Gun shooting in Arizona

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Buffalo »

Calculus Crusader wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Just admit that you don't know what the word "anarchist" means. There's no need to embarrass yourself any more than you have to.


From here:

Stefan Paul Dolgert wrote:ANARCHISM

Anarchism is a theory and way of life rooted in the belief that the individual should
be free to pursue his or her own interests without coercion, especially by the State and
its laws and institutions. The term is derived from the ancient Greek word anarkhia,
meaning “no ruler,” and was originally used to denote a disruption of the normal civic
order that often implied a condition of civil war. As with “democracy” and “democrat,”
the words “anarchy” and “anarchist” were typically used as terms of abuse until the
nineteenth century, when with the rise of commercial society and the decline of feudalism
the idea of self-rule by “the people” became increasingly accepted.

The political theory of anarchism properly begins only with William Godwin (1756-
1836) and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), though important elements of anarchist
thought can be found in the ancient Greeks, among them Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435 –
c. 360 BCE) and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium (c. 334 – 262 BCE). Strains
of anarchist thought can also be found in the medieval era, in the Anabaptists of the
Reformation, and in the Diggers of the English Revolution of the mid-seventeenth
century. However, Godwin is the first exponent of the philosophic doctrine of anarchism,
though he does not use the term to describe himself, and it is Proudhon who first calls
himself an anarchist. In Proudhon’s What is Property (1840) he lays out a vision of
socialism in which the individual is liberated from the shackles of capitalist property
relations, and is instead free to reap the benefits of his labor under a form of communal
production. Anarchism became increasingly relevant to the political world of the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, first through the writings of the Mikhail
Bakunin (1814-1876), who opposed the overly-centralized socialism of Karl Marx (1818-
1883), and later through Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) and Emma Goldman (1869-1940).

Anarchist thought is extremely diverse, but is generally characterized by opposition to
the State, capitalism, and religion. Rather than seeing the legal apparatus of the State as
a means of protecting individual freedom, anarchists contend that the State and its laws
merely represent the self-serving interests of powerful groups in society. Under this
view law is a means of oppressing the vast majority of the people, and the best way to
eliminate this oppression is to do away with the institutions that create and reinforce it
– especially the State and private property. Private property is a particular concern for
anarchists, in that it corrupts the democratic process by controlling the inputs and outputs
to the political system, and also because it directs people to think merely about their own
self-interest rather than about how to cooperate with their fellow citizens. Since private
property uses the State to benefit the members of the ruling class/elite, anarchists are not
in favor of representative democracy as it is currently practiced.

Anarchists promote their goals by multiple means, including some who promote violent
revolution, but also through democratic evolution and the creation of independent
communal societies that function outside the domain of the State. In the Spanish Civil
War (1936-9), anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists (linked industrial worker-councils)
formed an important element in the opposition to Francisco Franco’s Fascist coup,
and shared governmental authority with a socialist coalition, particularly in Barcelona.

This experiment, while short-lived, provided an example of anarchist “government” in
practice, and was characterized by the liquidation of the landed estates and the parceling
of the land into agricultural cooperatives, the establishment of a federation of worker-
controlled factories, and the elimination of the social indications of class status that had
marked Bourbon Spain. While defeated in the war, Spanish anarchism continues to be a
model for other nations, since it is here that one of the largest worker-run cooperatives in
the world, the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, has been functioning for over fifty
years.

Among anarchists in the early part of the twenty-first century there are several prominent
trends, some of which are substantially in tension with one another. Libertarian
anarchists such as Murray Rothbard (1926 – 1995) defend capitalism, arguing that
the protection of private property under capitalism provides the surest foundation for
promoting individual liberty. Unlike most libertarians, Rothbard claims that even the
most minimal State is an unnecessary evil, but this is almost the only thing that unites
him with anarchist-socialists such as the protesters at the WTO and G-8 meetings in
Seattle in 1999 and Geneva in 2001. While not united by a systematic program, these
protesters represented groups that are dissatisfied with the current system of neo-liberal
trade promoted by the WTO, which to them represents an extension of the rule of private
property over the globe.

Anarchism is not highly visible in most developed western nations, but remains a
powerful underground current that both the Left and the Right continue to find useful
as a stimulant to political thought, as well as in the actual practice of politics. It will
continue to be relevant as long as the meaning of the terms “democracy,” “property,”
and “freedom” is not self-evident.

Bibliography:

Bakunin, Mikhail. 1990. Statism and Anarchy. Edited by Marshall Shatz. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Guerin, Daniel. 1970. Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Kropotkin, Peter. 2002 (1970). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings.
Edited by Roger Baldwin. Mineola: Dover Publications.
Orwell, George. 1969 (1938). Homage to Catalonia. San Diego: Harvest Books.
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 1994 (1840). What is Property? Edited by Donald Kelley and
Bonnie Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, Robert Paul. 1998 (1970). In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley: University of
California Press.


Quit while you're behind.


Image
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Buffalo »

Calculus Crusader wrote:
You are an f'ing imbecile. I referred to my previous comments, which were in response to your fellow imbecile, Eric, in order to counter your false characterization:

No one will ever succeed in taking it away from you CC, desperate as you are to paint the reading a single leftist book as indicative of leftist thought processes, while ignoring the right wing book (Mein Kampf) and then the vast majority of the books which are neither left nor right.

Your fellow imbecile, Eric, was and is the one trying to pigeonhole Loughner into a specific political ideology. By way of contrast, I mentioned Loughner being a fan of the Communist Manifesto and some other items as being contrary to what Eric was and is claiming.


I'm responsible for no one's claims but my own. Similarly, you're responsible for no one's ignorance but your own. :)
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

You are also responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, Buffalo. There is no "self-pwnage" here. There are different strands of anarchism, 'tis true, but as I wrote I'm pretty sure the one who killed McKinley was a leftist anarchist. Your inability to parse what I wrote is not my problem. (Also, McKinley's assassin could not have been influenced by Murray Rothbard.)
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Buffalo »

Calculus Crusader wrote:You are also responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, Buffalo. There is no "self-pwnage" here. There are different strands of anarchism, 'tis true, but as I wrote I'm pretty sure the one who killed McKinley was a leftist anarchist. Your inability to parse what I wrote is not my problem. (Also, McKinley's assassin could not have been influenced by Murray Rothbard.)


The only conclusion to reach here is that you either didn't read the definition of anarchy that you copied and pasted, or that you don't know what liberalism is either. Which is it?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Obiwan
_Emeritus
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Obiwan »

Quasimodo wrote:
Obiwan wrote:The saying is really true, if your not liberal when your 20 you don't have a heart, but if your not a conservative by the time your 40 you don't have a brain.
Anyway, some thoughts.


Your quote just caught my eye. When Winston Churchill said that, a conservative in England would have been considered quite liberal in this country now. Pretty much still the same.


Actually, that among many things is a common error with liberals.
Liberals of the past were actualy conservatives/libertarians. The original meaning of the word liberal is "liber" i.e. liberty, freedom, libertarian, etc. However, at some point I would say in the last 100 years progressives and the quasi-marxists somehow co-opted the word for themselves and then they started to be known as liberal. So, when people look into the past, they can make the common mistake thinking todays liberal is yesterdays liberal or conservative, when that's not the case at all. Yesterdays conservative is still todays conservative, and yesterdays liberal is todays libertarian and conservative.

Churchhill was then and would today be considered a conservative. He sounded the alarm for example about Hitler and Nazi Germany, but the liberals back then laughed at him, but when the war came about, they fell at his feet realizing everything he said was right. Just like today, conservatives have been sounding the warning about Fanatical Islam, and again there is liberal resistance to seriously take the fight to them. Same thing happened in this country back then. Liberals resisted joining the fight against Hitler and Japan, and it took Pearl Harbor to solidify and give justification for America to join the war. 9/11 again gave America the justification to have a war against fanatical islam, and we were united at first, even the Democrats/liberals were with us at first. But, they of course fell back into their usual fair of partisanship, and have sense prevented us from total victory, complete annihaliation of the ideology and bad guys in both Iraq and Afganistan, as well as that part of the world. Thus, those victory's are half butted like Vietnam was. We were months away from totally winning Vietnam, having won every battle, yet liberals again caused us to loose and 100,000's died for it afterwards.

Anyway, this liberal idea that conservatism has changed or switched party's etc., using the south etc. as part of the argument is simply a liberal smoke screen falsehood. Conservatives have always been conservatives. Of course, sometimes in some other country's the definitions might be switched or different, or slightly different, but in America the only thing that swithed is the word liberal. Liberals today are nothing close to be "for" Liberty accept for abortion and other moral vices. Everything else ideologically speaking they are the opposite of liberty. They are all about control, regulation, big government, etc. i.e. Marxism/socialism/communism & Facism, not liberty.
_Obiwan
_Emeritus
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Obiwan »

Buffalo wrote:
Obiwan wrote:
I'm not surprised that your father has read it and you haven't. Just proves that conservatives actually understand the ideology's and what's right and wrong about them, while most liberals don't.


Sorry, most conservatives are anti-intellectual. My father is an exception. Most conservatives don't get much further than the cover to Sarah Palin's latest ghost-written masturbatory polemic.

The communist manifesto is not representative of my ideology, anyway. I'm a democratic socialist. :)


Is that kind of like most liberals don't get past Obamas two Ghost Written self praising books one at least has been shown to be written by Bill Ayers???

Let me tell you a little secret. Most Mormons are conservatives and most of us certainly aren't "anti-intellectual", and most conservatives are like Mormons both in ideology and behaviors. It is a liberal propaganda lie that say's conservatives are not intellectual or anti-intellectual. To be "accurate", both sides have those who are less educated and those who are. The question actually should be, who really has a "good", "balanced", and "accurate" education. That my friend lies with the conservative. There is evidence after evidence of this. Every dictatorship and socialist state is left wing, and they ALL restrict freedom and information, from North Korea, to Cuba, to Venesuala, China, on and on. So, don't tell me who's educated and who's not. I've also lived all over the place, and conservatives are way more educated than liberals. Take talk radio for another example. Conservatives listen to talk radio to get educated about the issues, but there is nothing equivalent to that on the liberal side. Liberals have to use the power of government to get their message out, by using PBS & NPR for example. Most people when educated in a balanced way will never choose liberalism over conservatism. Liberals have to use propaganda, falsehoods, deception, and the power of the state to be believed and sway the masses. This recent shooting thing is just one example of this. The peoples and conservative recent anger is in responce to LIBERALS actions and words that are bad and wrong, yet "we" somehow are the bad guys and the "cause" of Loughner's idiocy??? That's what evil people do..... they misdirect, claiming it's the fault of the watchmen for the problems that occur, rather than their own actions. Conservatives speaking up and trying to educate people of the facts debunking the lies liberals tell doesn't make conservatives the bad guys, it makes them standing against evil.

As to ideology, if you actually knew the ideology's, you would know that the Communist Manifesto is a close relative to your democratic socialist ideology. It may not be exactly the same, and sometimes in history you have been enemy's with each other, but it all stems from the same perverted source.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Great, Obiwan from MAD is another Droopy. I didn't think it was possible.

Funny how most people with post graduate degrees are Liberals, or at the least, vote democrat. Folks who listen to uneducated fools like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, are likely to be Right Wingers.

Is that kind of like most liberals don't get past Obamas two Ghost Written self praising books one at least has been shown to be written by Bill Ayers???


No, Ayers pulled a prank on a conservative blogger and the whole Right Wing blogosphere went viral with it, just like the bunch of gullible idiots they are.
Last edited by YahooSeeker [Bot] on Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Quasimodo »

Obiwan wrote:

Actually, that among many things is a common error with liberals.
Liberals of the past were actualy conservatives/libertarians. The original meaning of the word liberal is "liber" i.e. liberty, freedom, libertarian, etc. However, at some point I would say in the last 100 years progressives and the quasi-marxists somehow co-opted the word for themselves and then they started to be known as liberal. So, when people look into the past, they can make the common mistake thinking todays liberal is yesterdays liberal or conservative, when that's not the case at all. Yesterdays conservative is still todays conservative, and yesterdays liberal is todays libertarian and conservative.

Churchhill was then and would today be considered a conservative. He sounded the alarm for example about Hitler and Nazi Germany, but the liberals back then laughed at him, but when the war came about, they fell at his feet realizing everything he said was right. Just like today, conservatives have been sounding the warning about Fanatical Islam, and again there is liberal resistance to seriously take the fight to them. Same thing happened in this country back then. Liberals resisted joining the fight against Hitler and Japan, and it took Pearl Harbor to solidify and give justification for America to join the war. 9/11 again gave America the justification to have a war against fanatical islam, and we were united at first, even the Democrats/liberals were with us at first. But, they of course fell back into their usual fair of partisanship, and have sense prevented us from total victory, complete annihaliation of the ideology and bad guys in both Iraq and Afganistan, as well as that part of the world. Thus, those victory's are half butted like Vietnam was. We were months away from totally winning Vietnam, having won every battle, yet liberals again caused us to loose and 100,000's died for it afterwards.

Anyway, this liberal idea that conservatism has changed or switched party's etc., using the south etc. as part of the argument is simply a liberal smoke screen falsehood. Conservatives have always been conservatives. Of course, sometimes in some other country's the definitions might be switched or different, or slightly different, but in America the only thing that swithed is the word liberal. Liberals today are nothing close to be "for" Liberty accept for abortion and other moral vices. Everything else ideologically speaking they are the opposite of liberty. They are all about control, regulation, big government, etc. i.e. Marxism/socialism/communism & Facism, not liberty.


Wow, a lot to answer! :) Maybe I can keep it brief by saying that much of what you said is true (not all, though).

Liberal and Conservative do have different meanings in different parts of the world. I was just saying that English Conservatives are much more Liberal than American Conservatives. They were in Churchill's time as well.

Conservatives like to point to the "founding fathers" as inspiration for their views. I've always found that humorous. The most Liberal people that ever lived in this country were the Whigs that started the revolution. They overthrew the government (King George III and the British Parliament). Can't get more radically Liberal than that.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Obiwan
_Emeritus
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Obiwan »

Kevin Graham wrote:Great, Obiwan from MAD is another Droopy. I didn't think it was possible.

Funny how most people with post graduate degrees are Liberals, or at the least, vote democrat.


Most doesn't mean all. Further, most people who have such degrees also leave Faith/Religion and/or become atheist, Mormons being the exception to the rule however. You suffer from the common stawman, thinking "most" somehow means the same as "good", "true", and "right". Simply because most educated liberals come from wealth and cities and thus have the "opportunity" to get a college degree, not having to actually WORK for a living as much as conservatives doesn't mean that makes liberals somehow "smarter" than a conservative. Conservatives though they may not have as many degree holders, they are most certainly SELF educated.

Are you telling me you've never seen the old and highly smart and wise conservative farmer who may not even have graduated high school? As a former Mormon, are you telling me you've never seen an LDS Bishop or Stake President who may have worked all his life, never went to college, but is such a good, wise, and intelligent man that he runs circles around almost everyone else in the area?

Liberal arrogance and elitism is an insidious disease, and you suffer from it buddy!

Folks who listen to uneducated fools like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, are likely to be Right Wingers.


In my opinion YOU are the "uneducated fools" for your judgements of those men, especially Beck and Limbaugh. Their shows especially Beck's tv show is FULL of highly balanced and facts and information. But when I watch/read liberals like Olberman, Huffington Post, Media Matters, Move On etc., those people are nothing but a bunch of quote mining out of context liars about conservatives and conservatism, just like anti-mormonism is about Mormonism. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because I've been YOU buddy, leaving the Church and religion and thinking all that anti crap. Fortunately, I put away my judgements and decided to get objective and do some real study, and then that's when I saw what anti-mormonism is. Likewise, so is liberals and liberalism. Nothing but a little truth used to lie. Sincere believers, but still lying.
_Obiwan
_Emeritus
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Obiwan »

Kevin Graham wrote:Is that kind of like most liberals don't get past Obamas two Ghost Written self praising books one at least has been shown to be written by Bill Ayers???


No, Ayers pulled a prank on a conservative blogger and the whole Right Wing blogosphere went viral with it, just like the bunch of gullible idiots they are.


Again, another liberal lie..... A couple of experts in writting analysis have conducted a couple of studies and found that one of Obama's book was almost 100% likely to have been written by Ayers.

You don't know a thing you are talking about. You take liberal "rumor mill" from whatever propaganda machine and believe such is fact and truth, rather than actual fact and truth. Even further, one of the main guys who did the study was actually a Democrate and had no bias either way toward Obama, thus wasn't a so-called political hack.

You so funny.

By the way, my point of that statement was to show your double standard and the stupidity of that comment you made. Yes, liberals do have a slight edge on college degrees, but that's only because there are more rich liberals, big city, big corporations, and hollywood types, and those who are poor who believe in mooching off the "man" hippi types. Conservatives on the other hand also have college degrees only slightly less than liberals, thus not anything to write home about, and further conservatives tend to work, have small businesses, and self educate themselves. In other words, your statement was just plain ignorant, as all liberal beliefs are.
Post Reply