Intergalactic Summit

Nor would "Mr. Oliver" want to be a souless little cog in a souless little system spinning mindlessly to the tune of a predefined purpose no more no less like a good little cog should! And if that somehow makes me a selfish person, because I value my individuality and find the idea of being just a number repulsive well then so freakin be it!

You've just had a taste of my inner snapping turtle, now I suggest we return to the OP's topic, again.

I never said you or anyone else shouldn't pursue whatever you wish. In fact the closing portion of my last post specifically mentioned that others would probably strive for it all the more because I stated I don't believe it is possible.

Also your example is a bit flawed. For a utopian society, governed by all its members acting in the best interest of that society, requires every single person to play their part. By contrast space flight is not something the whole of humanity makes use of, indeed I'd imagine a healthy portion, perhaps even the majority, of humanity will live and die without leaving whichever planet they happen to be on. Further it doesn't take the collective efforts of all of humanity for us to remain capable of interstellar travel.

Another thing you might be overlooking about this particular conversation is the fact that you seem to be advocating for something you wouldn't want, something that you would find offensive even. In the scope of this discussion about the ideal forms of government and the resulting societies that would practice and benefit from them, it is plain to see that for this sort of utopian system to ever come about you, and everyone else, would have to be cogs in the wider machine of "the best interest of the species." If someone doesn't, the machine, the utopia, breaks apart and fails. It is quite the wonderful little puzzle really. The fundamental way to destroy utopia is to exercise the freedom to not do your part. Trying to maintain a utopian society and maintain personal freedoms seems about as idealistic as putting a kettle of water on the stove and hoping to end up with a kettle of ice.

It would be interesting to rate the various factions on selfishness vs selflessness.

Nation would likely be foremost in selflessness with the State a distant second. The Federation would obviously be the most selfish, but I'd rank the Kingdom as second and the Empire as third with the Republic as the middle ground.

I don't know enough about the Mandate or Syndicate to comment on them.

Actually, the various pirate societies might be more selfish than the Federation.

Type 1 this Type 2 that, has to be so clinical about it she can't even write 1 or 2 properly, typical gray, typical Caldari.

Oh and as far as parading the personal lives of your co-workers in front of me as if you couldn't have possibly pulled that information out of some corporate database, considering your corporation likely keeps detailed records on all sorts of personal information about it's employees, like I suspect the majority of the State does for everyone, since I suspect NOBODY in the Caldari State EVER has a moment of privacy considering how completely totalitarian your government is.... I really don't care, because you're just not my kind of people.

Wouldn't attempting to dictate what a topic should and shouldn't be about contradict the definition of anarchy? Just sayin... hehe I'll shut up now.

Ms Ruutarhara,
You are free of course to question my understanding in Anarchism but if you are to do so then you need to provide with an argument as to why my understanding is mediocre at best.
Allow me to simply say that given how many segments exist within Anarchy, if you believe that there is one particular way to understand Anarchy(which you are implying with your attitude) then someone else needs to better understand Anarchism.

As for your last remark about revolutionary and revolutions. I didn’t try to be revolutionary with this post, all I did was to create an introduction of Anarchy. In addition, I am pretty sure that what is considered a revolution from you and what is considered a revolution from me are entirely different.



Now allow me to answer to what Mr Oliver is trying to say about a mob rule.

Mr Oliver is raising a good question but a very inadequate as well. In every system where Democracy is being applied as I am sure you know, there will be a ‘’winning’’ side and a ‘’losing’’ side. The same of course happens with Anarchy that has at its core Democracy, unless we are talking about Individualistic Anarchy.

Now you see what you do not understand Mr Oliver is that Direct Democracy ensures to the losing side to ‘’battle’’ through democratic means the decision of a general assembly. You see an Assembly isn’t there just for elections to be held up. It is a place also where endless debate can happen. Should there is merit and potential to the losing side’s opinion then they have all the time and chances in the world to debate and question the results of a decision being made by an Assembly.

Thus, the losing side can either succeed or fail, but it can try as much as it wants.

Now of course there will be majorities having their way but majorities can’t abuse their power Mr Oliver, fraud cannot exist within great majorities because majorities are not cohesive when it comes to dividing power. In order for Power to be abused there needs to be a tight system which holds the power. The more loose the system controlling the power is the less power abuse can happen.

Think about it. Why in the Federation things are very hard to be changed?

Because the system of power rests upon the Senate; a Senate which has a small amount of officials who can be very easily bought off by some lobbies. Now combine that power they have with what is considered as their rightful right to create and abolish laws and you can see why the only power of the citizens is just to vote.

But you see in Anarchist system, the power stays with the majority of the people. The people are voting the laws, not the Assembly, the Assembly is just there to provide some structure in debates and make sure that what has been agreed will be carried out. Now the people, meaning the majority, Mr Oliver can’t be bought off.

Let me give you an example, if let’s say an Anarchist system is having 5 000 people all voting for laws and so on and so forth, then a clear majority would be 4000 to 1000. Now for the 1000 to try and buy off 4000 people is just insane. Soon the word will be out and the bought off will have failed.

But you see in a Senate within the Federation to buy the interests of 10,20,30 Senators is not something hard is it? So what the 1000 are left to do is either debate and tries to change the views of the 4000 or just admit defeat and move on.

Wow.

The funny thing here is that if you had ever really talked with Scherezad, you would understand that she knows each of these people intimately. She makes the effort to do so, and to learn.

You, on the other hand, are acting entirely on the basis of "She is Caldari, therefore she does not care about human life, therefore she is a threat and I will kill her."

One of these is a rational, human response.

The other one is entirely hypocritcal and projecting ones own flaws onto an opponent in a discussion on the IGS.

Very well though. That's your choice, such as it is. You should ask yourself if that's the sort of choice you want to have the option of making.

Condescending much? Well I can play that game too...


Mr. Oliver does raise a good question, and Mr. Oliver also proofreads as well.


Thing is in a reality based state of anarchy, which is defined as "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" you could not have an assembly, voters, or any kind of democracy direct or otherwise because those things are part of a lawful state of political order, which contradicts the definition of anarchy.

So really "Mr. Drengist" if you're going to continue attempting to formulate your own utopian government model, atleast give it an accurate name. Because "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" is not what you are describing.

Of course she does, as a corporate cog it's her duty to watch everyone and report any fellow cogs who are deviating from their programming. Naturally this involves getting to know her co-workers VERY well, and learning EVERYTHING she can.

No I am acting on the basis of "She is a Caldari who labels human beings as systems, therefore she is a highly conditioned automaton of the State, therefore she is a threat and I will gladly blow up her ship should I ever be called upon to do so."


That would be mine since I'm the only one speaking in terms of humanity and not "system type I vs system type II" like some kind of gray robot.

Yes "Mr. Thessalonia", your passive-aggressive attempt at condescending is duley noted (as I hope mine has been, difference is I fancy mine has been a bit more direct).

You are complaining that a scientist uses technical lingo in her speech. You realize this, right?

You are also, objectively, wrong. Human beings are systems. You are a biological machine. That does not lessen you, it just acknowledges reality. If anything, that knowledge should lead you to a greater understanding of your actions, your choices, and your values.

Then again, I guess you could shove your head in the sand, cover your ears, and fervently deny the truth in the mistaken belief that there is something inherent to you, unique to your biological make up, that makes you something more than a biological machine.