Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Ron Paul is Truth by waterostrich Ron Paul is Truth by waterostrich
The quote 'Authority is not truth, Truth is Authority.' was first heard by myself by Christine Ebersole (singer/actress) at a 9/11 Truth protest with Alex Jones in New york City.

The design was done for the grassroots graphic art movement for Ron Paul: [link]

For those whom are not aware, Ron Paul is a presidential candidate running under a Republican ticket, but he is in no way like every other republican whome we all have grown to loathe. Ron Paul is for minimal government and for freedom. Google his name, or better yet, Youtube his name, and you will grow to love everything he stands for (unless of course you think that the government knows best.)

[link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconchris-lam:
Chris-lam Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012  Student Artist
love this poster. not the content, but the layout! :D
Reply
:iconjoshusmani:
JoshUsmani Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2008
Hell Yes! I'm a member of both my local Campaign for Liberty and We Are Change Ohio. Ron Paul was robbed in Nevada's primary!
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2008   Interface Designer
cool man! I'm living in Florida right now, other wise I might join you in Ohio.
Reply
:iconspicone:
spicone Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2008  Professional Digital Artist
Featured via news [link] :)
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2008   Interface Designer
My thanks sir! I am a big fan of your 'in Love with Typography' series. It has recently inspired me to begin a blog in a similar manner once I get my website up and running (eta 3 weeks)

I also first heard the quote 'authority is not truth, truth is authority' by Christine Ebersole at the same rally (youtube, I wasn't actually there.) I've been unable to locate a source from which it originally originated, so that leaves me to believe that Ms Ebersole is not only a singer, but also a philosopher, and who can't like that?
Reply
:iconk-ee-ran:
k-ee-ran Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2008  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
don't care if my further comment causes political uncorrectness, but......


A THOUSAND AMENS!!!!! :w00t:
Reply
:iconwritten-in-the-sand:
written-in-the-sand Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2008   Writer
love the ARTWORK, what it stands for, and your will to defend your point of view. way to make a stand. :heart:

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! :w00t:
Reply
:iconron-paul-4-president:
Ron-Paul-4-President Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2008
Ron Paul for President! Hurah for Grassroots movements!
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2007
Lets put it this way, cause I think this is the best way to put it.
If you can't trust ordinary people not to victimize each other, how can you trust the state not to victimize us all? Are the people who get into power so unselfish, so dedicated, so superior to the ones they rule? The more you distrust your fellows, the more reason there is for you to become an anarchist. Under anarchy, power is reduced and spread around. Everybody has some, but nobody has very much. Under the state, power is concentrated, and most people have none, really. Which kind of power would you like to go up against? That is the real question.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2007
I have a recommendation for you, and this way you don't ruin the word "freedom". Maybe instead of using the word freedom, and saying you want more freedom, you should say you advocate a world with more choices to choose freely from, because that's really all you want is more choices, you want to choose from more than just option A and option B, Brand A and B, you want to have an option C, a brand C. Freedom isn't making choices between limited options that someone else has already decided for you. You can't be free if you are stuck making choices that have already been decided for you. This may help you in the future to elaborate what you mean, then you would avoid future confrontations with people who want actual freedom. Just a suggestion of course.
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2007   Interface Designer
Anyone has the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases now. The difference is there are consequences to certain actions if 'caught.' And where many of these 'crimes' are victim less, some how they are still crimes because the nanny-state defines them as such. After all, they know what's best for me! I am with you on this, that these sorts of laws must be removed. Why should it matter if my neighbor is a heroin addict? He's not bothering my life, why should I bother his. Am I right that we share this mentality towards such issues?

My quorum is such: No one should be driving after a heavy night of drinking. There are (to my knowledge) no laws which restrain one from how much alcohol they may consume. There is how ever a law against drunk driving. This is not because Big Brother knows what is best for me, but because it is common knowledge that they who drive intoxicated cause numerous problems for other people, potentially fatal problems. So if the drunkard wrecks his car into my car, and kills my 8 year old child, should there not be retribution? I suppose in an anarchial society I could kill him on the spot. That would be justice yes, but I see that as a slippery slope. A person's definition of justice varies. One day my dog may get loose, and kill my neighbors cat. My neighbor may not view it as the dogs fault, but rather my negligence, and there fore decides that my life is worth the life of his cat. How is that justice? My neighbor would not be punished by any arm of law (As he should.) and if the people in the community fear him, or feel that it is not their place to interfere, then my unjust death goes unpunished. How is this a society that one would want to live in?

You can go on and on about how anarchists do not condone murderous behavior. Few people do. But that does not eliminate that people will still commit these atrocities. I can not buy into the idea that murder, rape, etc are a result of civilization and society. As I said before I believe in a balance of all things. I admit my knowledge of anthropological history is limited, and certainly does not extend into societal norms, if in one of your links I read something that supports the idea of man in a state of nature as ultimately good, and provides for me a strong enough argument to think otherwise, great. Until then, my statements hold.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2007
Yes, we share the same mentality on laws that don't hurt others but not on laws that do. You still don't understand that crime is a product of this system, that it is a product of this civilization. In this system we are subjected to so much bullshit that it reflects upon peoples personal lives. If someone is poor and doing all they can to get ahead, working multiple jobs as a wage-slave, they are going to have it worse off than some rich mother fucker who got to the top exploiting others, that poor person is going to struggle their entire life, if they can't get ahead and are facing the loss of their home or whatever, they may resort to robbing a bank, or the life that they lead is so stressful that they might just come home and beat their kids, he might be under so much stress that he comes home and beats the shit out of his wife, etc. You have to look at the social relations which this society causes, and see it as a root cause of the problem. Certain consequences for the actions don't mean shit, you know that as well as I do, look at the statistics involved with this, if jail is such an effective deterrent then why do people continue to committ the crimes? Hell, for that matter why do the same people continue to end up in jail.
Ah, you see it as a slippery slope if you could kill him, but the State has the right to decide who lives or dies, a judge has the power to declare where you will go. Once again, a heavy night of drinking is a result of the social pressures and obligations which are enforced upon us, this way of life that we live, fuck think about all the bullshit in this world that is going on in your day to day life, are you really that happy? If you are, then you're either putting up a wall and lying to yourself or there is something seriously wrong with you. I shouldn't have to live in a society where I go out drinking because my life sucks so bad that it's my only option left. I know a guy who ended up throwing his back out because of work, as a result you would think he would get workmans comp, but no, they are refusing, so he has to do what he can to raise two kids under stressful situations and as a result he drinks a lot. Shit, think about how miserable we get just becuas eof the consumerist society that we get in, think about the debt that we are put into because we are conditioned to buy this or that. Don't give me a line that we don't have to buy this or that, becuase you don't have to obey the State, you don't have to be a part of civilization, you can work to overthrow it, but you do because you have been told to, because you have been conditioned to. You know what, lets put this in a different perspective since you are a libertarian. We live in a world where the CEO of a corporation can put out lead through air pollution, poisoning the air for the local children in that third world country because it is more cost effective to do so. Christ, do you eat meat? You murder an innocent animal everytime you consume a meat product, do you even know how they slaughter the cows? Have you put any thought to the fact that they domesticate animals, take away their nature, their freedom, and force them to live miserable lives so you can be a fucking fat asshole who consumes their flesh taking no responsibility at all for the continuation of that species' community? By your definition I should be able to lock you up. You put a humans life above an animals though, you are an anthrocentrist. I put all life as equal, so maybe I should have a right to lock you up because of it, that animals death is going unpunished, how can I tolerate that? What about the car you drive? How much pollution is that putting out? That's as a result increasing global warming, it's increasing carbon emissions. Global warming can kill massive amounts of people, your carbon emissions could result in your neighbor getting cancer. Or here's one, why not talk about the CEO's again since you want to talk about ordinary people continously. Are you aware that 3% of all carbon emissions in the world are put out by Exxon/Mobile? Do you know what that's doing? How can you even talk about the drunk driver when your society allows the CEO to play a destructive role in killing off of massive species for the sake of profit. And there are other examples but you tend to ignore them.
"You can go on and on about how anarchists do not condone murderous behavior. Few people do. But that does not eliminate that people will still commit these atrocities."
No shit, good for you for realizing this. That's not the point. The point that I was making is that once you put these people into power, once someone is in a position of power they play a destructive role. Hitler was an asshole who was racist and evil, out of power he couldn't do much, in power he started World War II. Pal Pot is another example. George Bush is another example, out of power just a bumbling idiot, in power he's an evil mother fucker. Same with the CEO of Exxon/Mobile.
" I can not buy into the idea that murder, rape, etc are a result of civilization and society."
That's because you limit yourself in thought to what you have been taught to believe and you refuse to open your mind and look to the root causes of the problem. I used to think just like you, believed the State was a neccessary thing and that anarchy was ridiculous, people are evil, but once you allow yourself to think what this society tells you not to, to question the things which are presented as unquestioned truths (morality is another example of this), you start to think differently about things and realize the bullshit that exists. You are a man who accepts what he believes because this is all you know, and you look towards what you see on the surface, never digging deeper.
" As I said before I believe in a balance of all things. "
But the State does not provide balance, the State provides discontent, why can't you get this through your head? Fuck, law and order are denying another human being of self-rule, another person of their right to decide right from wrong. You bring up all these examples of ordinary people but you always leave out the role that politicians play, the role that corporate executives play. Christ, what about the logger? What about the ordinary worker? You want to let all these people off the hook but because someone drives drunk, you want to throw them in jail if thye kill you. How things would be dealt with in an anarchist society would be up to the people and things would be based off of socially acceptable ideas. Think of it this way, why do you eat beef? Becuase it is socially acceptable to kill a cow. Why don't you go and skin your dog alive, slit his throat, hang him up by a meat hook, and let him bleed out slowly, and then cut him up afterwards and eat him for dinner? It's not socially acceptable. Likewise, theft and murder aren't socially acceptable, but people commit those actions out of desperation. You make presumptions based off of no details of facts, and always being an apologist for the State and the rich. Maybe you're just another privilaged asshole, I don't know, but it certainly always comes across as you are perfect and everyone else is flawed and so the State is there for your protection. Are you really naive enough to think that the State is always going to be on your side so long as you don't committ a crime? Just the other week a man was tasered by a cop, actually it was an owner of a restaurant, why did the cop do it? As a practical joke. The man owned the restaurant and went into the back of the store, his wife stayed up front and the cop asked her if she wanted to play along and see how funny it'll be, she said no, he ended up shooting the guy with the taser gun, the guy has a seizure, bites off part of his tongue, and ended up in the hospital.
This culture is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible when it is noticed it is always fully rationalized, violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher on the hierarchy is unthinkable and when it does happen it is met with shock, horror, and affection for the victims. Cops everyday in the us between 4 and 6 people die everyday because they encounter police. Those with power rule with force and the sooner we break ourselve with the illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can beign to make
reasonable decisions about where when and how we are going to exist.
The world you want to stay is full of flaws and based solely upon the concept of ownership and private property which you have now avoided. Those are key reasons for crimes in themselves, and the laws of the hand are here to uphold the "right" of the rich to hold onto their delusions that the pieces of paper they own are worth everything and to deny the poor the right to make the same claims. Think about how a cop handles a situation between two poor black people. They don't give a flying fuck, and sometimes they'll even arrest the victims for some stupid ass reason. The rich on the other hand have all their "rights" upheld. In this world those in power lay claim to everything,they own everything, every bit of land, every bit of food, everything, and so then we are given this concept of work, and we have to work our lives away for them, we have to do things for them against our will in order for them to give anything to us, and in order for them to give anything to us, they create this fictitious thing called money which doesn't concretely exist, and with this concept of money, they give us a little amount of pieces of paper which they already own, so that we may spend those pieces of paper on things that they are holding hostage so that they can gain that money back so that they can maintain their status quo. You want to continue with this idea, to uphold their right to do so, where I would rather steal from them in order to make things more equal. This in your mind is a crime and I should go to jail. If we create a world without this concept, I won't have any reason to steal, if we create a world where you dont have more then I do, and I don't have more than you do, neither of us have a right to steal. Crime is a product of the breakdown of the social order which is caused by social inequality, Capitalism upholds social inequality.
And I'm not saying anarchists always condemn murderous behavior, but we're not going to put down some moral rule that says you can't murder someone and you can, like your glorious world does. We're not going to put down some moral rule that says no one can murder. We're not going to tell anyone what to do. The concept of "justus" is nothing without freedom. You can have all the justice you want but if you aren't free it doesn't mean shit. A world needs to exist where healthy human relations can exist and where you have no motivation to do these things. If you murder someone, then no, no one is going to lock you up, but if people don't condone that behavior then they are going to ignore you, they aren't going to help you out, they aren't going to tell you about what is happening in the community, and they will ostracize you as previously stated, lets put it this is one option as previously stated, and this is more effective then putting people in jail. Christ, jail is a joke anyways, we're already in prison, we're already told what we can and cannot do, don't act as if this is freedom.
Here's the thing though, all of these concepts which you put forth, all of the questions, they ignore the fact that this civilization is systematically killing the planet. They ignore the fact that the Earth is being destroyed and we aren't living a sustainable lifestyle. All of this shit that you and I talk about, none of it fucking matters when it comes down to a few different things. We can have an anarchist society, we can have a libertarian society, we can have a capitalist society, or a socialist society even, but none of it fucking matters if I can't breathe the god damned air as I previoulsy mentioned. None of it matters if there is no food left to eat because we've killed off every species on Earth for the sake of profit. Because you've killed off all of the salmon cause you felt electricity was more important than their lives. It doesn't matter if you've killed off all the whales because you were searching for oil and so you gave such high bursts of noise that it killed them. This culture is based on the destruction of the natural world, and you want to uphold that. Power upholds the right for the rich and for this culture to destroy the natural world, and without the natural world we are fucked. The needs of the natural world are more important than the economic system, but in the world you enjoy living in, it is assbackwards and you act as if the needs of the economic system are more important. You look for violence of individual people lower in the hierarchy committed against others lower in the hierarchy or those higher in it, but fail to see the connection between this way of life based on violence. Civilization itself is a way of life characterized by violence, it is impossible for it not to be violent. Civilization is characterized by the growth and existance of cities, I'm sure I mentioned htis but in case I haven't, cities are a collection of people living large enough in number large enough to reqiure the importation of resources. You cannot have cities without violence. Once you import goods, you have to use violence in ordre to get the members of the other community to give up those essential things they need for survival, because they aren't willingly going to give everything up for you to have, so you have to take it. Or, here's an example, you have to work, why do you have to work? Basically so you can buy food. So what that says is that if you don't have money, then you can't buy food. If you go into the grocery store and start eating cause there is a lot of food there obviously, what is going to happen? The sherrif is going to come and arrest you, well, that is characterized by force, which is violence, he's going to pull a gun on you and maybe even shoot you if you try to run away (it happened here this year actually) just for something as simple as eating food. Christ, for that matter, where was your shirt made that your wearing? Do I even have to go into that? You are so worried about violent actions of individual people but you fail to see that this whole way of life is based on violence, and so by your theory, everyone should be put in jail. I have blood on my hands as I have participated in this economy, as you have blood on your hands for participating in it. We are all guilty, don't act as if you are any more innocent than a murderer or a rapist, cause you allow this civilization to exist which characterizes all of these horrible behaviors. Civilization exists which kills off sharks every year for pleasure, which cuts down the rain forests killing millions of species for the sake of profit, which gives people cancer, etc. Your solution to the problem still keeps industrial civilization and that's madness, it cannot be that way, you can't have your cake and eat it to as the saying goes, because this civilization is murderous, and it is based off of the murder of millions of people.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2007
Btw, I was thinking about your comment. Your idea that anarchy will create war and totalitarianism is based on the unquestioned premise that hierarchy, civilization, and this system do not, when in fact totalitarianism and war are a very product of those three things. You cannot have tyranical behavior in an anarchist society, it is impossible, because it is not an anarchist society, and please if nothing else, address to me how it didn't happen for billions of years with mans evolutionary ancestors but somehow you believe it is all the sudden going to happen now. And also, why did it not happen in Spain, and the other examples. Capitalism leads to tyranical behavior, Christ, look at work alone as an example for this. You also have the assumption that you can be free when someone is telling you what to do. That you can be free when you have to obey laws. I encourage you to read up more an anarchy with the links i gave you, you will find it will provide much more freedom for you than minimul government.
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2007   Interface Designer
Well, if anarchy existed for billions of years, that hierarchy some how never existed (mind you it will always exist at the family level) then that proves that anarchy does in fact lead to totalitarianism. If it existed, and is what it is now, in the grand scheme, it leads to tyranny. The evolution of government if you will takes billions of years as does the evolution of life. Anarchy does not exist in Spain presently (correct me if I am wrong in this, but the Spanish I've spoken with never mentioned any such thing.) Thus further enforcing my belief that anarchy can not exist (or at least can not maintain.)

I will read the links provided upon my recieving more time (with the holidays and preparations that must be made in my move to Florida, it may be a few weeks.) but I can't think of any argument that would make me want a government that tells me 'don't kill people!' as I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2007
It's inaccurate to say that anarchy lead to that. Anarchy never ended because people voluntarily chose to adapt the way of civilization, but because it was forced upon them. It's two different ways of life that you can't compare, it's like saying because a library ended up being torn down and was replaced with a Wal-mart, libraries lead to Wal-marts. No, hierarchy didn't exist at the family level either, anthropology is an area that I am knowledgable in actually and if you like at it, it teaches us that hierarchy didn't exist in any form before 6,000 years ago. Anarchy still exists in our everyday relationships everytime you have a voluntary relationship, everytime there is equality, everytime decisions are made collectively and no one enforces their will upon another, it's just that it doesn't exist completely, hierarchy has to have anarchy within it, but anarchy can't have hierarchy within it. If you want better examples you can look at ants, honey bee's, and many animal and insect species out there. There was actually an article in national geographic on swarm intelligence in various species, the ants being one example, in which there is no hierarchical authority and they all work together in mutual aid with no centralized authority and no management or anything. The question is, if it can work for animals and insects, and bugs, why can't it exist for humans? Of course it doesn't exist in Spain, there is a government in place, but the point is that it did exist, and it was successful when it did, it was during the Spanish revolution and they maintained it while they were fighting a war, there is also the Paris Commune, and countless other examples, and the Zapista movement currently which has anarchist thought although not completely anarchist. Lets put it this way, you don't trust people, because you have been convinced that people aren't to be trusted, the government has to make you believe that it is there for the protection of the people, because otherwise it is useless and those in power want to remain in power, but as you can see from the billions of years of anarchy existing, there was never a Holocaust, or a World War, or mass genocide, or any of that other stuff we have become familiar with. Anarchy has already existed and does exist, so you cannot say that it cannot exist, that by principle is like saying the Sun cannot exist when it is already there, or that the food that you consumed couldn't exist because you ate it. Hierarchy, civilization, cannot be maintained, they lead to the destruction of the natural world. Once you have power, powre will continue to centralize itself which is why you can't have minimal government, because power is the ultimate of all addictions and the people who love that fix will continue to want more and more power. We must eliminate power all together. It won't have billions of years to evolve, because government won't last that long, this way of life won't last that long, it's just a matter of how long it will last. We'll go back to the stone age sometime, yes, that sounds ridiculous to you probably but it is the only level of technology that is sustainable. I provided you with a link to infoshop.org which is perhaps the most valuable for a basic introduction to anarchy with their faq, although I do not agree with everything they say, and I would reccomend the green anarchy mag and CrimethInc more than anything.
Lets put it this way, if you are going to say anarchy doesn't work then you are going to have to find a way to convince me that the postal service doesn't work, affinity groups do not work, the black bloc does not work, Food Not Bombs groups do not work, Critical Masses do not work, anarchist community squats do not work, the actions of anarchists at the WTO in 1999 weren't effective, etc etc. That's another thing that should be noted, if anarchy leads to totalitarianism then anarchist action would ultimately lead to totalitarianism, but in fact anarchists have been involved in taking down many totalitarian regimes and still are working towards taking them down. We're working towards overthrowing the government and the system which is totalitarian, you're looking at electing someone new.
"I can't think of any argument that would make me want a government that tells me 'don't kill people!' as I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature."
This statement makes no sense so I don't know what you're getting at. And in an anarchist State there is no government, and no one tells anyone else whta to do, I cannot tell you what to do, you cannot tell me what to do. As far as the crime thing that you apparently are worried about, "crime" which is completley an arbitrary and manmade thing, but things such as murder and rape, no anarchist is for those things, but the people who do these things do it becuase of the social circumstances which exist, primarily because of capitalism, or they aren't mentally sane, which this culture and system also doesn't deal with mental health in a proper way. Anarchists have set up radical mental health discussion meetings which are free from judgment and are much more successful then just locking someone up or shoving pills down their throat like this system would have us do.
"I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature."
If people are that untrust worthy, that dangerous, and flat out horrible, well, first of all, lets put it this way, you don't trust people in their civilized way without law, which is understandable as I do not either, in their natural state of nature when they haven't been domesticated, they are different and they aren't at all like you think or this species wouldn't exist today, as the uncivilized human beings lived in a much more peaceful cooperative way. Still, if you don't trust people that much then I'm curious how you really believe that the law is going to stop them from doing anything. Obviously the law has no effect, and jail doesn't do shit to stop people from committing crimes. Also, your argument holds a certain arrogance through all of this as if you are perfect enough to allow this to exist but it is everyone else who is flawed, when it is you yourself who are electing people into positions of power-see the contradiction here?
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2007   Interface Designer
Billions of years ago the population wasn't near to what is now, or even 6000 years ago. I believe it is the inevitable increase in population, forcing persons into tighter and tighter corners which develop the concept of property, which cause people to begin to mistrust their fellow man, and lead them to seek protection be it in some feudal sense, or a less restrictive one such as minimal government.

You say 'no one tells anyone else what to do.' You re-affirm that no anarchist stands for those acts, and mention that a consul of sorts is formed to discuss and deal with the mentally ill. Does this consul consist of all parties of the community? or is it decided upon via perhaps a vote? or is it encouraged that all members of the community attend these meetings? or just any interested in deciding how to best deal with such issues attend? In either scenario, hierarchy will develop in some minor form, or so it would seem.

It's not necessarily arrogance, but rather a belief in balance. Where this is good there must be bad. So if I am a pacifist, surely there must be someone whom loves to fight! Regardless of governmental rules/influence.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2007
"Billions of years ago the population wasn't near to what is now, or even 6000 years ago. I believe it is the inevitable increase in population,"
Yes, that is correct, and we have overreached the carrying capacity, we have too many god damned people and we will eventually have lesser population cause there is no way this population size can ever be sustainable and it will crash. I am not saying lets go and kill people, nor am I saying lets force people to have this amount of kids, just to clear that up, but I am saying that we do have too many people and that will eventually be something that will be no more. We can't have this many people, it is an environmental and social issue, it's not the number one issue but it is one of the many roots of the problem.
"

You say 'no one tells anyone else what to do.' You re-affirm that no anarchist stands for those acts, and mention that a consul of sorts is formed to discuss and deal with the mentally ill. Does this consul consist of all parties of the community? or is it decided upon via perhaps a vote? or is it encouraged that all members of the community attend these meetings? or just any interested in deciding how to best deal with such issues attend? In either scenario, hierarchy will develop in some minor form, or so it would seem."
No, hierarchy won't develop, and meeting such as these are already being held in Modesto, California. I never said that a consul is formed, I said it could be one way in which it could be addressed. You must keep in mind that we don't wish to force a new world upon anybody, we don't wish to force a certain way of life or anything at all upon anybody. We have ideas, key word there being ideas, as to how society should be. Obviously however, there are underlying things that make an anarchist society an anarchist society which is that there is no hierarchical authority, everyone is free, communities are autonomous, everyone is equal, there is no law, and there are principles of mutual aid. How a community decides to be isn't up to us, we're not Communists, a community could decide to have principles of green anarchy, or some other form of anarchy, it's not up to us to decide alone, it's up for everyone, how a community will deal with issues is something that community has to work out, I merely bring up examples of how it could work, and how it has worked in the past as examples of how it could work in the future if people so choose. No one would force anyone to show up to the meetings though, no one would force anything upon that person. If someone is raping their wife continuously, and beating their family, saying hypathetically of course this scenario will still be common, then the community can ostracize them and have nothing else to do with them, and then they would have to try and find somewhere else to go. You are desperate to make a connection that everything will come to have hierarchy, and yet you still fail to explain how communities can exist today without hierarchy arising, indeed, communities that have existed for thousands of years such as the Jarawa tribe on India's isolated Anadaman Island which has existed for tens of thousands of years, for more on this you can read [link];printIssueId=4&writingId=153 .Furthermore, hierarchy only exists if the people allow it to, just as government only exists if people allow it too, the State itself is an abstract idea just as civilization is. If people agree to be ruled over, they will be ruled over, if they don't, they won't, it's that simple, you cannot impose an abstraction on the masses if they do not comply, that is why people have had to be domesticated and conditioned, they have had to have the thought instilled in their minds since day one that a world cannot exist without hierarchy, much as you cannot imagine that it can't, denying all facts presented in front of you as you grasp for some connection as if life wouldn't truly be better without government.
Lets for the sake of argument say anarchy does have some form of hierarchy (which is completely contradictory to what it is so it would no longer be anarchy) and it does have chaos, and there is murder and such. Do you honestly believe that things would be better with a society based ultimately upon hierarchy than a society based upon anarchy? Fuck, everything successful works because of anarchy, hierarchy fucks everything up. Look at where you work if you work, the higher up the hierarchy you go, the less the mother fuckers do and the more lazy they are, and thye are cashing in off of exploiting you. How much could you get done if not for the boss? Do you and your co-workers sit around and do nothing when the boss isn't eyeing your every action? How about love. Have you ever loved somebody? Hierarchy leads to abuse in a relationship, anarchy within a relationship leads to a strong connection in which both people in the relationship are equally giving to each other and working for the relationship. Um, lets see what else, well, here we go, when you hang out with friends, are you all equal, do you make decisions based on consensus or does one person just do whatever he wants and the rest just follow a long? It seems to me that you like being a tool for the State to use, that you like being used, is this true? Do you like knowing that your life has no worth, no value, other than to help reaffirm the position of the rich? Do you like the idea that your life can be taken at any moment if it constitutes a threat to private property, as obviously private property in this society is held above life itself.
"It's not necessarily arrogance, but rather a belief in balance. "
To consult the chaos theory, chaos is order, and order is apparently what you seek. Look at this orderly society we have now, where does it get us? It creates crime, it breeds discontent, it's a fucking mad world out there.
"Where this is good there must be bad."
Perhaps there will always be bad, yes, but you have a doubt in people's ability to take care of things. The people don't do shit in this society because they are reliant on someone else to do it for them, they are reliant on the police or the judge to solve problems for them, instead of solving problems themselves. If there is bad, you have to ask which will bring more bad. When you have someone in a position of power where they have no accountability at all (and don't even give me that bullshit of democracy, if you are even fucking naive enough to think democracy works then I don't know what the hell to tell you) they are going to do whatever they want and get away with it. I'm not advocating a world without accountability, but it's curious where your questoins arise. Look at this way, is it your neighbor, the janitor who is going out and destroying the rain forest? No, it's the CEO of a corporation that is responsible for that. Is it the guy who works at McDonalds who is causing massive destruction to the rain forest? No, it's the people at the top of the hierarchy. Is it the American people who told this government that a war with Iraq has to be had, or was it the government that manipulated the people into going into it? Is it the government wanting to create more nuclear weapons (choose any government here) or is it me and you? Did you give money to the Israeli government to occupy Palestine? No, the government did. Lets look at the terrorist attacks that have happened, what has caused terrorist attacks throughout time? Religion, government, land disputes, nationalism, all hierarchical things, you didn't see the Indians who had no concept of land ownership going out and killing each other because another tribe got to the spot where they were going first, no, they went somewhere else cause they didn't get there first. Was it the Brethren of the Free Spirit who killed members of the Catholic Church or vice versa? Was it atheists who started holy wars? Was it pagans who went out to kill every Christian out there, calling them heathens? In what cause has the greatest genocides every been perpretrated, in the name of anarchy or hierarchy? What creates slavery, hierarchy or anarchy? Who is victimizing children in third world countries so that they will make clothing for a fraction of a cent? What started the civil war? Christ, for that matter, what was the revolutionary war about? Since yo udon't know that last one I'm sure, I'll enlighten you. The Revolutionary War was started over the fact that some greedy assholes (one of them your hero Jefferson) wanted more fucking land than they were being allowed to own, they wanted a monopoly on shit, and with that, the government wouldn't steal all the land that the Indians were living on, the land that they wanted, and they refused to go and kill the Indians (oh yeah, there's another thing for you, manifest destiny, you want to blame that on the Indians?), they wanted more money, and they wnated to be in control, they were true capitalists, the things that you love in the Constitution, the things that your hero loves, they came as a result of compromises because they knew the people wouldn't be satisfied without them, but they weren't too hell-bent on the ideas, and actually opposed to them. I would recommend Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States. So you see, there are endless examples, and when has accountability been held for these people? Very rarely, especially if they were Christian, white, and Amerikan. You are afraid of the everyday common man, I am not afraid of the everyday common man unless he is in a position of power to perpretrate these crimes against the people. Hitler didn't perpretrate his crimes as a citizen with no power, it was only when he had power that he carried them out.
"So if I am a pacifist, surely there must be someone whom loves to fight! Regardless of governmental rules/influence."
Love doesn't imply pacifism. Apparently you have no love? I'm no passavist, and I'm ready to fight to create a better world, it's a hell of a lot better than being ready to die for an abstraction such as the State. Anarchists are the ones who fight regardless of governmental rules/influence, don't act like the people who want government are really heroes. Have you ever herad of the Haymarket Martyrs? How about Sacco and Vanzetti? Have you ever herad of the Earth Liberation Front, the Animal Liberation Front, or Earth First!? Those are cases of people fighting for things that libertarians would never dream of doing, especially since they are all based on the premises of direct action (that is, eliminating the middle man, something you want to uphold-direct action is what an anarchist society would be based on).
Reply
:iconladyglass:
ladyglass Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2007  Hobbyist Artist
Wow, I will have to come back and read all of that above later. lol. Looks interesting
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2007
I am also curious as to how you can put your faith for the men who are in charge of everything, in charge of you, in charge of governing over us all to be trusted in a set of anarchy, that is to have no one telling them what to do, but you can't trust the population at large to exist in anarchy and have it work?
The men you elect to government are just as flawed as everyone else, and as obviously seen, rules and laws don't apply to them even if they do exist (Bush is a prime example of this, along with many other war criminals).
"The Government" is but a set of men, mostly as big fools as you, or I, many of them bigger. You seem to however hold them up to this Godlike status as if they do know what's best for everything, but you, well, your too ignorant and the rest of us are too foolish. Or is that you would make anarchy work but the flaw is everyone else, because we all know that you, well, you are perfect, you are great, as are those elite few that are elected to office, but the rest of us however, we are just scum?
Really, if you look at it, government is the thing that doesn't work, look at all the shit hierarchy has brought us: World War I, World War II, the Cold War, The Holocaust, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Gulf War I and II, the Mexican American War, the genocide that Saddam committed, Depleted Uranium bombs being used by the United States, Cluster Bombs being used by the United States, Vietnam War (which Agent Orange was used in to kill people), the Rwandan Genocide, the Sudanese Genocide, etc. These conflicts exist because of government, not because of anarchy, wars a product of civilization and hierarchy, a product of the arbitrary concepts of ownership. Oh, also with your precious civilization and power, we have half a million children dying every year as a direct result of debt repayment from the so-called third world to the so-called first world. Millions have died of cancer, and millions more will die, and millions more will be diagnosed. We also have Crohn's disease, asthma, and many more. Shit, look at how many people have died as a result of the Cross, Christianity. Look at the Holy Wars, look at the Inquisition, look at The Crusades. You can see countless examples of "religious" groups with anarchist thinking living outside of the Catholic Church's control, such as the Brethren of the Free Spirit, only for the Catholic Church to kill them. Or shit, we have manifest destiny. The greatest murders ever perpretrated upon people were the result of civilization and hierarchy. Look at the Pilgrims, the Indians fed them and were great to them (thanksgiving is even modeled after this), and then because the Indian way of life was appealing to many, there were people who were leaving the camps and going and getting naked and dancing, living freely, but this couldn't be tolerated so those in charge decided they had to kill the Indians.
It still is curious to me why you would reject anarchy when you want the most personal freedom, I would still enjoy a response to this. Anarchy is but the most personal freedom for us all, it is a world without the rules and restrictions that hold you back in this world, based upon voluntary relationships, not force.
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2007   Interface Designer
Comtemptious-Morale,

I do not have time to respond to every point you make but there are two that you make which I feel are the core of our friction. The first being why anarchy can not exist, and the second is less direct, but the death of innocents.

As for the first, I believe that you and I agree a large part on the massive abuse sustained by governments. All of the events of history which you listed are propagated by Western Civilization. No doubt about that, and it is a sick abuse of power. However we differ in our solutions. You feel anarchy is a reasonable solution, I feel one step up from that, minimal government, is a reasonable solution.

In anarchy (and please feel free to correct me if my definition is missing something) small communities govern themselves. An ultra minimal government if you will. Within these communities a culture will develop, there is no doubt about this. Now, there is no reason to assume that each of these cultures will develop peacefully, and that war-bringing cultures will too develop. Now, I believe property (be it privately or publicly owned) is a motivating factor for any people, and that by human nature, they will want more (either out of greed, or because it is necessary to sustain their growing population, again, assuming that it grows.) Now, why would anyone expect the peaceful communities to be able to withstand against those which must conquer for glory? That is why anarchy can not exist, as even the pacifist wishes to be defended. So the state develops in order to protect its people. (Hell, even if a state was never formed, there would eventually be nothing but war-bringer communities, and one would inevitably dominate the others, leaving, technically, one state.) You are right, it requires a tremendous amount of faith on part of the people, to give other people that much potential power, but the people also reserve the right to revolution should they feel it necessary.

As for the second issue which you indirectly brought up, of millions of innocent children dying in the '3rd' world in order to maintain the lifestyles of the '1st' (western) world, I feel that is an issue for those countries to deal with on their own.

Yes, how Western Corporations take advantage of these '3rd' world areas is disgusting, but it is not the role of the State (America, Britain, w/e) to tell them to change their ways. What needs done is Americans boy cotting those businesses which they feel are making other peoples lives worse (as I do with Wal-Mart.) Then again, life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life,...

Unfortunately a minimal state can only exist in a morally prevalent society. A people must be able, but more importantly, willing to help their fellow man out. A communities people must be willing to clothe, feed, and offer a shelter for their meek, and not let them rot in a miserable existence, cold and hungary. This sort of charity need not exist through the State as seems to be the case most often now.

In short, I don't embrace anarchy as I do not feel it offers reasonable protection, and as a result promotes tyranical behavior, thus effectively reducing ones personal freedom (As you have no freedom if you are dead.) A State is developed to protect its people. Uphold contracts. and to deal with interstate commerce (the last is restricted to countries or unions such as the USA and the EU. If each state, or each country in the EU, had its own tariff laws, that would not promote a very strong economy.)

"Ally with none. Trade with all." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2007
You know, I really didn't care for you to respond to my every point, the one question I wanted to know above all others is the one you refused to respond to and the one that I knew you would ignore. If anarchy cannot exist, then why does it exist, and how has it existed for billions of years? Anarchy exists in our everyday life, even the Post Office for Christs sake has anarchist tendencies (decentralized while they are delivering the mail, no authority whatsoever), and there are the other examples I mentioned.
You can call it self-governing communities if you want, fuck you can call it candycane land for all I give a flying fuck, words are arbitrary, you want to have hierarchy, the anarchist wants to get rid of all hierarchy. Yes, private property will always create war, it will always create hierarchy, that is when all of this madness started is with the creation of the myth of private property, which is why the anarchist always argues against private property, we want a society without it. Before civilizatoin there was no such thing as private property.
The State however, does not protect its people. State's wage war, they committ genocide, they steal land from others, they create empires, etc. It is the State at work when a cop goes and tasers an innocent person, when a cop shoots someone because thye are stealing because this system has created such inequality that it has broken down the social order.
You fail to understand that anarchy is about more than just bringing down the State, we aren't just opposed to government, we are opposed to all hierarchy in whatever form it exists in which I believe I mentioned, so that means social hierarchies such as homophobia, racism, etc, or hierarchies such as the State, Church, Corporation, etc. This system is built upon hierarchy, and it is built upon slavery, as is this civilization, which is why we must get rid of both. Eventually, all of this shit will go, it's just a matter of when and whether we're willing to wait for the change to be forced upon us when we've used all of the "resources" on this Earth, or whether we'll put a stop to it before. Ignore authority and all that other shit, the basic fact is, is that the systme you want is not sustainable, and if it is not sustainable, it cannot work.
You don't embrace anarchy because you don't understand it, tyranical behavior isn't anarchy, that is the exact opposite of it. Since you like Jefferson so much, lets end this with a quote on your page:
"I'd rather suffer the inconveniences of too much liberty, than too little. -Jefferson"
You do realize of course that is the ultimate statement of support for anarchy? Anarchy is the ultimate personal freedom for all in a society where we work (not really "work as we define it now) together in mutual aid, where we are autonomous and make decisions collectively. There is no decision maker, there is no ruler in anarchy, everyone comes together to make decisions themselves. You want to call this self-governing communities, fine, I don't care, call it what you will, lets have self-governing communities then.
I reccomend Derrick Jensen's book, "Endgame", it may help you to see things in a little different light in terms of this system and this civilization. Anarchists don't just want to tear down the government, we want the whole fucking system to go.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Hell, if you want critique on the system from people who believe in government and democracy, you can go to [link] to see how fucked shit is, or read Noam Chomsky (even though I do dissagree with Chomsky on a number of issues) but fucking do your homework before you even start to make such foolish assumptions cause you just look like an ass
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2007   Interface Designer
Dude, I agree with you, but I still hold that the State's role is to protect. Whether it does that now or not is debatable (though I believe anyone who is paying attention will with out a doubt say that it does not full fill that purpose.) The libertarian ideal is to return government to that role. Whether it ever was there or not, is again debatable.

Concerning why anarchy exists present day: I believe it is more than reasonable to expect that individual communities can exist without hierarchy, just look at the Holler's of Kentucky (google Shelby Lee Adams to see what I'm talking about.) but I find it difficult to believe that the entire world, the entire population, could ever exist as such, and there fore I promote a minimal government whose only laws are that which protect its peoples personal liberty. Obviously there must be laws against murder, rape, etc. If you disagree, then you prove my point that anarchy does not promote personal liberty.

But make no mistake, I agree with you, the current state of affairs sucks. Police abuse of power runs rampant all across the globe and big business funds both sides of each war. It's disgusting.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2007
I do become a prick when I argue with people on this stuff so don't take it personally or as if I'm trying to start a fight, but I always end up coming out that way to ge tacross my points.
I am asking you to abandon hypathetical assumptions and look at actual examples of anarchy vs hierarchy and see that with hierarchy comes violence and the only protection that exists with the State is as you previously said for private property, and the rich of course. It doesn't exist to protect the common people, it exists to protect those in the higher hierarchy, and those in the higher hierarchy will always committ violence against those in the lower hierarchy, which is acceptable so long as the violence flows down, but once the violence flows up, then it all the sudden is seen as people are flawed. The better question is, why can't we protect ourselves? Why do we need police to protect us? Hell, look at how slow of a reaction time police get, and shit for that matter look at whether or not they will actually even respond. Yes, I know libertarian ideas are different for the way the world should be but I am saying that it has always been this way. I am well familiar with the libertarian perspective, but it is more than minimul government which you are advocating, it is still this system and this system is based off of violence by nature, as is civilization.
Laws aren't needed. Laws, and rules are a product of civilization and they restrict our freedom and our movement. Laws do not protect personal liberty, they only restrict it. Obviously, rape, and murder are both hierarchical actions, they are putting you in a position of power above someone else so I obviously don't agree with that, but we should live in a world where we don't have the motivation to do such things. This system creates discontent, prime example once again is work, if you look at this discontent people have, of course they are going to take up destructive behavior, but we need a world where they have no reason to do this type of behavior. However, if you put people in positions of power than they answer to themselves with every action they do but they have the ability to screw with the lives of millions of people at it, so they can create nuclear weapons and go and bomb some country, or what have you. The point is, the government is a tool of civilization to enforce this way of life that the system upholds. Look, you need to rethink personal freedom away from what you have been brought to believe, freedom isn't being allowed to do something or to not do something, freedom is having no restrictions on you whatsoever. That is what we seek, and yes, we seek a world of absolute personal freedom, but you have to make it so we have no motivation to fuck with each other. If we have no private property, no concept of ownership, well, that right there rules out theft and war (which the system is the biggest thief of land there is, not people.). I mean, Christ, you talk about freedom but we've been domesticated, how is that freedom? Domestication being the controlling, taming, breeding, and modification of life for human benefit (usually for those in power or those striving for power). Humans are domesticated just as non-human animals are.
"I believe it is more than reasonable to expect that individual communities can exist without hierarchy..."
Exactly. And that is all we want, we want small-scaled communities where we can make decisions with each other without representation and without anyone else telling us what to do or imposing their way on us. It would be a disaster if the whole world just all the sudden became one giant community in which we all came under one anarchist society, as in not seperated at all, and we decided everything together, it would never work and that is why when you set things in that way you have to have representation and government. When you have small communities though that are each autonomous and independent, and each makes decisions for their own community alone, it can work on a worldwide scale as it has before. As I have said, hierarchy, civilization, this way of life in general, laws and rules, they have only existed for the past 6,000 years, before that, it wasn't this way.
I'm glad we can agree with that current state of affairs sucks. I bring this up not to recruit you to becoming an anarchist as that is not my goal, nor is it my goal to keep you a libertarian obviously. I am trying to show you that the product of these problems is the system, it is the civilization and the culture itself which we are based off of. Look at it this way, this system is destroying everything, this civilization is destroying everything, with no regard for life whether human or non-human, and this government is a product of that system and civilization, and all government is whether we get rid of this one and put in a "smaller" one or not. You love freedom, I do too, but what does it matter if we can't fucking breathe cause of this god damned system? If we can't drink the water? If our lives are just a matter of being passive observers sitting in front of a television and hating life every moment we are outside of work which is the most humilitating degarding experience there is, what does freedom matter then, if you can even define that as freedom? I mean, the libertarian perspective is to make the government smaller yes, but what about the corporations? You want to end restrictions on them, you want to end regulations and laws against them polluting the environment in this idea that they are somehow not going to do it because a true free market will create competition and competition will somehow do everything great in this way, but they already don't abide by laws and pollute. I mean, Christ, how can you trust a system which puts toxic waste in your toothpaste of all fucking things? Look deeper at the system as opposed to just the government, and you recognize that it is all really fucked up and the only solution is to get rid of it all.
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2007   Interface Designer
Yes, Corporations suck. A Central Banking System sucks. I'll read the links you gave me and give it more thought. But this all started with you calling Ron Paul a white supremacist, which is an absolute falsehood. We can disagree with political philosophy, but to attack Dr. Paul in such a malevolent manner was/is uncalled for.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2007
" After all the White Supremacists do adore him, and what's not to like about that?"
I never said he was a White Supremacist, I said he had the backing of White Supremacists, I don't know whether he is or isn't, and I'll attack Paul in a malevolent manner in whatever way I please cause he's just another piece of shit capitalist who should fucking rot.
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2007
What's not to love about woman's rights denying, racist, gay-hating, war loving, free market capitalist? After all the White Supremacists do adore him, and what's not to like about that? After all, I mean, all of these things really differ from the other Republicans and all, they aren't like that at all, they are damned socialists!
Sure, Paul sounds great to all you people trying to reform the system, he advocates this great thing and that great thing, but then you always fail to mention the economic policies which he supports, and the fact that he does believe in capitalism the most exploitative of all systems. The principles behind libertarianism are completely flawed and while they do benefit big bussiness, they fuck over everyone else.
It always amazes me how anyone can be stupid enough to vote, what is the point in giving up your authority over yourself, your right to self-rule? The idea that you would voluntarily allow yourself to be governed is beyond me, no matter who the fuck the candidate is.
Doesn't matter anyways, cause your hero won't win, he's just another figure that you put your hope into like the progressives put their hope into Dennis Kucinich, neither one of them will win. Even if they did get the votes, which they won't, you'd also have to have to go through the Congress, and they have to vote, and you can't honestly think that they are going to put him in office.
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2007   Interface Designer
oh, btw, I am guilty of not doing the direct research either, but this is a great follow up to your disgusting slander of Ron Paul (attack his philosophies all you like, this is in direct response to your racist white supremacist comments.)

[link]

the NY Times reported that Paul had met with neo-nazi's and other such groups and accepted donations from them. Turns out neither is true. Oh damn, look at that. Paul is the cleanest politician ever. Why don't more people (anarchists aside) want to vote for him?
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2007
Again, you're missing the point, I never said that he was taking money from neo-nazi groups, I never said he was directly connected to them, I said that Ron Paul is a favorable candidate by white supremacist groups, whether he supports them or not is irrelevant and I don't fault him for who does or does not support him, he is at fault for having views which a white supremacist would support. Paul is not a clean candidate just cause he doesn't take money from white supremacist groups, that's irrelevant. He's still another crooked politician who wants to uphold a system based on domination, exploitation, alienation, and systematic destruction of the natural world which no one regardless of their political beliefs should support. It's not a disgusting slander, it's a point that he is supported by White Supremacists, you can't deny this. It's interesting though how you choose to isolate this factor alone and leave out all the other things. You are willing to support a candidate that will make laws harsher on the people, easier on the corporations, and will put more people in jail. You are supporting a candidate that is going to go along with ecocide and continue to aid those in the destruction of the Earth. Paul hasn't spoken on the need to stop deforestation, in fact, I'd place money on the fact that he's one of those idiots that is going to say that deforestation helps to prevent forest fires when this is a false statement. Derrick Jensen had a good point when he siad, "any economic or social system that doesn't beneift the natural communities in which its based is unsustainable, immoral, and really stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence as well as justice require dismantling of any such economic or social system
or at the very least the prolonging of the damage of any such natural land base" Ron Paul (as well as the other candidates, this isn't by any means just Paul who is at fault on all of these issues, it is all the politicians and all the candidates) wants to uphold this economic and social system which will destroy the natural communities, I'm on the planets side and so should everyone else because we need the planet to survive obviously. The Forest Service has been selling 500-year-old trees for about the price of a cheeseburger. The Forest Service recovers only a fraction of the subsidy, which costs the taxpayers about $40 million a year. Show me one time when Paul has even mentioned this and a need to do something about it. Fuck, tell me what he's proposing to do about the massive extinction of species, how about the honey bee's dying because of genetically modified crops? What does he plan to do about the fact that every vegetable I consume has pesticides on it and if I don't want to eat pesticides then I have to be privilaged enough to have the amount of money to buy organic. What is he going to do about the corporations polluting the Earth? Oh he's going to make it easier for them to do so by lessening regulations.
Here's an example, you all love Paul and one of the main statements used in support of him is the fact that he didn't support the Iraq war, this is a very misleading statement because Paul was opposed to the Iraq war because there wasn't a congressional declaration of war, and he in fact tried to get the congress to declare war in which there was a vote that he voted yes on, but ultimately fell short of overall passing.
I don't care what reasons people have for not voting for him, the point is they shouldn't be voting at all because no one knows what is better for you than you, therefore no one should represent yourself but yourself and putting power into the hands of human beings who are just as full of errors as you and I is illogical. To give someone ultimate power to rule the lives of people is asking for trouble as can obvioulsy be seen. Civilization itself is based upon the domination of the majority of a species by a small minority of it. To vote is to cast an approval for the system, for hierarchy, and to allow someone else to run your life for you when only you know what is best. Freud said it best when he said: “civilization is something which was imposed on a resisting majority by a minority which understood how to obtain possession of the means of power and coercion.” You want to continue along this path as do the others who want to vote, I want to get rid of it. No one should vote for we should all realize we are above all institutions and all formulas; that they exist only so far as we choose to make them our own by accepting them. When you see clearly that you are the measure of the universe, that everything that exists exists for you only so far as it is reflected in your own consciousness, you become a new person; you see everything by a new light: you stand on a height and feel the fresh air blowing on your face; and find new strength and glory in it. We must realize that "The Government" is but a set of men, mostly as big fools as all of us, many of them bigger. The burden is on you to prove that we even need authority figures to vote for and that we wouldn't be better off living in a post-primitive society without government, rules, regulations, and law. Here's a few more links for you to check up on:
[link] (I would reccomend you read this one if you read no other links I have given you)
[link]
[link]
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2007   Interface Designer
no really, you're not reading, and I admit i only read the first 2 sentences as I am in an incredible rush, but Ron Paul neither took money from those groups, nor have those groups endorsed him in anyway. The only view he would share with those groups, are the same views you and I share: This world is fucked up, and decreasing the size of the government seems to be the only answer (baby steps toward your total disestablishment.) and no, look into his voting record, his history, etc. There are no special interests in his back pocket. His voting record is 100% consistent throughout all of his years in congress. There is nothing crooked about this man. Look into his history. In anycase, have a happy new year! I've got an 18 hour drive to Fla to trek starting tomorrow!
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2007
I'm not talking about those groups, and if you look at those links I gave you in my first or second comment, I forget which, I gave you links to white supremacist nazi sites which were endorsing him. They enjoyed his views on immigration and a number of other views and felt he was finally the right candidate for America. I don't know whether they donated money to his campaign or not but the point is that they still supported him. Fuck Pauls voting record, it doesn't matter, I'm not going to sit here and debate politics, the point isn't how clean or how unclean he is, who is lining his pockets and who isn't, the point is that we don't even need a fucking government for Christs sake, we don't need another dumb ass rising into power to fuck us over even more and keep this system going which is so destructive. I don't care about his history, I don't care whether he's voted against the war or for the war, the point is that we don't need another asshole ruling over us, and we don't need the system which we wants to keep in place, we need anarchy and autonomy, it is time we free ourselves and stop being slaves to this system and this government, we need to stop arguing about policies and start dismantling power.
You have a happy new year as well.
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2007   Interface Designer
-Contemptuous-Morale-
You obviously lack any sort of background of Political Philosophy, Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Common Sense. Your statement is bold, and filled with arrogance through ignorance. You are inarticulate, and a reading list would serve you well.

Start by reading John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government," Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," and maybe some writings of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. While you're reading up on your political philosophy, read up on your economic ideas as well. Research Otto von Mises, the Mises Institute, and Austrian Economics. Also, research the dangers of a Central Bank and a Fiat money system Vs a Sound money system. Perhaps you should also freshen up on your American History.

Once you've accomplished that, I'd like to ask you to understand this: A White Supremacist supporting Ron Paul does not mean that Ron Paul supports White Supremacist ideologies. In fact he is staunchly opposed to that sort of thinking.


*(never mind that the Bush family supported the Nazi's during WW2, which IS a direct co-relation of moral standards, from one generation to the next; but he was still elected.)

Also understand that voting is not giving up authority over oneself. This is a Constitutional Republic. A Representative Democracy. By your logic we should exist in Anarchy, and if you read the Nozick book I recommended, you would understand why Anarchy CAN NOT exist. It is impossible, and illogical to think otherwise.

As a final note, I'd like to point out that your statement "'cause your hero won't win" is a false allegation. What you fail to understand is that Presidential Primary and General Elections are not a sports game. One does not vote for who they think will win. One votes for the candidate whom they think will best represent them. Therefore we, as voters, are not giving up authority over ourselves, but rather, in theory, voting for our ideologies. I, and myriads of others, hold personal liberty in far greater importance than any other issue, and the best way to ensure personal liberty is to elect a candidate whom supports a minimal government. To quote the Granny Warrior "Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, he still wins, because he has opened up this incredible movement of ideas!"

To you, and all like you, I proclaim "Give me Liberty! OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
Reply
:iconcontemptuous-morale:
Contemptuous-Morale Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2007
Ah, the classic line: " Anarchy CAN NOT exist."
I always love it when someone tells me I'm wrong as if just because you say something is wrong, it is wrong.
IF this was true, then freedom itself could not exist, equality cannot exist. I don't lack any sort of background on Political Philosophy, and I have read the above mentioned things, but unlike you, I don't buy into that bullshit and assume everything I read is correct, I think for myself, I don't follow. That's like saying I should believe everything Darwin said just because he was a biologist. Your argument is flawed, I can tell you to go and read Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, Bob Black, Malatesta, CrimethInc books, and a shitload of other things explaining anarchy and how it can work, your statement is filled with arrogance through ignorance.
This State would crumble as it is if not for anarchy, because anarchy is the only thing that keeps this going. You may not be intelligent enough to notice it, but anarchy exists in our everyday relations, it is exactly what keeps it going. If we all went by your ways, we would be competiting with each other in every relationship we have as if that is somehow going to Plus, that's the stupidest fucking Statement I've ever heard because you have to discount billions of years of anarchy existing. YOUR way that you love has only existed for about 6,000 years, do some research in anthropology and you'll find this yourself.
Perhaps you should read some books on the effects that capitalism has actually had on the world, and what the free market does. Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism" would be a good start for you on this. You can also go and look at the effect free market capitalist policies have had on South America. Look what it did to Chile for Christs sake, and look where it has left Argentina.
"White Supremacist supporting Ron Paul does not mean that Ron Paul supports White Supremacist ideologies. In fact he is staunchly opposed to that sort of thinking."
Curious then as to why they would support him. I'll provide you with some links to them below. Your argument is flawed, if he is staunchly opposed to that sort of thinking then they would not be supporting him. His policies appeal to the White Supremacists, which shows that he shares common thought with them. I'm not saying he is completely in line with all of their thoughts but he is obviously in line with enough for them to vote for them, as they sure do love him.
"Also understand that voting is not giving up authority over oneself. This is a Constitutional Republic. A Representative Democracy. By your logic we should exist in Anarchy, and if you read the Nozick book I recommended, you would understand why Anarchy CAN NOT exist. It is impossible, and illogical to think otherwise."
Fuck Nozick, his logic is flawed, any half wit can figure that out. You say anarchy cannot exist? Then why does it exist to this day? There are groups that share the same line of thought that may or may not choose to call themselves anarchistic, still to this day, including the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert, the !Kung of South Africa, the Jarawa tribe on India’s isolated Anadaman Island, and many others. The American Indians lived in anarchy before civilization was forced upon them. Also your argument obviously doesn't recognize the fact that an anarchist State did exist successfully during the Spanish revolution, ALL the while they were fighting a damned war. You also have the Paris Commune in 1968. And there are countless other examples which a simple 5 minutes research could turn up if you really were curious. So I'm not sure where your going with the whole anarchy cannot exist when it already has and already does, that would mean that you find it illogical and imposssible to recognize the obvious. Would you like to quote the whole fucking book of Nozick? God damn man, come up with your own fucking ideas, don't be a god damned sheep and follow everything that you've been told. Yeah, fuck representative democracy, you rae still giving over your authority to a representative, denying yourself of self-rule. That is the exact premise behind it, you are giving your power over to someone else to make decisions for you, as if they know what's best for you, when in truth they are going to be representing special interest groups and whoever gives them the most money, NOT YOU.
"As a final note, I'd like to point out that your statement "'cause your hero won't win" is a false allegation. What you fail to understand is that Presidential Primary and General Elections are not a sports game. One does not vote for who they think will win. One votes for the candidate whom they think will best represent them. Therefore we, as voters, are not giving up authority over ourselves, but rather, in theory, voting for our ideologies. I, and myriads of others, hold personal liberty in far greater importance than any other issue, and the best way to ensure personal liberty is to elect a candidate whom supports a minimal government. To quote the Granny Warrior "Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, he still wins, because he has opened up this incredible movement of ideas!""
Yeah yeah...freedom, representation...Your freedom that you believe so strongly in is a lie. Freedom doesn't exist. You are held down by laws, and restrictions, you are forced into involuntary relationships everywhere you look in society. Christ, we're wage-slaves, how the fuck can you even consider us to be free when we are forced into that alone? The libertarian thought would fuck up shit even worse, you people are insane, you want to give the corporations more power to do whatever the fuck they want thinking that somehow that's going to make things better for the people, because that's worked real well everywhere else, hasn't it? Yeah, your right, elections aren't a sports game, they are a joke, and the person who makes the most money will win the election, so it does become a competition as to who makes the most money, not who has the best ideas.
"Minimal government" is a myth. It cannot exist. There is no such thing as big government or small government, there is just government and no government. Government is the enemy of freedom, so don't give me bullshit that you are voting because you hold personal liberty in far greater importance than any other issue. Freedom furthermore cannot exist if we are not equal, and a society based upon hierarchy, is NOT equal.
""Give me Liberty! OR GIVE ME DEATH!""
You're a fucking idiot! By saying that you clearly show that you don't even understand what anarchy is about and are just making the same stupid assumptions as everyone else. Do your homework, then argue with me.
Here while we're at it, since you're so into reading, go and read this [link] and follow the links on it.
Reply
:iconawesomedaisy27:
awesomedaisy27 Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2007   Artisan Crafter
I wish more people knew about him. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!
Reply
:iconlighttwister:
Lighttwister Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2007
RON PAUL 08!!!
Reply
:iconwaterostrich:
waterostrich Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2007   Interface Designer
Hells ya! Tell all your friends! Print this up and Gorilla Advertise across your town!
Reply
:iconlighttwister:
Lighttwister Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2007
I just might...LOL...seriously...We should all do that.
Reply
:iconxtian14:
xtian14 Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2007
wow i like this... nice use of type +fave :)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
September 28, 2007
Image Size
214 KB
Resolution
648×828
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,892
Favourites
47 (who?)
Comments
38
Downloads
112
×