164 replies to this topic

[Connor MacLeod]

On the contrary, my position is entirely non-contradictory. It may be crazy in your opinion, but at least it's logical and coherent, given the axioms.

I guess you're not married.

[maxwatt]

On the contrary, my position is entirely non-contradictory. It may be crazy in your opinion, but at least it's logical and coherent, given the axioms.

I guess you're not married.

[chris w]

By the way, I'm not against laws. Anarchists are not against laws. They are against monopolies on violence.

JLL, kind of off topic from me, but since you've already brought it up here - how exactly is the question of keeping an Anarchism anarchistic dealt with ?, meaning how in practice would the ( for ex ) defense agencies be kept away from collusions and such ? I've read some things about this issue from the perspective of Minarchists in other forums and their critique seemed pretty coherent. Can you give me link(s)on that ?

[nowayout]

I think the Americans have finally lost their minds.

I am in favor of complete openness and transparency, and I am flabbergasted by the idea so uncritically accepted here that the democracies they profess to belong to can be run by hiding information from the voting public. Those who believe this truly don't understand the meaning of democracy. I am of the opinion that Assange and Bradley Manning are heroes.

But even more so, I am completely sideswiped by the notion that there are citizens in this country and on this forum who really truly don't want to know what their governments are trying to hide from them. I cannot for the life of me conceive of the twisted kind of psychology behind this dangerous lack of curiosity and refusal to take responsibility. What must have happened in your childhoods? Look at the illegal and disastrous wars this country and others have entered as a result of this attitude, the torture, the killings of civilians, etc. Don't you ever learn?

And by the way, why is the word Anarchism used as if it were something bad?

Edited by viveutvivas, 18 December 2010 - 02:57 AM.

[niner]

By the way, I'm not against laws. Anarchists are not against laws. They are against monopolies on violence.

How do you enforce laws without threat of violence? Who would enforce the laws in an anarchist society?

[JLL]

By the way, I'm not against laws. Anarchists are not against laws. They are against monopolies on violence.

How do you enforce laws without threat of violence? Who would enforce the laws in an anarchist society?

This has been discussed in several threads already, but here's one article. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has other good writings on the subject, too.

Anarchists do not object to all violence; they do, however, support the non-aggression principle, which essentially means that violence is okay in self-defence but not otherwise.

And before someone asks me what's there to prevent a private defence agency from becoming a new government, do yourself a favour and at least go through the other threads first.

[JLL]

By the way, I'm not against laws. Anarchists are not against laws. They are against monopolies on violence.

JLL, kind of off topic from me, but since you've already brought it up here - how exactly is the question of keeping an Anarchism anarchistic dealt with ?, meaning how in practice would the ( for ex ) defense agencies be kept away from collusions and such ? I've read some things about this issue from the perspective of Minarchists in other forums and their critique seemed pretty coherent. Can you give me link(s)on that ?

Stephan Molyneux had a long article on that question, but the link seems to be broken. But to reverse the question, how does giving all the guns to one party solve the issue?

If society becomes frightened of a particular DRO, then it can simply stop doing business with it, which will cause it to collapse. If that DRO, as it collapses, somehow transforms itself from a group of secretaries, statisticians, accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia and successfully takes over society – and how unlikely is that! – then such a State will then be imposed on the general population. However, there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario. First of all, if any DRO can take over society and impose itself as a new State, why only a DRO? Why not the Rotary Club? Why not a union? Why not the Mafia? The YMCA? The SPCA? Is society to then ban all groups with more than a hundred members? Clearly that is not a feasible solution, and so society must live with the risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group.

And, in the final analysis, if society is so terrified of a single group seizing a monopoly of political power, what does that say about the existing States? They have a monopoly of political power. If a DRO should never achieve this kind of control, why should existing States continue to wield theirs?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html

[nowayout]

It is interesting that it is always the very same people who rail against what they call the Nanny State who in fact want the state to be their Ultimate Nanny, preferring the state to keep from them the oh so inconvenient truths and the oh so inconvenient responsibility for what is being done in their name.

It is the ultimate in cowardice.

Edited by viveutvivas, 18 December 2010 - 08:40 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

The criticism that forms of government that haven't been tried are risky is a very valid one. Even if there are examples that are in some ways are analogous these are hardly controlled experiments. Moral ethical, or ideological attachment to various methods of operation are essentially irrelevant; what is important is what works.

Some of the proposed solutions to these risks, namely; don't try it, is likewise not any kind of solution at all. It's even less of a solution when you take into account that very people who oppose experimenting with new governmental forms are often the same ones who advocate not just nationwide, but worldwide policies and regulations. Essentially experimenting on the entire human race at once, with no controls. This is not just bad science but entirely irrational and virtual insanity no matter what kind of theoretical framework you have or how well grounded you think it is. This is absolutely no different than taking an entirely untested drug.

The solution should be obvious. Not attempting policies in a top down manner over all of humanity or over large nation states with no control group. Instead we should be attempting to reduce the huge barrier to entry to the creation of new forms of human organization as much as possible. We all shouldn't be debating how "The Government" should function. One reason Europe and the United States were able to do so well is that until relatively recently the United States had a weak federal government and 50 competing small governments, likewise with Europe. That this works is not something that should be up for debate; this is evolution itself, and its backed up by billions of years of history and countless highly controlled experiments in the lab.

When ideas in one area provide obvious benefits they will be adopted by many just as they have before. Our level of horizontal meme transfer is greater than any other organism on the planet. This clever adaptation allows our societies to continue to evolve without massive die offs of its members; we should utilize this amazing advantage as much as possible.

Ultimate unity is not strength, but weakness.

[chris w]

One reason Europe and the United States were able to do so well is that until relatively recently the United States had a weak federal government and 50 competing small governments, likewise with Europe. That this works is not something that should be up for debate; this is evolution itself, and its backed up by billions of years of history and countless highly controlled experiments in the lab.

Actually, I think this bit is much debatable, don't hijack the evolution . The intra European competition had regularly evolved into minor and major wars for centuries literary ( and often mitigated only thanks to exporting the conflict out to the colonies ), until the last 50 years when unification has been started, it was simply realised that a next French-German quarell is humanly unaffordable, that and the Soviet threat of course.
Also, before WWI in Central Europe, coegsistence of ethnicities was significantly more peaceful when they were clustered together under the rule of Austrian Empire than after it was dismantled and different nation states emerged with large national minorities within their borders.

But I do find the idea of a habitable piece of land made accesible to social organisation experiments pretty sane, so that traditional goverments would be pressed to better up their services and keep it that way. Still, all that is fine and dandy but won't help those trapped in prison - states like North Korea who don't have the luxury to vote with their feet if all else fails. And not much can help them really other than outside actions and pressure from other governments. But for that you should, you know, not overthrow the less evil ones first .

[niner]

By the way, I'm not against laws. Anarchists are not against laws. They are against monopolies on violence.

How do you enforce laws without threat of violence? Who would enforce the laws in an anarchist society?

This has been discussed in several threads already, but here's one article. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has other good writings on the subject, too.

Anarchists do not object to all violence; they do, however, support the non-aggression principle, which essentially means that violence is okay in self-defence but not otherwise.

Hoppe's plan seems to boil down to competing bands of Rent-A-Cops. He talks about how we could have Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim private law groups. Does that mean that the Sharia rent-a-cops will come and try to bust me for drinking? The balance of the plan seems to be for everyone to get armed up real good. Then if we have any conflicts, we can just shoot each other, and the guy with the biggest gun will probably win. This seems really poorly thought out.

[JLL]

By the way, I'm not against laws. Anarchists are not against laws. They are against monopolies on violence.

How do you enforce laws without threat of violence? Who would enforce the laws in an anarchist society?

This has been discussed in several threads already, but here's one article. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has other good writings on the subject, too.

Anarchists do not object to all violence; they do, however, support the non-aggression principle, which essentially means that violence is okay in self-defence but not otherwise.

Hoppe's plan seems to boil down to competing bands of Rent-A-Cops. He talks about how we could have Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim private law groups. Does that mean that the Sharia rent-a-cops will come and try to bust me for drinking? The balance of the plan seems to be for everyone to get armed up real good. Then if we have any conflicts, we can just shoot each other, and the guy with the biggest gun will probably win. This seems really poorly thought out.

No. You obviously didn't read the whole thing.

[valkyrie_ice]

No. You obviously didn't read the whole thing.

It still comes done to an irrational belief that the system will work because "People are naturally good."

History simply shows that this is not the case. Your anarchy will be short lived, and the government that will form immediately following will be the most brutal sort of police state that can be formed from the mindset of "he who has the most guns and is most willing to use them wins". Even if 80% of people are perfectly happy law abiding citizens who do follow your principles, the 20% who don't will either gravitate to the criminal class or the police forces to achieve "power"

A life spent in a world where everywhere is a potential combat zone between competing "police" forces, all of whom will be armed to the teeth and engaged in arms races with every other "police force" doesn't sound very appealing to me. So sorry. I actually value human life, all human life, as opposed to thinking that I alone have value.


@Rol

I tend to agree with most of your position with one major exception. Secrecy in Government should be something entered into with GREAT RELUCTANCE, and ONLY when it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. That is a far different position than we seem to have in our government today, in which secrecy is the norm and transparency is entered into with great reluctance. Yes, secrets are necessary, but they should be as few as possible. A culture of secrecy has been entered into that exists primarily to avoid accountability, not to protect those "secrets" which are actually in need of secrecy. We need a government where secrets are used to defend the nations security, not to garner an advantage for one corporate interest or another or to prevent news of an atrocity from reaching people who will hold those responsible to account. In this regard, wikileaks has indeed proven a valid and valuable news source. Should some of the information released have remained secret? A very few of them, like diplomatic assessments of world leaders, but not info like Clinton's orders to spy and collect personal data or the Vatican's pressuring Ireland to not pursue child molestation charges against priests. Those are not things which defend our nation's security, but things which show special interests using secrecy to prevent a calling to account.

[EmbraceUnity]

Hoppe's plan seems to boil down to competing bands of Rent-A-Cops. He talks about how we could have Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim private law groups. Does that mean that the Sharia rent-a-cops will come and try to bust me for drinking? The balance of the plan seems to be for everyone to get armed up real good. Then if we have any conflicts, we can just shoot each other, and the guy with the biggest gun will probably win. This seems really poorly thought out.

Hahaha, awesome. Though there are already court systems for jews, muslims, and native americans within western societies, but these tend to supplement the overarching system, and cannot really contradict it too much. They tend to do things like excommunicate you for breaking cultural rules.

I understand how that sort of thing could work, and it already does work... but ONLY within the context of a larger framework predicated on a monopoly of force.

[e Volution]

It's funny, some people will think this irrelevant, whereas I think it is the key issue no one is touching on:

Info pirates seek an alternative internet

After dumping thousands of secret US diplomatic cables in the public domain last week, WikiLeaks ended up losing its web hosting company – twice – and its wikileaks.org web domain to boot as providers got cold feet about its content. But a plan being hatched by fellow travellers in the file-sharing community may shield the controversial data dumper from such takedowns in future.

It all started with a tweet on 28 November: "Hello all ISPs of the world. We're going to add a new competing root-server since we're tired of ICANN. Please contact me to help."

This missive, complaining about the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, was from Peter Sunde, an anti-copyright activist based in Sweden and one of the founders of The Pirate Bay website, which tracks the locations of copyrighted movie and music BitTorrent files. It instantly lit a flame among file-sharers. "That small tweet turned into a lot of interest," Sunde blogged two days later. "We haven't organised yet, but are trying to… we want the internet to be uncensored. Having a centralised system that controls our information flow is not acceptable."

There is something so much bigger going on here than WikiLeaks, or Assange, or Diplomatic Cables. The nature of information, the exponential growth of information technology, human ideas or memes as part of a new evolutionary process, facilitating rapid horizontal information flow. There were stated concerns earlier that this latest leak will do the opposite of what was intended, by creating more secrecy and less transparency. I don't think so, just look at this initiative that was sparked as direct result from the leak.

It wouldn't matter if every person in this thread was agreeing, it wouldn't mean shit. A much deeper process would continue to run its course... We've all seen those Kurzweil graphs charting exponential growth of X measure of information technology, unwavering through depressions, recessions, or world wars. Personally I don't see this matter as any different.

Edited by e Volution, 20 December 2010 - 12:09 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

It's funny, some people will think this irrelevant, whereas I think it is the key issue no one is touching on:

Info pirates seek an alternative internet

After dumping thousands of secret US diplomatic cables in the public domain last week, WikiLeaks ended up losing its web hosting company – twice – and its wikileaks.org web domain to boot as providers got cold feet about its content. But a plan being hatched by fellow travellers in the file-sharing community may shield the controversial data dumper from such takedowns in future.

It all started with a tweet on 28 November: "Hello all ISPs of the world. We're going to add a new competing root-server since we're tired of ICANN. Please contact me to help."

This missive, complaining about the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, was from Peter Sunde, an anti-copyright activist based in Sweden and one of the founders of The Pirate Bay website, which tracks the locations of copyrighted movie and music BitTorrent files. It instantly lit a flame among file-sharers. "That small tweet turned into a lot of interest," Sunde blogged two days later. "We haven't organised yet, but are trying to… we want the internet to be uncensored. Having a centralised system that controls our information flow is not acceptable."

There is something so much bigger going on here than WikiLeaks, or Assange, or Diplomatic Cables. The nature of information, the exponential growth of information technology, human ideas or memes as part of a new evolutionary process, facilitating rapid horizontal information flow. There were stated concerns earlier that this latest leak will do the opposite of what was intended, by creating more secrecy and less transparency. I don't think so, just look at this initiative that was sparked as direct result from the leak.

It wouldn't matter if every person in this thread was agreeing, it wouldn't mean shit. A much deeper process would continue to run its course... We've all seen those Kurzweil graphs charting exponential growth of X measure of information technology, unchanged through depressions, recessions, or world wars. Personally I don't see this matter as any different.

Didn't read the article I wrote about wikileaks did you? I already reported this development. It's part and parcel of why I said the effect of trying to shut down wikileaks was simply going to ensure that methods to prevent that shut down would be created.


To which the most common response was , "The Secret Cabal of Bankers that Rule the World" won't let that happen. *sigh* I hate conspiracy nuts.

[Rational Madman]

On the contrary, my position is entirely non-contradictory. It may be crazy in your opinion, but at least it's logical and coherent, given the axioms.

I guess you're not married.

I voted this post up because it was an innocent statement, and for some bizarre reason, some anonymous character(s) is strangely compelled to carry out a voting campaign against all posts deemed disagreeable. But judging by the commentary of the more unpopular members, the reputation system is not having its desired effect, so why even bother? Because it's a pretty petty and cowardly way of expressing disagreement.

[valkyrie_ice]

I voted this post up because it was an innocent statement, and for some bizarre reason, some anonymous character(s) is strangely compelled to carry out a voting campaign against all posts deemed disagreeable. But judging by the commentary of the more unpopular members, the reputation system is not having its desired effect, so why even bother? Because it's a pretty petty and cowardly way of expressing disagreement.

I stopped paying attention to the reputation system because that is exactly what is happening. People are voting down anything that they disagree with, and some prolific posters are basically eliminating any points that might be gained by anyone who has anything to say that does not support their world views. I stopped bothering. It's as useless as trying to edit a wikipedia page that has "campers" suppressing every view but that which they support.

[Rational Madman]

I voted this post up because it was an innocent statement, and for some bizarre reason, some anonymous character(s) is strangely compelled to carry out a voting campaign against all posts deemed disagreeable. But judging by the commentary of the more unpopular members, the reputation system is not having its desired effect, so why even bother? Because it's a pretty petty and cowardly way of expressing disagreement.

I stopped paying attention to the reputation system because that is exactly what is happening. People are voting down anything that they disagree with, and some prolific posters are basically eliminating any points that might be gained by anyone who has anything to say that does not support their world views. I stopped bothering. It's as useless as trying to edit a wikipedia page that has "campers" suppressing every view but that which they support.

Yeah, but the voting is also becoming pretty arbitrary, like the voting down of Connor's post about marriage. If I had to guess the identities, I would say JLL, e Volution, Lazarus Long, Shadowhawk, and Czukles are the guilty parties, whom will predictably retaliate by anonymously voting down this post. And what a dire consequence that would be! It's indeed very childish, but I won't expend anymore undeserving energy on the topic.

Edited by Rol82, 20 December 2010 - 02:58 AM.

[JLL]

I voted this post up because it was an innocent statement, and for some bizarre reason, some anonymous character(s) is strangely compelled to carry out a voting campaign against all posts deemed disagreeable. But judging by the commentary of the more unpopular members, the reputation system is not having its desired effect, so why even bother? Because it's a pretty petty and cowardly way of expressing disagreement.

I stopped paying attention to the reputation system because that is exactly what is happening. People are voting down anything that they disagree with, and some prolific posters are basically eliminating any points that might be gained by anyone who has anything to say that does not support their world views. I stopped bothering. It's as useless as trying to edit a wikipedia page that has "campers" suppressing every view but that which they support.

Yeah, but the voting is also becoming pretty arbitrary, like the voting down of Connor's post about marriage. If I had to guess the identities, I would say JLL, e Volution, Lazarus Long, Shadowhawk, and Czukles are the guilty parties, whom will predictably retaliate by anonymously voting down this post. And what a dire consequence that would be! It's indeed very childish, but I won't expend anymore undeserving energy on the topic.

Well I hate to disappoint you, but I've never used any voting thing on this forum. I don't even see any users ratings, except for the entire thread. Under my own name I see "0 < > 4" or some strange set of characters of which I no idea what the hell it means, and I don't care.

I could give a fuck about some voting systems, they never work on any forum I've been to. Eventually, people stop caring about them. But good luck collecting those stars/points/whatever!

[JLL]

No. You obviously didn't read the whole thing.

It still comes done to an irrational belief that the system will work because "People are naturally good."

No. You obviously didn't read the whole thing either.

Logically, there are four possibilities as to the mixture of good and evil people in the world:

• all men are moral
• all men are immoral
• the majority of men are moral, and a minority immoral
• the majority of men are immoral, and a minority moral

(A perfect balance of good and evil is statistically impossible!)

In the first case (all men are moral), the State is obviously not needed, since evil cannot exist.

In the second case (all men are immoral), the State cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The State, it is generally argued, must exist because there are evil people in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of State retribution (police, prisons, etc.). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more evil they will do. However, the State itself is not subject to any force, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen and politicians go to jail? Thus if evil people wish to do harm but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a State to exist, because evil people will immediately take control of that State, in order to do evil and avoid retribution. In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups.

The third possibility is that most people are evil, and only a few are good. If that is the case, then the State also cannot be permitted to exist, since the majority of those in control of the State will be evil, and will rule over the good minority. Democracy in particular cannot be permitted to exist, since the minority of good people would be subjugated to the democratic will of the evil majority. Evil people, who wish to do harm without fear of retribution, would inevitably take control of the State, and use its power to do their evil free of that fear. Good people do not act morally because they fear retribution, but because they love goodness and peace of mind – and thus, unlike evil people, have little to gain by controlling the State. And so it is certain that the State will be controlled by a majority of evil people, and will rule over all, to the detriment of all moral people.

The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are evil. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that evil people will always want to gain control over the State, in order to shield themselves from retaliation. This option changes the appearance of democracy, however: because the majority of people are good, evil power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills with the police and military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the State remains the greatest prize to the most evil men, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power – and so the State cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.

It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a State can logically be allowed to exist.

History simply shows that this is not the case. Your anarchy will be short lived, and the government that will form immediately following will be the most brutal sort of police state that can be formed from the mindset of "he who has the most guns and is most willing to use them wins". Even if 80% of people are perfectly happy law abiding citizens who do follow your principles, the 20% who don't will either gravitate to the criminal class or the police forces to achieve "power".

Funny, you are arguing against states with your own argument.

A life spent in a world where everywhere is a potential combat zone between competing "police" forces, all of whom will be armed to the teeth and engaged in arms races with every other "police force" doesn't sound very appealing to me. So sorry. I actually value human life, all human life, as opposed to thinking that I alone have value.

Oh, you mean a world where governments are at war with each other? It doesn't appeal to me either.

Edited by JLL, 20 December 2010 - 11:44 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

You do realize that that is a case of perfectly circular reasoning don't you JLL? You just "logic-ed" humanity out of existence. That's the problem with creating syllogisms that are based on false premises.


Your false premise? That the"State" exists as anything other than a collective of individuals that have joined together to increase the odds of survival of all individuals in the group. As humans instinctively form such groups, the "state" will always exist. That's the point you always seem to miss, that even your "anarchy" would STILL BE A STATE.


So given that the "state" is an unavoidable consequence of human instincts, which is preferable, a state governed for the greatest good of all the individuals in it, in which each individual has a say, or a state in which he with the most guns can inflict their will at random on anyone around them until they get shot by another alpha predator?


And lest you forget, WE ARE ALPHA PREDATORS. We didn't stop being predators just because we became intelligent. We are every bit as competitive as we are co-operative, and it's that competitive nature that will turn your anarchy into the disaster that you continually deny.

[chris w]

A life spent in a world where everywhere is a potential combat zone between competing "police" forces, all of whom will be armed to the teeth and engaged in arms races with every other "police force" doesn't sound very appealing to me. So sorry. I actually value human life, all human life, as opposed to thinking that I alone have value.

Oh, you mean a world where governments are at war with each other? It doesn't appeal to me either.

I still have to read both Molyneuxs, but tell me - since you use the analogy of states as individuals living in anarchy to each other - doesn't it follow that in such case you should then also strongly advocate arming exactly every single state on the planet with enough nuclear armaments to have the ability to wipe out any other single state so that everybody has everybody else by the balls and the anarchy remains intact, in the same manner that Libertarians advocate private gun ownership to keep the power balanced between individuals ?

[JLL]

Your false premise? That the"State" exists as anything other than a collective of individuals that have joined together to increase the odds of survival of all individuals in the group. As humans instinctively form such groups, the "state" will always exist. That's the point you always seem to miss, that even your "anarchy" would STILL BE A STATE.

No. You are confused.

So given that the "state" is an unavoidable consequence of human instincts, which is preferable, a state governed for the greatest good of all the individuals in it, in which each individual has a say, or a state in which he with the most guns can inflict their will at random on anyone around them until they get shot by another alpha predator?

The latter describes governments. There is no such thing as a "state governed for the greatest good of all the individuals in it", nor will there ever be one.

[JLL]

A life spent in a world where everywhere is a potential combat zone between competing "police" forces, all of whom will be armed to the teeth and engaged in arms races with every other "police force" doesn't sound very appealing to me. So sorry. I actually value human life, all human life, as opposed to thinking that I alone have value.

Oh, you mean a world where governments are at war with each other? It doesn't appeal to me either.

I still have to read both Molyneuxs, but tell me - since you use the analogy of states as individuals living in anarchy to each other - doesn't it follow that in such case you should then also strongly advocate arming exactly every single state on the planet with enough nuclear armaments to have the ability to wipe out any other single state so that everybody has everybody else by the balls and the anarchy remains intact, in the same manner that Libertarians advocate private gun ownership to keep the power balanced between individuals ?

I don't support states (=monopolies of violence over geographic areas) in any form, which are always funded through theft and monetary inflation, so it makes little difference philosophically whether states are armed to the teeth or not. But from the perspective of a "balance of power", if you will, it would seem that the scenario you describe is better than one where only a handful of states have the weapons.

And anyone who opposes anarchy should logically support a one-world government. All else is bullshit.

[Rational Madman]

I voted this post up because it was an innocent statement, and for some bizarre reason, some anonymous character(s) is strangely compelled to carry out a voting campaign against all posts deemed disagreeable. But judging by the commentary of the more unpopular members, the reputation system is not having its desired effect, so why even bother? Because it's a pretty petty and cowardly way of expressing disagreement.

I stopped paying attention to the reputation system because that is exactly what is happening. People are voting down anything that they disagree with, and some prolific posters are basically eliminating any points that might be gained by anyone who has anything to say that does not support their world views. I stopped bothering. It's as useless as trying to edit a wikipedia page that has "campers" suppressing every view but that which they support.

Yeah, but the voting is also becoming pretty arbitrary, like the voting down of Connor's post about marriage. If I had to guess the identities, I would say JLL, e Volution, Lazarus Long, Shadowhawk, and Czukles are the guilty parties, whom will predictably retaliate by anonymously voting down this post. And what a dire consequence that would be! It's indeed very childish, but I won't expend anymore undeserving energy on the topic.

Well I hate to disappoint you, but I've never used any voting thing on this forum. I don't even see any users ratings, except for the entire thread. Under my own name I see "0 < > 4" or some strange set of characters of which I no idea what the hell it means, and I don't care.

I could give a fuck about some voting systems, they never work on any forum I've been to. Eventually, people stop caring about them. But good luck collecting those stars/points/whatever!

Okay, the reasons that I know that you're lying is that reputation score changes have coincided with your visits to this thread, and because no one else would have had the incentive to vote down Connor's harmless post.

[Connor MacLeod]

And anyone who opposes anarchy should logically support a one-world government. All else is bullshit.

Why is that?

[JLL]

Okay, the reasons that I know that you're lying is that reputation score changes have coincided with your visits to this thread, and because no one else would have had the incentive to vote down Connor's harmless post.

Man, what the fuck - you do not "know" I'm lying, so don't claim you do. I have NEVER voted ANYONE'S post down on this forum, and let me tell you, if I was in the voting business, it sure as hell wouldn't be Connor's posts I'd be voting down.

Edited by maxwatt, 23 December 2010 - 05:01 AM.
remove gratuitous insult

[JLL]

And anyone who opposes anarchy should logically support a one-world government. All else is bullshit.

Why is that?

Because those who oppose anarchy do so on the basis that there needs to be a final arbitrator between disputes.

[Rational Madman]

Okay, the reasons that I know that you're lying is that reputation score changes have coincided with your visits to this thread, and because no one else would have had the incentive to vote down Connor's harmless post.

Man, what the fuck - you do not "know" I'm lying, so don't claim you do. I have NEVER voted ANYONE'S post down on this forum, and let me tell you, if I was in the voting business, it sure as hell wouldn't be Connor's posts I'd be voting down, you arrogant little prick.

Well, you've exonerated yourself, because you're reacting in a typically innocent way.

Edited by Rol82, 22 December 2010 - 06:34 PM.