource scarcity economy.

I'm with you on that goal for a post scarcity society, but there's only been one demonstrable incentive structure that maximizes production, which we'd need to get there, don't you think?

 

[SenorGuillen]

I'm surprised ederp is ignored. lol

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm with you on that goal for a post scarcity society, but there's only been one demonstrable incentive structure that maximizes production, which we'd need to get there, don't you think?

No, in fact I think the most successful example in the history of the planet, the US, has always been built on a balance between the need for centralization for efficiency, and the recognition of its dangers. I also think we are currently completely removed from that debate, which is the real danger.

In other words, I think your POV, is a necessary function of our system, and it is the POV that has been abandoned by our two party system.

Dems argue for more public centralization, reps argue for more private centralization. No one is arguing for decentralization, accept for economic progressives calling for private centralisation to be reduced, and libertarians calling for public centralization to be reduced. This is why I think economic progressives and libertarians have more in common with each other, than we do with the establishment of both parties.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What examples do you have in mind? They were perfectly egalitarian?

Why are you saying "perfectly egalitarian" when I never did? And you ignored my question and point. Here's my post again:

You didn't make any arguments. Funny considering how you always parrot one of Molyneux's catchphrases relating to that.

That's not what original anarchist advocates proposed. Who are you referring to? I would think of people like Godwin or Proudhon as original anarchist advocates. And I don't see any evidence that they were incorrect about how society would organize itself. We have lots of examples of stateless societies that have actually been observed, and the way they are organized is much closer to what they advocated than it is to capitalism. One would think that sincere "anacho-capitalists" would want to try to explain that or to rethink their own ideas on that basis.

 

[Greoric]

Why are you saying "perfectly egalitarian" when I never did?

Stopped right here. Becasue that's what anarcho-communists want.... a society without hierarchy.

As it turns out, we're a sexually dimorphic species that by necessary consequence cares very much about status... and hierarchies (though not necessarily coercive hierarchies). Hence the original anarchist vision of a society without a state would certainly NOT be the one they were pushing for.

 

[Greoric]

No, in fact I think the most successful example in the history of the planet, the US, has always been built on a balance between the need for centralization for efficiency, and the recognition of its dangers. I also think we are currently completely removed from that debate, which is the real danger.

In other words, I think your POV, is a necessary function of our system, and it is the POV that has been abandoned by our two party system.

Dems argue for more public centralization, reps argue for more private centralization. No one is arguing for decentralization, accept for economic progressives calling for private centralisation to be reduced, and libertarians calling for public centralization to be reduced. This is why I think economic progressives and libertarians have more in common with each other, than we do with the establishment of both parties.

What is decentralization if property isn't retained privately? That's the epitome of decentralization....

 

[Jack V Savage]

Stopped right here. Becasue that's what anarcho-communists want.... a society without hierarchy.

Without legally enforced hierarchy.

Have you actually read any anarchists? Serious question.

 

[Greoric]

Without legally enforced hierarchy.

No, the original anarchists didn't want any hierarchy.
@Thames

 

[GhostZ06]

@Videer
@Orgasmo
@Rod1
@Pwent i have a fuck tone of respect for him
@MicroBrew
@Goonerview
@ShinkanPo
@VivaRevolution
@Rational Poster in general is a good poster

@HomerThompson as well


i know im forgetting a few just because i keep forgetting names

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, the original anarchists didn't want any hierarchy.
@Thames

Who are you referring to? Are you actually familiar with any?

 

[KONE]

@Jack V Savage likes to do this thing in threads like this where he gets absolutely demolished for being retarded/a pathological liar for the first 200 replies or something, then comes in later when nobody cares anymore and starts talking immense amounts of shit. Very weird guy. Noticed him do this like 4 or 5 times by now.

I completely understand why people don't like @Jack V Savage. The guy can be, or at least unintentionally come off as, very smug when disagreeing with people.

That said I agree with you that his posts are insightful and well written, he's one of those posters who I make a point to read their posts for that reason. He's one of those posters that, if I see he's the last responder to a thread, I'll skip to his post to see what his thoughts on the topic are. Sometimes he's holding the torch for the left against some mouthbreathers but when he gets into it with the less retarded opposition the conversation can get very interesting. I'll even admit that it sometimes goes over my head.

I don't really care that he's sometimes smug, its usually not directed at me anyway and its amusing when directed at those who deserve it. And really, when compared to the filth that gets spewed here JVS' smug posts seem Christ-like in comparison and he more than makes up for it with the quality of his posts so he's definitely one of my favorite posters.

It's not the smugness, he legit makes things up as he goes. It's incredibly bizarre. If you think Trump will lie about the most trivial thing imaginable, Jack has somehow managed to be worse than that if you could believe it. He likes to do this thing where he denies an objective fact and instead attributes it to someone/something he hates. Saw him do it in the Heavies for years, now he does it here. For example he denied that Hillary is irresponsible/corrupt and accused Trump of all of her qualities before he even did anything.

That's just one thing though. From lying about what certain links say, to lying about what he himself said, to saying shit like "CNN is biased towards Trump." He's not just smug, he's absolutely fucking insane.

 

[VivaRevolution]

What is decentralization if property isn't retained privately? That's the epitome of decentralization....

In the form of corporations I would argue it is the antithesis of decentralization.

Yet, I agree it can be a epitome of decentralization in the right construct.

 

[Greoric]

In the form of corporations I would argue it is the antithesis of decentralization.

Yet, I agree it can be a epitome of decentralization in the right construct.

We would agree, especially considering Corporations are an artifact created by the state to shield owners from full responsibility....al a entities that wouldn't be around in their current form in a free market.

 

[Greoric]

Who are you referring to? Are you actually familiar with any?

Or we can just look at the codified definition...?

Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.[1] The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations.

So no hierarchy, and a misunderstanding of what society would look like with only voluntary associations to organize it. Glad we cleared that up Jack. Any other shit you'd like to make up today?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Or we can just look at the codified definition...?



So no hierarchy, and a misunderstanding of what society would look like with only voluntary associations to organize it. Glad we cleared that up Jack. Any other shit you'd like to make up today?

Sounds like Communism. You aren't going to suppress hierarchies without force. And what would "voluntary associations" mean other than to imply discrimination (i.e. those you don't wish to voluntarily associate with)?