blast from the past - new info on a bad teacher I hate, decades later

[TheoK]

You're wrong, duncvis. There is right wing anarchy as well.

[punkdrew]

I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.

Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here 

Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.

But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.

So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.

By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.

See, this is why you won't ever be in charge of anything, let alone a government. Nobody would elect you and nobody would follow you if you attempted a more violent path, because you're simply too far out there to be of any use. You seem to be advocating a form of socialism that, as far as I know, never worked, though, which I find amusing. One would think that you'd have read your history books. The Soviet Union was bankrupt when it fell, you do know that, right?

You haven't actually explained anything. No details, nothing on how you'd actually convince anyone to give away their personal belongings, starting from the little things at home to the larger ones at a company wishing to hire the best man for the job. Remember me suggesting you to send your computer to Somalia? I wasn't kidding.

As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.

Again, sweeping statements full of nothing, really. You know, of course, that there are already quite large numbers of terrorists out there, trying their best to if not destroy the world, then at least annoy it a little. They've sort of managed the latter but they are nowhere near to bringing down anything.

And re constructing an ideology or religion, what makes you think that a) you could be inventive enough, considering the fact that you haven't convinced anyone here so far, and b) that your new ideology wouldn't join the ranks of scientology and others, becoming part of the society rather than something outside it?

All in all, you remind me of a Harlan Ellison short story, one with the hero trapped in a sinking boat in the middle of a river full of crocodiles, piranhas and whatnot, and with cannibals chasing him along the shores. Ellison spent pages to set up that hopeless situation, only to resolve it with one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing because it's been close to thirty years since I read that one) "he swam ashore, avoiding the crocodiles and escaping the cannibals."

Hey, Wandrew, can you remember what the story was called and where I can find it?

It was a story-within-a-story. The actual story was called "Grail" and the s-w-a-s was told by the main character to dramatize how disappointed he was with the ending of his favorite serial.

[Christopher McCandless]

None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.

There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.

Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.

Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos[6] resulting from unequal distribution of power and meddling by neighbors and developed nations like the United States.

self-ownage. read up on anarchism, dumbass. thought you were supposed to be a politics student?

I read that bit before posting, its like saying that its strongly contested by the great academic Osama bin Laden. Any serious IR theorist would tell you that Somalia is pretty much an Anarchy.

[duncvis]

you sir are a fuckwit. I see no point in even arguing this point further with you. Right-wing anarchism is an oxymoron.

[TheoK]

you sir are a fuckwit. I see no point in even arguing this point further with you. Right-wing anarchism is an oxymoron.

No, it isn't. Right-wing anarchism is individual anarchism as opposed to left-wing anarchism, which is just another form of communism.

[odeon]

None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.

There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.

Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.

Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

I disagree, and so do others:

Economist Alex Tabarrok has claimed that Somalia in its stateless period provided a "unique test of the theory of anarchy" as espoused by anarcho-capitalists David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard, although this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos.

This is from the article you referenced. It is interesting to note that the ones to dispute that Somalia is an anarchy are anti-capitalist anarchists who, in my mind, would be the ones closest to the views you sometimes appear to uphold, New Labour.

Again, the lack of a government in itself does not equal anarchy. Mostly it only equals chaos.

[odeon]

None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.

There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.

Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.

Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos[6] resulting from unequal distribution of power and meddling by neighbors and developed nations like the United States.

self-ownage. read up on anarchism, dumbass. thought you were supposed to be a politics student?

Great minds and all that, Dunc. I should read the rest of the thread before replying.

OTOH, it would help more if Hadron read the articles he googles before replying.

[odeon]

I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.

Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here 

Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.

But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.

So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.

By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.

See, this is why you won't ever be in charge of anything, let alone a government. Nobody would elect you and nobody would follow you if you attempted a more violent path, because you're simply too far out there to be of any use. You seem to be advocating a form of socialism that, as far as I know, never worked, though, which I find amusing. One would think that you'd have read your history books. The Soviet Union was bankrupt when it fell, you do know that, right?

You haven't actually explained anything. No details, nothing on how you'd actually convince anyone to give away their personal belongings, starting from the little things at home to the larger ones at a company wishing to hire the best man for the job. Remember me suggesting you to send your computer to Somalia? I wasn't kidding.

As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.

Again, sweeping statements full of nothing, really. You know, of course, that there are already quite large numbers of terrorists out there, trying their best to if not destroy the world, then at least annoy it a little. They've sort of managed the latter but they are nowhere near to bringing down anything.

And re constructing an ideology or religion, what makes you think that a) you could be inventive enough, considering the fact that you haven't convinced anyone here so far, and b) that your new ideology wouldn't join the ranks of scientology and others, becoming part of the society rather than something outside it?

All in all, you remind me of a Harlan Ellison short story, one with the hero trapped in a sinking boat in the middle of a river full of crocodiles, piranhas and whatnot, and with cannibals chasing him along the shores. Ellison spent pages to set up that hopeless situation, only to resolve it with one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing because it's been close to thirty years since I read that one) "he swam ashore, avoiding the crocodiles and escaping the cannibals."

Hey, Wandrew, can you remember what the story was called and where I can find it?

It was a story-within-a-story. The actual story was called "Grail" and the s-w-a-s was told by the main character to dramatize how disappointed he was with the ending of his favorite serial.

Thanks.

[odeon]

I read that bit before posting, its like saying that its strongly contested by the great academic Osama bin Laden. Any serious IR theorist would tell you that Somalia is pretty much an Anarchy.

So you think the anti-capitalist anarchists are not serious?

And btw--the sheer ineptness of your Osama comment is astounding.

[Pissgai]

you sir are a fuckwit. I see no point in even arguing this point further with you. Right-wing anarchism is an oxymoron.

Was there any point in taking this twat seriously in the first place?

[duncvis]

Not really, but it passes the time.

[punkdrew]

Some insightful comments on anarchy and the illegitmacy of state power:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130801.html

[TheoK]

"The state is the coldest monster of all. Out of its mouth a lie coils : 'I am the people'."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

[Yuri Bezmenov]

"The state is the coldest monster of all. Out of its mouth a lie coils : 'I am the people'."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[renaeden]

Makes me miss garmonbozia all over again.