Johnny

Democracy is the best form of government we know of, and it allows for the most freedoms. But like any other form of government, it must grow. A true democracy cannot be sustained forever... constitutions only limit it for a limited time (granted for a long while).

We are biased towards our own arguments of course. idk about you, but I converted into my ideology like the great majority of libertarians and Voluntaryists. The issue with not having a philosophy is that you are more likely to be inconsistent or contradictory, thus making your arguments inferior to those who are consistent.

I would prefer to answer your questions from the thread here. That threat is wayyyyyy too busy and people seem to be repeating the same crap. So can I answer your last post here instead of there?

So you mean a government would come out of anarchy? So we need government to prevent another government? xD

Zombies and dragons sounds like a great ideal world... can I join in on the fun? Sounds dangerous though. :P

So you dont identify left-wing or right-wing, authoritarian or libertarian? to be honest, I have found that my arguments are stronger with an underlining philosophy.

True. I have fun posting and stuff.

I'm shocked we're not friends... fixing that now

Ill answer your last post there in the morning lol. Im really tired now.

Anarchy is not molotov-throwing, violence, or any of the stereotypical views of anarchy. There is no purge crap lol

Voluntaryism (a form of anarchism also known as Anarcho-Capitalism) is the idea that all human interaction should be both voluntary and consensual, and that the threat of force or initiation of force is inherently illegitimate. People own themselves and their property, and no one else has the right to another's body or property. It is the notion that society can be run with individuals ruling themselves (not anyone else), and that innovation and human progression can succeed without violence.

It just turns out the government's existence is violent. So we are fine with voluntary government and communes. We are not only antigovernment violence (like people think we are), but rather anti-all violence. So we are against war, murder, rape, theft, etc. But this also means we are against people dictating what we can and can't do with our bodies and property. The only limit in Voluntaryist philosophy is that one cannot violate another's body or property.

I can go into detail about each point there if you want me to. But as you can see, it is not the stereotypical anarchy lol. People see the word "anarchy" and assume we want to start shooting people lol.

I think too logically sometimes as well, over analyzing things and stuff. i always search for the most consistent philosophy, and my current one is that one until i find a contradiction/consistency somewhere.

is there an underlining philosophy behind your political leanings?

Its really cool! the color combination is great, as well as the metallic feel.

ya whatever lol xD

basically my life now. I'm on break from school now, so ill be starting my homework tomorrow and begin writing some essays about the philosophy behind anarchism.

If you have questions about anarchy, you can answer them to the best of my ability! And you said was a little bit liberal.... I'm so liberal I dont believe in government! xD

Also this page design is crazy awesome

Whats up? idk why, but i feel like DMing someone.

hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Take a stroll through an dangerous American city. Argentina and America isn't the same. Do you witness murders or even gunshots on a daily basis? Do you have to place bars on your door and windows to keep intruders out (which they'll find a way in), do you risk getting mugged or robbed everytime you step foot into the streets? Do you have people plotting on you on the block? If you answered no to any of those questions then Argentina is nothing like an American city. I'm confident to say, that 90% of people in the hood of a city own a firearm. I'm also confident to say those law abiding citizens becoming a victim have probably killed somebody in self defense or pulled a gun in self defense.

That wasn't me, that was Jet I believe. But I've as well lived in dangerous neighborhoods in St. Louis (which is 10th most dangerous in America) and Chicago (murder capitol), there was 80+ shootings in the west and south alone (which is about a 10 mile radius in just a weekend) so you can see a gun is necessary.

A law abiding citizen with a gun vs a criminal with a gun makes them both equal, except the criminal is already disobeying the law. I don't think in any US state a convicted felon can legally have a firearm, I could be wrong tho. I know here (Illinois/Chicago) it's difficult to get a gun as a law abiding citizen and impossible as a felon (legally).

Actually, a gun saving someone does happen everyday, or almost everyday, at least in America. In American cities, some are forced to grow up in dangerous neighborhoods (ones where theft, home invasions, robbery, and even rapes and murder are an everyday thing) because it's all they can afford. If you're poor in a city, you have a high chance of living in the slums. So someone that's not about that life is forced to get a firearm so they can protect themselves from said crimes. I'm sure if you lived in a dangerous neighborhood you'd understand. America has a major gang problem. You live in Argentina correct?

True, I feel you. I also understand most of the stances you guys make but it's not the right way (our disagreement with guns) and I feel some don't understand what I'm trying to say. My solution to the problem is finding a way to get rid of gang bangers rather than punishing the general public or law abiding citizens by disarming us for something we didn't do. You get rid of them you get rid of most of the crime. You agree, or at least see where I'm coming from?

By his political beliefs he feels he outwits everyone no matter what. that's the main reason I don't like debating with far left or far right activists. You throw a valid question at them and they come back with something irrelevant leaving you like, "wtf does this have to do with anything" type of thing. So meaning in their head they're always right since they've never answered the question.

I read you post right after I posted it, I was sure someone was going to call him out on that one. I read his post and I was shocked. I tried to stay out of the abortion debate but I had to say something about that one lol. I'm anxious to see what he's going to respond with, he probably will avoid the question. He seems to do that a lot.

I was only forbidding you from answering in that thread specifically, since that whole thing was getting much too off-topic and I'd like it to get back on-topic. I deliberately typed "in this thread" to leave the options of VMs, PMs, etc, open to you and everyone else. I also did not mean to "bring back the topic"; Live banned him while I was in the middle of typing my post.

You did insult him (Gilles) though. I can provide several lines of yours that could be considered insults if you'd like.

And I don't care if you thought he was a troll or not, I don't care how disrespectful he got, I don't care how whack he was, that is not an excuse at all for you or anyone to behave uncivilly in return. What is so hard about that?

I'm not calling you dumb either. I'm calling the concept of fighting fire with fire dumb. I don't see how I was being disrespectful towards you.

your song is really really good :)

ooooh I like your song they posted :D

i posted a little thank you / ad in my gallery for your thread, hehe. 8)

Wtf

open the damn door

They had been well lately.