2 Party System Vs. 3+ Party System

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349188035' post='2489203']
No need to be a big cry baby because you don't always get your way.
When you have a group of people, it's fact that it is very unlikely everybody will agree on anything. Majority rules, some win, some loose. Make your case in the public arena.
It's a truism, it's never tyranny if you agree with the Tyrant.
[/quote]
I didn't say there was a need for it.


You just justified gang rape. Congratulations.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349188915' post='2489205']

I didn't say there was a need for it.


You just justified gang rape. Congratulations.
[/quote]I pointed out reality of that there isn't 'Right Think' that is universally agreed upon. Your silly and vague ideas of 'anar-capitalism' only works if you employ violence to impose your opinion on those who would attempt to impose their opinion on you. It solves nothing, it resolves nothing, it is entirely based on coercion by force (wether defending or imposing opinion) instead of seeking some kind of comprimise. It assumes that 'Right Think' exists and can be imposed on others in a selfish matter.

edit to add:

You want to limit the concepts of humans living in a community. A-C does not provide for cooperation, comprimise, self sacrifice, and views humanity as small beings, not capable of a higher thought process then a murder of ravens or a gaggle of geese.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Anomaly

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349190887' post='2489209']
I pointed out reality of that there isn't 'Right Think' that is universally agreed upon. Your silly and vague ideas of 'anar-capitalism' only works if you employ violence to impose your opinion on those who would attempt to impose their opinion on you. It solves nothing, it resolves nothing, it is entirely based on coercion by force (wether defending or imposing opinion) instead of seeking some kind of comprimise. It assumes that 'Right Think' exists and can be imposed on others in a selfish matter.
[/quote]
So forcing someone to stop assaulting me is equivalent to someone assaulting me.

Got it.

What's the compromise? I let you assault me a "little bit"? I give you my lunch money and you don't beat me up? And I'm selfish if I don't let you take my lunch money?

You consider a lack of a central plan by me to be inflicted on everyone to be "vague". You accept the conventional opinion. Okay. So let it go. What I want will never come to be, anyway. The world is fallen. I get that. I'm not going to pretend it's all okay. Nothing will ever be "solved" on this world. I never said it would. Evil will continue to exist.

I've never said people all agree. Truth isn't dependent on you or me agreeing with it.

[quote]You want to limit the concepts of humans living in a community. A-C does not provide for cooperation, comprimise, self sacrifice, and views humanity as small beings, not capable of a higher thought process then a murder of ravens or a gaggle of geese.[/quote]
So rejecting initiation of aggression is limiting the human community.

I don't need you to force me to cooperate, compromise, or sacrifice myself. I've done it without a gun in my ribs more than once. I reject that you have a right to force me to do those things. I do not reject that those things are noble, or that people are capable of them. I also believe you're capable of not constructing such ridiculous strawmen. But I have no right to force you to stop.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Winchester

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349191615' post='2489212']

So forcing someone to stop assaulting me is equivalent to someone assaulting me.

Got it.

What's the compromise? I let you assault me a "little bit"? I give you my lunch money and you don't beat me up? And I'm selfish if I don't let you take my lunch money?

You consider a lack of a central plan by me to be inflicted on everyone to be "vague". You accept the conventional opinion. Okay. So let it go. What I want will never come to be, anyway. The world is fallen. I get that. I'm not going to pretend it's all okay. Nothing will ever be "solved" on this world. I never said it would. Evil will continue to exist.

I've never said people all agree. Truth isn't dependent on you or me agreeing with it.
[/quote]Cheer up. I thought I was negative, but seriously, do some Lavendar Tea or squish ants to improve your mood.

Yes, I'm willing to comprimise on lot's of things to cooperate. A kid took my lunch money. I could punch him in the nose and take it back (as would be my moral right), or I could comprimise and not insist on exercising all my immediately available 'rights' and go to a teacher (or you may call the oppressive behavior athority) and seek for redress. No need for a lunchroom to be an version of "Lord of the Flies".

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349192079' post='2489215']

Yes, I'm willing to comprimise on lot's of things to cooperate. A kid took my lunch money. I could punch him in the nose and take it back (as would be my moral right), or I could comprimise and not insist on exercising all my immediately available 'rights' and go to a teacher (or you may call the oppressive behavior athority) and seek for redress. No need for a lunchroom to be an version of "Lord of the Flies".
[/quote]
I didn't say there was. You're drawing unwarranted conclusions from a very simple premise.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349192354' post='2489216']

I didn't say there was. You're drawing unwarranted conclusions from a very simple premise.
[/quote]if I was a farmer, I wouldn't get upset and burn my wheat field because of a bunch of weeds. I'll water and fertilize the entire lot to maximize the harvest given the conditions. Even if I could survive a season without wheat, I recognize its unrealistic to burn this years crop hoping for a less weedy field next year.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349192877' post='2489217']
if I was a farmer, I wouldn't get upset and burn my wheat field because of a bunch of weeds. I'll water and fertilize the entire lot to maximize the harvest given the conditions. Even if I could survive a season without wheat, I recognize its unrealistic to burn this years crop hoping for a less weedy field next year.
[/quote]
Still confusing normative with prescriptive, I see. Still assuming that rejecting the actions of the State means destroy everything.


This is the last response to your strawman. When you get it right, I might respond, but I'm wasting my time, with you.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349193147' post='2489219']

Still confusing normative with prescriptive, I see. Still assuming that rejecting the actions of the State means destroy everything.


This is the last response to your strawman. When you get it right, I might respond, but I'm wasting my time, with you.
[/quote]Dude, all you do is complain and fling invective about how horrid anything the State does. You have yet to provide anything but an impossible standard and cast everything existing as failed, broken, unworkable, immoral, unuseable, worthless, and unwanted. If I thought invective was flammable, I would counter-claim you were creating straw effigies.

I do the best I can considering my lack of education, but I haven't seen you provide a comprehensible proposal for a solution, course of action, goal to achieve. Maybe it's a failure on my part due to my unyeilding philistinism.

Or maybe I'm not completely illiterate in addition to being stupid.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349193147' post='2489219']

Still confusing normative with prescriptive, I see. Still assuming that rejecting the actions of the State means destroy everything.


This is the last response to your strawman. When you get it right, I might respond, but I'm wasting my time, with you.
[/quote]Though, I too feel like I'm stabbing a scarecrow...
I had to look up your reference to "normative" and "prescriptive". I clumsily perceive it as a vague reference to game theory that considers what informed people should do and what people actually are likely to do.
You have yet described a decision, or course of action other than governemnt is bad and have repeatedly failed to describe what you believe the an alternative could possibly be.

Government is Bad because it hinders people freely acting on every whim or desire.

Got it, and I personally find it simplistic and completly irrelevant as an observation as wellas absolutely inconsequential as an opinion on the workings of a human society without a hyposthesis of an alternative.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Anomaly

[Nihil Obstat]

This is really dumb.

Anomaly, you are extremely overmatched.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349130029' post='2488943']
In my opinion some conceptions of a feudalist society are acceptable to anarchist thought. Personally I call myself a neo-feudal paleolibertarian.
[/quote]
[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349130699' post='2488954']
Anything not initiating aggression.

Yes, feudalism [i]could [/i]work, as Nihil said.
[/quote]
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349130832' post='2488957']
(We're assuming a lot of things with my feudalism, by the way. It's less of an ideology to me, and more of a created utopia.)
[/quote]

Too vague, insufficient please go into some actual detail.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349201732' post='2489275']
This is really dumb.

Anomaly, you are extremely overmatched.
[/quote]

He has an excellent point though.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349202000' post='2489278']

Too vague, insufficient please go into some actual detail.
[/quote]

Sure. I do not have much time, but I will give a rough sketch.

My understanding of feudalism is that its essential characteristic was of landowners and renters who generally farmed the land, or something along those lines. The landowners often became the center of small, rather vibrant communities, as long as things were working well. I do not see anything inherently wrong in general with this system.
A neo-feudalist system obvious is not going to be primarily agrarian, but I think we can take the same principles of landowning and renting and apply it to a modern society.

A certain amount of law and order is well within the best interest of the landowner, therefore in his rental contracts he is likely to specify certain 'laws' as part of his agreement, and he may retain a small private security group, or he may hire a firm to take care of security. The rental contract protects both the landowner and the renters, and private courts are [url="http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf"]more than capable of arbitrating disputes[/url]. (p. 14-21)

That is the general gist of it. I do not have time to go into more depth at the moment.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349202090' post='2489280']

He has an excellent point though.
[/quote]
It would be rather sad if one even had poor arguments against their strawmen.

[KnightofChrist]

"You have yet to provide anything but an impossible standard and cast everything existing as failed, broken, unworkable, immoral, unuseable, worthless, and unwanted." is the point that I was referring to.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349203168' post='2489289']
"You have yet to provide anything but an impossible standard and cast everything existing as failed, broken, unworkable, immoral, unuseable, worthless, and unwanted." is the point that I was referring to.
[/quote]
I stand by my response.