Hello. My first and last post.

[bskeptikal]

Hello everyone. I've been a lurker here for a long time, trying to read what people have to say about a game I enjoy while avoiding the off-topic posts (though I did read about 150 posts on hornsmaniac's "here is an unsolicited lesson on how to pick up chicks in internet chat rooms" thread; how could anyone pass up a gem like that?). I finally registered this morning after reading the recent "this is sick and wrong" post quoting one iraqi regarding the space shuttle disaster, a post that annoyed me and about which I had something I wanted to say. After registering and reading the entire thread, though, I saw that several others already had made my general point, while others spewed the typical hatred and insensitivity to human life, with a little "you are anti-american" thrown in for emphasis. At that point I realized the level of discourse here was similar to that of the Yahoo message boards, where the level of discourse is about that of a group of lunatics and chimps arguing over whether the blue sky is red or green. It's unfortunate, but thoughtful, reasoned, and civil discussions between people who disagree are virtually nonexistent in america these days.

I know, I know, no one wants my opinion, etc., etc., and I should just keep my mouth shut and get the hell out of here. Don't worry, I will. And before someone calls me a "liberal," whatever that means these days, I am not. I am an anarchist, one who believes we are all humans, separated by artificial borders and taught by governments to hate those who live across those borders, or those who are of different races, ethnicities, cultures, political beliefs, or even economic statuses, since the divided easily can be conquered. Eventually, however, most likely after the world as we know it has been destroyed, our descendants, assuming there are any, will finally come to realize that it was the governments that were the enemies, whether those governments were so-called "democratic," socialist, communist, fascist, monarchical, etc., etc. As George Orwell pointed out, no matter what the form of government, it is the people who suffer for the benefit of the powerful few.

That being said, goodbye everyone, I'm going back to my game of FOF4. Take care and carry on.

...bskeptikal...
________________

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

-- Albert Einstein

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by bskeptikal
I know, I know, no one wants my opinion, etc., etc., and I should just keep my mouth shut and get the hell out of here. Don't worry, I will.

I'll be damned, you got something right in one try.

[Fritz]

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1.) Absence of any form of political authority.
2.) Political disorder and confusion.
3.) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

---
Our descendants, assuming we made it very far, would be cavemen again.

[andy m]

you're obviously one of the good ones bskeptikal, don't let the bastards get you down.

[Craptacular]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[ACStrider]

It always amazes me how people can figure that since no government is perfect, no government is necessary. I guess chaos is a better solution? I think even Orwell would agree with me on this one. Orwell was opposed to governments which took away the liberties and natural laws that all individuals rightfully should be allowed to have. Likewise, he would probably agree that the government should be the one which ensures these freedoms. Last time I checked there was a government out there that was founded on such principles as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is our government perfect? Well, I believe that I already addressed that, but I can guarantee you that without our government, people like yourself wouldn't have the right to express opinions that you have. Like yourself, I've been a silent lurker for a long while. Unlike yourself, I find some of the conversation here littered with reasonable debate. Sure, there are some uninformed morons who like to feel smart by spouting off whatever comes to mind, but as a whole, I'm pleased with the content of this forum.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by bskeptikal
After registering and reading the entire thread, though, I saw that several others already had made my general point, while others spewed the typical hatred and insensitivity to human life, with a little "you are anti-american" thrown in for emphasis. [/quote

First of all, every human being can exhibit the feeling of hatred. Hatred is nothing new to the human condition. It's not new, so don't act all surprised.

[quote]
At that point I realized the level of discourse here was similar to that of the Yahoo message boards, where the level of discourse is about that of a group of lunatics and chimps arguing over whether the blue sky is red or green. It's unfortunate, but thoughtful, reasoned, and civil discussions between people who disagree are virtually nonexistent in america these days.


So you come to a football board for reasoned discussion. Most football fans can't even agree on football issues, much less affairs of state. By the way the sky is green...and the moon is made of cheese.


I know, I know, no one wants my opinion, etc., etc., and I should just keep my mouth shut and get the hell out of here. Don't worry, I will. And before someone calls me a "liberal," whatever that means these days, I am not. I am an anarchist, one who believes we are all humans, separated by artificial borders and taught by governments to hate those who live across those borders, or those who are of different races, ethnicities, cultures, political beliefs, or even economic statuses, since the divided easily can be conquered. Eventually, however, most likely after the world as we know it has been destroyed, our descendants, assuming there are any, will finally come to realize that it was the governments that were the enemies, whether those governments were so-called "democratic," socialist, communist, fascist, monarchical, etc., etc. As George Orwell pointed out, no matter what the form of government, it is the people who suffer for the benefit of the powerful few.

Terrorists are no different than the anarchists. Anarchists were very much into political assassinations at the turn of the century...look it up. Anarchists are far from peaceful people. Anarchy is a state of chaos in which the strongest survive...doesn't sound so blissful to me.

[Lathum]

I'm sorry were not as smart as you.

[McSweeny]

wow jump all over the guy geeze... he had some good points i thought. It sure is easy to take someone for granted when they say they are an anarchist right? it wouldn't work right? and democracy is working isn't it? sure anarchy would probably be tons worse than what we have now. he has his opinion to what changes should be made as do all of us

[MylesKnight]

I liked that Post quite a bit. A lot of truth to his statements if you really think about things in the concept he is using.

Good Post!! I Love Ya "B", no matter what anyone else says about ya.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by McSweeny
wow jump all over the guy geeze

Well, if he simply made his points, then I'd have no problem. When he came on to tell us how this board sucks, how we can't have a civil discussion (makes you wonder how many threads he read), and that he's going away, then I say "good riddance"!! He could have joined the party and tried to invite a more civil discussion. Oh well.

[Qwikshot]

I was merely adding my own rebuttal...I welcome debate without obscenity.

[Ben E Lou]

I say that it is THE most gutless and cowardly post I've ever seen. He posts one time, espousing his silly little pseudo-intellectual-i-am-the-only-enlightened-one-in-the-western-hemisphere claptrap philosophy, and then doesn't have the chutzpah to stick around and defend his position.

[B & B]

Come on SkyDog, you've been waiting since American Fare went up on Mountain Industrial to use the word "chutzpah"

[Qwikshot]

Typical anarchist...how many countries have successfully run under anarchy?

The answer is none...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by B & B
Come on SkyDog, you've been waiting since American Fare went up on Mountain Industrial to use the word "chutzpah" Do what?

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
I liked that Post quite a bit. A lot of truth to his statements if you really think about things in the concept he is using.

Good Post!! I Love Ya "B", no matter what anyone else says about ya.


Let me add to that, that I did not agree with his overall perception of the regular FOFC'ers who post on this board on a daily basis.

I post on a couple of other MB's regularly, and I must say out of any that I've routinely visited, this one is by far the best. The variety of subjects and knowledge of FOFC's individual posters is outstanding... I only wish this was the norm for most Boards.

Regarding the governmental and societal issues "B" mentioned above, I do hear what he is saying. What are governments really, and why did things have to end up this way? Why couldn't things have just worked out as basically a One World/One Country type of society? The Human Mind is an amazing thing..

[digamma]

What is the American Fare now?
I used to live off Hambrick Road and was a frequent visitor to AF during its short existence.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Why couldn't things have just worked out as basically a One World/One Country type of society? The Human Mind is an amazing thing..

One World/One Country would never happen unless you wanted to live in a 1984 type society...there would be no individualism. Government is a good thing, Democracy is the best because you can elect whom you want to lead (not rule) the country. Who would lead in a one world/one country concept (didn't we see this in Star Trek with the Borg, no good can come from such an idea).

[MylesKnight]

Quik, I don't have a clue who would lead something like that..

I'm just saying, from the beginning of civilization, how did we end up with some many individual countries and societies, and not just one big union of different types of people?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Quik, I don't have a clue who would lead something like that..

I'm just saying, from the beginning of civilization, how did we end up with some many individual countries and societies, and not just one big union of different types of people?

because some people have more stuff than other people. people with less stuff want some of the stuff that people with more stuff have. Somethimes people with more stuff want the stuff the people with less stuff have so that they might have all the stuff.

We live in a material world.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Quik, I don't have a clue who would lead something like that..

I'm just saying, from the beginning of civilization, how did we end up with some many individual countries and societies, and not just one big union of different types of people?

No prob Myles...

Most people traveled in tribes, hunters and gatherers. They established their own belief systems and leadership methods and languages. Their minds were not as advanced as we are know. Eventually tribes settled, turned into cities with boundaries, because of other tribes, but power and resources are key to societies (have and have-nots) which led to wars...maybe we aren't as advanced as I thought...but it all comes down to individualism, we all think differently...there is no way you could put 10 people into a room and they would all agree on everything (even two people for that matter)...I think you give the human mind too much credit...

[sabotai]

Actually, Qwik, you are wrong. There has been societies that existed quite well without government. The most popular would be saga-era Iceland. (sometimes called Free State Iceland). It lasted for several centuries without a government. (They had a small law-making body, but that was it).

Before everyone goes off spouting off "anarchy equals chaos" , I would suggest you read up on it. There is a lot of good philosphy behind anarchy (specifically, anarcho-capitalism).

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sabotai
Actually, Qwik, you are wrong. There has been societies that existed quite well without government. The most popular would be saga-era Iceland. (sometimes called Free State Iceland). It lasted for several centuries without a government. (They had a small law-making body, but that was it).

Before everyone goes off spouting off "anarchy equals chaos" , I would suggest you read up on it. There is a lot of good philosphy behind anarchy (specifically, anarcho-capitalism).

Uhm, small law-making body to me equals a government or leadership in a state...anarchy does equal chaos, anarcho-capitalism sounds like it merges chaos with order (Please recommend a book on it to me). Does Free State Iceland still exist?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
We live in a material world. ...snd Fritz is a material girl...

[Lathum]

This discussion sounds to intellegent for the average person who comes to this board ( said with a hint of sarcasim)

[couriers]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Let me add to that, that I did not agree with his overall perception of the regular FOFC'ers who post on this board on a daily basis.

I post on a couple of other MB's regularly, and I must say out of any that I've routinely visited, this one is by far the best. The variety of subjects and knowledge of FOFC's individual posters is outstanding... I only wish this was the norm for most Boards.

I concur. Except if all the boards that I frequent were as solid as this one then I wouldn't have the strength to keep up with them all.

BTW, love the ultimate DOLA with quoting yourself and all. :)

[MylesKnight]

I thought that was pretty DOLA-licious myself Couriers.

[sabotai]

"Uhm, small law-making body to me equals a government or leadership in a state...anarchy does equal chaos"

Wrong on both counts. The law-making body was only established to help settle major disputes. It was not a government. Just because you were brought up by the government and society to beleive that anarchy equates chaos doesn't mean it's true.

"Does Free State Iceland still exist?"

I'm sorry. I thought you said successful, not invincible.

"(Please recommend a book on it to me). "

I haven't read any books on the subject. I've read a lot of essays about it. A friend of mine did suggest this book, though.

The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism by David D. Friedman

[Chief Rum]

I don't have anything to say that has not already been said here. Although I will definitely highlight SkyDog's response (the one about this being a coward's way out) as being highly representative of this poster's point of view.

What annoys me, though, is that he talks about seeking civil discussion and equates us with a Yahoo MB (which I have never been on to my knowledge, but I am guessing this is bad), and yet he himself is clearly incapable of having such a civil discussion.

I say good riddance. Let's see what he has proven about himself:

1) He's a coward. He posts for the first time just to denigrate the forum and its posters. He lurks forever never saying a word. And then pops up with this. And then he runs away, rather than stand up for his own opinion like an honest person with an opinion.

2) He doesn't consider all the evidence. He says he lurks, but how much does he actually read? If he did, he might have noted that we have a high percentage of quality civil discussions here. He clearly does not bother to know any of the people whom he is blasting in that thread. He clearly takes not a second to consider who I am or what I was standing for, as he managed to completely miss my point with a simple extension mentioning it.

3) He's naive. Anyone who espouses outright anarchy in today's world is living in a dream land. If you want human civilization to collapse, well, then, go right ahead.

4) He's given to accept baseline platforms without further investigation. Consider his own clear lack of knowledge of the violent history of anarchists. Or consider that he has clearly lumped everyone who is not anti-war into a "hater" group, even those ripping into the ones who say they are such haters. This is a person given to biases, and from whom no opinion can be trusted rationally.

Take the "anti-American" comment, for example. This, of course, is a reference to my posts. It is clear that he has not actually digested a word of what I said. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that Kosta and andy m are not American citizens, nor does it seem likely that they ever want to be. To an American, to be called "anti-American" is a thrilling insult and is also probably quite a bit ethnocentric. In that context, I would be very careful to use that term on a fellow American, because the connotations of such outweigh the meaning of the word. But Kosta and andy m are not Americans, but people of other nationalities who stand against pretty much every act the U.S. has taken that has been debated on this board. It has gotten to the point over the years that I have called into question the very validity of their opinions because of clear "anti-American" bias. I don't think it's absurd to think that they are, factually, anti-American, or that they would see this is a mere statement of fact--which is my intention--and not be troubled about it in the least.

The fact that you, bspektical (or whatever), don't bother to know these facts about Kosta or andy me, and the fact that you clearly don't bother to actually understand what I am trying to say and put it in the proper context, shows that you are not blessed with the intellectual ability to comprehend more than the simplest discussions. So in that respect, I applaud your leaving, because you would add nothing to our discussions here.

Chief Rum

[couriers]

'unrequested fission surplus'

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Uhm, small law-making body to me equals a government or leadership in a state...anarchy does equal chaos"

Wrong on both counts. The law-making body was only established to help settle major disputes. It was not a government. Just because you were brought up by the government and society to beleive that anarchy equates chaos doesn't mean it's true.

"Does Free State Iceland still exist?"

I'm sorry. I thought you said successful, not invincible.

"(Please recommend a book on it to me). "

I haven't read any books on the subject. I've read a lot of essays about it. A friend of mine did suggest this book, though.

The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism by David D. Friedman

First of all, chill out...

Second of all, a law making body is still a form of government, no matter how primative.

If it was successful it would still exist correct? You said centuries, am I to believe this anarchy existed during the 1900's, 1800's, when?

Thanks for the book I will actually look into it, but I didn't see any mention of anarchy in the title...capitalism has an order to it.

There is no order to anarchy, can you show me where, anarchy does equate to order? I don't think anarchy is about subversives trying to pull down the government, I think it is about free form radicals who have no interest in government, but the problem is, you have to have some sort of order to run, there has to be a leader or council to solve disputes, a ruling body or person equates to government, pure and simple, not an advanced government, but a simple one.

[sabotai]

"First of all, chill out..."

Huh? What would lead you to beleive that I'm angry in anyway?

"Second of all, a law making body is still a form of government, no matter how primative."

It depends on what laws, what kind of laws, how the laws are enforced, etc. You work (I assume). Your work has rules and procedures that must be followed. Is your work a government?

"If it was successful it would still exist correct?"

Obviously not. It can be successful and yet still end in some way. Only somethign that is invincible would ever be undefeatable.

Edit: Iceland as a free state existed from 870 AD to 1262 AD.

If you were right and anarchy equated chaso, then Iceland would have self-destructed within decades of it's founding, or sooner. Instead, it lasted almost 400 years before becoming under the rule of Norway.

"anarchy does equate to order?"

I didn't say it equated order, either. Order and chaos are results of the society, not type of society. Chaos is just a slikely to occur under anarchism as it is under democracy.

Anarchy does not mean no police, no laws, no courts, etc. It just means no government body overseeing all of these agencies. In other words, under anarchy (anarcho-capitalism), everything still exists, it's just privatized.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sabotai
"First of all, chill out..."

Huh? What would lead you to beleive that I'm angry in anyway?

"Second of all, a law making body is still a form of government, no matter how primative."

It depends on what laws, what kind of laws, how the laws are enforced, etc. You work (I assume). Your work has rules and procedures that must be followed. Is your work a government?

"If it was successful it would still exist correct?"

Obviously not. It can be successful and yet still end in some way. Only somethign that is invincible would ever be undefeatable.

If you were right and anarchy equated chaso, then Iceland would have self-destructed within decades of it's founding, or sooner. Instead, it lasted a good 400 years before becoming under the rule of Norway.

"anarchy does equate to order?"

I didn't say it equated order, either. Order and chaos are results of the society, not type of society. Chaos is just a slikely to occur under anarchism as it is under democracy.

Anarchy does not mean no police, no laws, no courts, etc. It just means no government body overseeing all of these agencies. In other words, under anarchy (anarcho-capitalism), everything still exists, it's just privatized.

I thought you felt like I was some dope spouting things I know nothing about...which you are probably right about.

Work is not government, but models it well. My company is obligated to follow the laws of the governing body. I follow my boss, my department is made up of managers that decide what to do during a crisis, they have to report to bosses, who report to bosses, that report presidents, whom report to the C.E.O. who I gather is elected, like a democracy (or not depending on the company). The shareholders are the real bosses, much like the populace.

Back to Iceland, a group of people without a government, yet they had order because of a ruling body. How is this not a government? Because they said it wasn't, because Iceland was never a big power in Europe. Does Iceland have a government now? Does the government embody any of the principles of this anarchistic group? I have no idea of what goes on in Iceland.

Chaos does occur in democracy, it occurs in most governments when there is a breakdown of the laws, or a revolution. I just don't see anarchy as being ordered, the way you state it, it sounds like laissez-faire. Privitization is not anarchy, it is capitalism. How does anarchy favor capititalism? How does anarchy favor any type of order?

[BishopMVP]

I think Anarchy based on "Human Goodness" (there's a whole different thread) would work for small groups, but there is no way it would work for the whole world because different people have different standards. Do you believe it is moral and alright to make women cover themselves head-to-toe and not allow them to drive? Most of the Middle East and Northern Africa does. Do you believe that it is moral or should be legal to hold slaves? This is widespread in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. I don't think that anyone on this board would agree that these are alright. I am getting away from my original point though, which was that Iceland worked with a limited government or no government depending on your point of view because it was a small, closed society. There is no way that such a system could work in this day and age in the whole world.

[sabotai]

"Privitization is not anarchy"

If you privatize everything, and there is no governing body anymore, then it would be anarchy.

When most people think anarchy, they think no police, no laws, no courts, etc. But that's not it. Anarchy, under the anarcho-capitalism model, is where the cops are a private company, where the courts are privatized, etc.

I know it sounds crazy and naive. It did to me once. In fact, I fought tooth and nail with many anarcho-capitalists in my days. :) But after reading into it and having (a lot) of discussions with people about, it all seemed to make sense.

And for the record, I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I still beleive there needs to be at least a minimum government to keep the "strings tied", so to speak. But I wouldn't call anyone who follows anarchy naive or stupid. Not saying there aren't stupid anarchists out there. But there are plenty of smart ones, too.

As for the Iceland Free State, maybe it's just semantics. Ok, they had a law making body was created in 930 AD. 60 years after the Norse begain settling it. It's at this time that history begins to call it Iceland Free State (they call it the settlement before this, but it was still a society functioning without government). It was called the Althing. It is still active today. It's the oldest European parliment.

It was a fuedal state, in which 'lords' owned the lands. But Iceland had no kings. In other words, people owned the land (lords) and did not answer to a higher, politcal leader.

There were conflicts between lords, but nothing that was serious. That is where the Althing comes in. They helped the lords settle major disputes. They also passed laws that lords agreed to. But at no time did this law-passing body govern the lords. The lords agreed to it, but were not bound to it.

When Iceland became under Norwegian control, the whole nation went into decline.

That's kind of how the Althing was not a government. They didn't really have any formal control over the lords. The Althing still exists today, but of course now they do have control over the country. Plus a lot of other branches of government.

[Qwikshot]

Okay, but isn't feudalism a type of government? Peasants still had to follow their lords commands right? Did people under the lords have any rights, or were the only people who could bring disputes to the Althing the lords themselves?
And refresh me on Icelandic history, but how did it come under Norwegian control, by invasion? 930 A.D., democracy was a twinkle in the eye (Romans had a republic, but I'm not sure whom is credited with the first democracy)
.

As for privitization, doesn't that make the institutions the governing bodies then? A business would in effect be the ruling body of its workers (constituents). I think have a privitized police force is far scarier, who does it ultimately work for, the highest bidder? If a police force would go on strike, or say the army, how catastrophic would that be. This seems to me to be a good idea on paper but something impossible to do in reality.

[Fritz]

I just watched XXX


I think I know where the initial poster gets his political theory from.

[astralhaze]

Well, at least he got me off the hook for the most ill-advised post of the week.

[sterlingice]

So you come to a football board for reasoned discussion. Most football fans can't even agree on football issues, much less affairs of state. By the way the sky is green...and the moon is made of cheese.

Damn, I'd better memorize that for my astronomy quiz tomorrow. Thanks guys :rolleyes: Anyways, at the risk of getting a sore arm patting everyone here on the back, this is the best MB i've seen around- quite intelligent and many intersting off topic posts. If one takes resident trolls (such as this one) as an measure of a board's collective intelligence then the internet is a giant wasteland anyways. That aside, the nice thing about the internet is that you can find odd pockets of brains where you least expect it. The best chatroom I frequent is/was a pokemon one which has long since gone off topic but retained people who actually speak english instead of that "r u wanna f*ck"gibberish, "asl" is not a greeting and, typically, the day's news or some sort or some other intelligent discourse is the topic.

wow jump all over the guy geeze
The guy was clearly looking down his nose at us uncivilized folk. I think we do have some right to be offended. If he had just made his point and debated the facts, then he would have some credibility. Instead he chooses to attack the people instead of the idea. That is where the offense is taken.

doesn't have the chutzpah to stick around and defend his position.
I love that word.

SI

[Fritz]

but you still get the "worst use of plaid as a fashion statement" award for the week.

Per Skydog anyway, but he is a little shallow.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Damn, I'd better memorize that for my astronomy quiz tomorrow. Thanks guys :rolleyes: Anyways, at the risk of getting a sore arm patting everyone here on the back, this is the best MB i've seen around- quite intelligent and many intersting off topic posts. If one takes resident trolls (such as this one) as an measure of a board's collective intelligence then the internet is a giant wasteland anyways. That aside, the nice thing about the internet is that you can find odd pockets of brains where you least expect it. The best chatroom I frequent is/was a pokemon one which has long since gone off topic but retained people who actually speak english instead of that "r u wanna f*ck"gibberish, "asl" is not a greeting and, typically, the day's news or some sort or some other intelligent discourse is the topic.


The guy was clearly looking down his nose at us uncivilized folk. I think we do have some right to be offended. If he had just made his point and debated the facts, then he would have some credibility. Instead he chooses to attack the people instead of the idea. That is where the offense is taken.


I love that word.

SI

SI, are you attacking me? I was being sarcastic by that remark, the sky is really yellow, and the moon is made of apple pie...

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
but you still get the "worst use of plaid as a fashion statement" award for the week.

Per Skydog anyway, but he is a little shallow.

Curses. DD told me it made me look sharp.

[Fritz]

Your trust him? He is color blind in his one good eye and wears horizontal stripes that make him look fat. Plus, and this is the kicker, white shoes in the winter!

[sabotai]

"but isn't feudalism a type of government? "

Not really...it's having a king that makes it a government, really. I mean, lords own the private lands. "Lord" is really just what they called land owners back then. The whole point aboiut this is that there wasn't any governing body who publically oversaw all of the land. The lords owned the land.

Maybe an analogy would be best.

A lord owned his land and did what he pleased with the land.

The US government does not own your land, you do. You do as you please on your land.

However, that's not the case. Like if you want to build a pool or an extension on your house, you have to get a permit in order to do so.

The lords in Iceland did not need permission to do anything. But you do. That's the difference. A governing body requires certain things of you, while an Icelandic lord did not have a governing body telling them they needed to do certain things.

"Did people under the lords have any rights"

There were slaves, but there were free citizens too.

"And refresh me on Icelandic history, but how did it come under Norwegian control, by invasion?"

Not invasion. In 1000 AD, Iceland became mostly Christianized. It was through religion that the king of Norway gained the alliegence of the lords in Iceland, and that's how he gained power.

"I think have a privitized police force is far scarier, who does it ultimately work for, the highest bidder?"

They would operate just like any other private security company. There would be no public property. All property would have an owner. It would be the owner of the property's responsibility to hire a private security company to protect his property.

"If a police force would go on strike, or say the army, how catastrophic would that be."

Unions would be pretty much useless under anarcho-capitalism. So there really wouldn't be any strikes. Or at least protection for striking employees. They'd just get fired and replaced.

"This seems to me to be a good idea on paper but something impossible to do in reality."

Heh. Like I said, I thought like this once too. I'm not saying that you're in idiot if you don't beleive it has some rationality to it. I know smart people who support it, and I know smart people who oppose it. I'm just saying one should seriously look into something before throwing it to the side as nonsense.

It's basically impossible for me to fully explain the philosophy and rational behind anarcho-capitalism on a message board. I am simplifying things a bit on here. I don't have enough time to go into a long drawn out explaination. :)

[sterlingice]

nah, qwik, again they forgot to throw in the sarcasm brackets on the board when they moved =)

the only one meriting a beating in this thread is its originator.

*gets popcorn* plus, im enjoying the anarchy debate

SI

[Gwalyn]

I love it when someone brings up an issue that is against the grain of "common" thinking. Keep up the radical ideas it is quite entertaining to see people fight against something in which they are ignorant.

[kcchief19]

I realize it is pointless to really return back to the subject at hand, but what did this guy do? He made a posts that was critcal, but he backed it up. It wasn't what I would define as trolling. He made an unpopular post that seemed heartfelt to me. OK, so he said it was his first and last post. That makes him a coward? It seems that the only way he could be a coward is if there was a fight. He didn't seem to be picking a fight. Did somebody want to fight him?

I realize that I'm probably a bigger curmudgeon than even our resident curmudgeon, but I simply lack the prolificy. But there are only three posters that I think should hit the bricks and get out:
1) Posters who simply are here to make fun of people and offer nothing of value
2) People who primarily make posts that are designed to only provoke a confrontation
3) Anyone who makes posts that are of a racist nature

You could make an argument that this guy was No. 2. I thought that he sounded heartfelt. I may not agree with him, but who cares? If he is able to back up what he says, I have no problem with.

Sure, I wish he had stuck around. Not because he could then take his medicine, but because this place thrives on diversity.

[sterlingice]

At that point I realized the level of discourse here was similar to that of the Yahoo message boards, where the level of discourse is about that of a group of lunatics and chimps arguing over whether the blue sky is red or green.

Well, this is the line I take offense to if I have to pin it down. I haven't even chimed in on the Iraq thread, to my recollection but I have enjoyed watching people debate the issue back and forth- a well-reasoned dissenting opinion makes you think or, at the very least, entertains, if you are set in your opinions. However, when a debate devolves into namecalling and useless hyperbole, it's no longer a debate but a personal attack- not an exchange of ideas.

SI

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sabotai
"but isn't feudalism a type of government? "

Not really...it's having a king that makes it a government, really. I mean, lords own the private lands. "Lord" is really just what they called land owners back then. The whole point aboiut this is that there wasn't any governing body who publically oversaw all of the land. The lords owned the land.

Maybe an analogy would be best.

A lord owned his land and did what he pleased with the land.

The US government does not own your land, you do. You do as you please on your land.

However, that's not the case. Like if you want to build a pool or an extension on your house, you have to get a permit in order to do so.


Actually, I think that feudalism is a form of government, it led to monarchy which is a form of government. Feudal lords didn't report to anyone but themselves, they had vassals which oversaw the lands and would be called up for duty in war. The fact that there were many disputes (not in Iceland, but mainland Europe and British Isles) led to monarchy, one of the nobles,
grew greater in power than his counterparts and he become the leader. Sometimes the king was a figurehead, the nobles usually were the driving force (i.e. House of Lords, etc.), sometimes the nobles were cannon fodder (Russian history, Ivan the Terrible purged the nobles)

What's wrong with the government making you pay for a building permit? Sure, you are paying for the right to add something to your house, but it is also to insure that you are building a safe and proper addon.


The lords in Iceland did not need permission to do anything. But you do. That's the difference. A governing body requires certain things of you, while an Icelandic lord did not have a governing body telling them they needed to do certain things.


Right, he was the governing body. Whenever there was a dispute between the nobles, a mediator was called in, for some reason, as rare as it was, from your account it seems that every dispute was resolved without war, incredible...but I still believe is a form of government.


"Did people under the lords have any rights"

There were slaves, but there were free citizens too.


Most peasants did not have any rights. What are rights in anarchy anyway, there is no vote, you are born under a lord's house, you are obligated to that lord, wouldn't that be correct?



"And refresh me on Icelandic history, but how did it come under Norwegian control, by invasion?"

Not invasion. In 1000 AD, Iceland became mostly Christianized. It was through religion that the king of Norway gained the alliegence of the lords in Iceland, and that's how he gained power.



Damn religion...so the lords pledged allegience to a more dominant leader, hence a monarchy. Just as I had stated earlier, we see how the process of feudalism led to a monarchy, I still believe both are forms of government.



"I think have a privitized police force is far scarier, who does it ultimately work for, the highest bidder?"

They would operate just like any other private security company. There would be no public property. All property would have an owner. It would be the owner of the property's responsibility to hire a private security company to protect his property.


The problem is that the rich would own everything, what would the poor get. Would there be affordable housing for the poor? Would they be renters to the rich for life? From what scant knowledge of this that I know, the power would lie with the rich (as if it doesn't now).



"If a police force would go on strike, or say the army, how catastrophic would that be."

Unions would be pretty much useless under anarcho-capitalism. So there really wouldn't be any strikes. Or at least protection for striking employees. They'd just get fired and replaced.


What would the incentive of the average worker be if there was never better pay. Unions aren't all bad, they keep corporations honest. Yes, some are corrupted, but this philosophy wouldn't protect the workers' rights from anything, the owner would have full control of conditions, you could have it really nice, or as bad as the turn of the century industrial revolution...if you disagreed you'd be fired.


"This seems to me to be a good idea on paper but something impossible to do in reality."

Heh. Like I said, I thought like this once too. I'm not saying that you're in idiot if you don't beleive it has some rationality to it. I know smart people who support it, and I know smart people who oppose it. I'm just saying one should seriously look into something before throwing it to the side as nonsense.

It's basically impossible for me to fully explain the philosophy and rational behind anarcho-capitalism on a message board. I am simplifying things a bit on here. I don't have enough time to go into a long drawn out explaination. :)

Okay, I'll agree with you there, and I will seriously look for this book, and I'm not calling it nonsence (too me it sounds very much in the same vein as communism or socialism). I did enjoy the debate though, it is good something positive can come from a post in which was initially criticized.

As for Bskeptical, it is poor form to criticize and then hide back in the shadows, please come out and stand your ground...

[Easy Mac]

So somehow an idiotic topic has turned into the do's and don't of Icelandic feudalism. This sounds like my prom night all over again.

God I love Football messageboards :p

[sabotai]

"So somehow an idiotic topic has turned into the do's and don't of Icelandic feudalism. This sounds like my prom night all over again."

LOL

"I think that feudalism is a form of government, it led to monarchy which is a form of government."

This might just be an arguement over semantics, but I would not catagorize feudalism as a form of government. To me, feudalism is a system much like that of capitalism, while monarchy would be the government in the same catagory as democracy. Feudalism is the system by which the politics and economy functions, while monarchy would be the governing body.

Feudalism and Monarchy are not bound together. You can have one without the other. Which is why I seperate it it into system and government.

"from your account it seems that every dispute was resolved without war"

Oh, I'm sure there were some bloody encounters. It was the middle ages, after all. But there are plenty of bloody encounters between land owners in our society too.

"What are rights in anarchy anyway, there is no vote, you are born under a lord's house, you are obligated to that lord, wouldn't that be correct?"

Umm, is this a general anarcho question or a question about Iceland? :) Iceland, yes. Anarcho, no. Technically, you are obliged to your parents in our system until you become of age. :)

"The problem is that the rich would own everything, what would the poor get. Would there be affordable housing for the poor? Would they be renters to the rich for life? From what scant knowledge of this that I know, the power would lie with the rich (as if it doesn't now)."

You pretty much answered it yourself. :) The rich own everything now! I don't see why there wouldn't be affordable housing. There will still be charities and people giving donations. There will still be people who will figure out how to build affordable housing and still make a profit. There will still be volunteers to help build the houses without pay.

"What would the incentive of the average worker be if there was never better pay. Unions aren't all bad, they keep corporations honest. Yes, some are corrupted, but this philosophy wouldn't protect the workers' rights from anything, the owner would have full control of conditions, you could have it really nice, or as bad as the turn of the century industrial revolution...if you disagreed you'd be fired."

The incentive would be with the company. If you are a good worker, your employer will want to keep you. Therefore, it's in his best interest to offer you a competative salary. If you didn't get a competative salary, you would quit and go to the job that did offer a competative salary.

Most strikes I see are unions demanding unrealistic, or uncompetive, salary increases. Like teachers that striked recently in my state. They were the highest paid teachers in the state. Yet, they still went on strike and demanded higher salaries. Under the anarcho-capitalist model, this school is offering the best salaries, so ideally, the teachers would want to keep their jobs and their good pay.

Under our current system, things like this are allowed to occur. A school that pays their teachers the highest salaries in the state is not allowed to fire those teachers who demand a higher salary. I just don't think that is very fair.

So under the anarcho-capitalist model, those teachers would be insane to strike, because then they get fired, replaced and then have to go to teaching jobs with lower salaries.

On the other hand, a school system would try their best to be able to pay their teachers as much as the school above did so they could attract the best teachers they could. So basically, it's not just prices of products that companies fight over, it would be the quality of the workforce they would compete over as well.

In many areas, unions destroy this part of the competativeness. Companies sign agreements with unions and then have to hire and keep those workers, regardless of quality. And thus they don't compete for quality of workforce. And in the end, the end product suffers.

I might have gone off on a tangent and not even answered your statement. In fact, I know I'm babbling. What's my point?

Oh yes, under a system with no unions, it is in the corperation's best interest to offer the best pay and best conditions in order to attract the best workers. I think in some areas, unions are detrimental to this process.

Not saying there wouldn't be some corrupt and bad companies, but then again, there are bad and corrupt companies now.

"too me it sounds very much in the same vein as communism or socialism"

please...don't compare this to communism. Communism is just.... a horrible idea. That is the worst idea I've ever heard! Yes, this is horrible, this idea!

(Little Office Space reference for the kids)

See, a lot of arguements I hear against anarcho-capitalism are in some way true. However, the people making those arguements fail to see that their argument is happening now anyway.

"It'll lead to people taking the law into their own hands and lead to bloodshed." That happens now...

"Compnaies will be corrupt and take advantage of honest citizens." That happens now...

"The rich will own everything." They own everything now...

I think a lot of ideas of anarcho-capitalism would decrease a lot of these problems. But as I said before, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (and I wouldn't say that I am an expert on the subject either). There are some ideas of theirs that I don't agree with. But I do see the rational and reasoning behidn those ideas.

It's communism that has no reasonign to their ideas. Damn pinko commie bastards... :)

[Qwikshot]

Yes, but then there is no incentive to change.

It would not be in a companies best interest to keep a good worker, but to keep a cheap worker...

It sounds to me that this anarcho-capitalism wouldn't change things...but I'll read up on it...I've enjoyed the debate...and I will look into those two books you recommened...

[Julio Riddols]

Down at Fraggle Rock..

[ctmason]

Seat Open!

[Fireball]

FWIW,

Couple of sites relevant to anarcho-capitalism:

http://www.mises.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com

Enjoy! (or don't enjoy!)

[clintl]

Feudalism is a form of government. Feudal lords were nothing more than small-time kings that ruled the peasants underneath them (usually with an iron fist and outrageous tax rates), and as a system of government, feudalism was pretty much a complete failure that held back the advancement and enlightenment of civilization for centuries.

[sabotai]

"Yes, but then there is no incentive to change."

Of course there would. Companies that constantly improve their products sell more products. Companies that offer new, better products sell more products.

"It would not be in a companies best interest to keep a good worker, but to keep a cheap worker..."

If the cheap worker was a good worker, then yeah, the company would try to keep him. But if he was a bad worker, his ability would reflect on the product. And if the product was less quality than that of your competitor, then your competitor would get sales you did not. So the way you increase sales is to increase quality of the product. You do that by hiring good workers.

"Feudalism is a form of government. Feudal lords were nothing more than small-time kings that ruled the peasants underneath them (usually with an iron fist and outrageous tax rates), and as a system of government, feudalism was pretty much a complete failure that held back the advancement and enlightenment of civilization for centuries."

Whatever, this is coming down to an arguement over symantics. You view feudalism as a government, I view it as a poltiical and economic system in the same catagory as capitalism. Does it really matter what we call it? The whole point was that Iceland didn't have a central government which rules over the nation.