Two Roads, One Truth - Anarchy Is Not Extremism

Anarchist Professor/Philosopher Gerard N. Casey explains how he came to the ultimate conclusion that the State is a violent homicidal cabal of terrorist looters.

Professor Casey makes extensive use of humor and satire in this epic speech on the nature of government, money, religion and liberty.

What is extreme is using violent looting as a method of solving complex social problems. Violent looting has never solved any complex social problem and it never will solve any complex social problem. It creates a state of dependent slavery, and like a parasite, ultimately destroys its host.



Learn more by clicking my sig.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by mnemeth1]

Relative to the current political climate, anarchism is very extreme.

As for your video, I have neither the means nor the interest to access it.

Perhaps you should consider writing out your own arguments on these subjects. Videos can influence people because they rely as much upon the orator as they do upon the subject. If it's a good speaker, the people who see it can be persuaded to support almost anything. If its a bad speaker, it doesn't matter how good your argument is.

If you want a better and more informed debate, I would humbly request that you submit it in writing.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


So let me get this strait.

You dismiss a video that you havent even watched as sophistry while attempting to make a sophist argument, ie that that presentation is more powerful that content. Unfortunately you offer neither a compelling presentation or a logical rebutal to the content of the video, that you admit to not viewing due to inconvenience. You attempt to convince the reader to dismiss, as you do, purely by your choice of words, and not by deconstruction of logic of any kind.

You lay the blanket dismissive statement that anarchy is an extreme ideology, which in your Statist mind effectively renders any discussion on the matter unnecessary. Yet you have no idea what you are arguing against as you admit you havent listened to the other side. You imply that arguing the matter is needless as any argument for 'anarchy' is just the work of a persuasive orator and not the result of persuasive arguments.

So basically youve dismissed without investigation (the highest form of ignorance according to minds much greater than ours) and concluded before analyzing any information. Your mind is made up and is not subject to any kind of rational debate or reasoning as you have arrived at a conclusion before weighing one argument vs the next.

You provide no insights, critical thought or logical rebutals to the information presented. And yet you have the BALLS to demand some sort of reasonable debate when you yourself have, in this one post, displayed a complete contempt towards any exchange where the goal is higher understanding and truths, arrived at through intense scrutiny and adjustment of conclusions when new information is provided. You simply dont give and damn if youre right, but only desire to *win*, and that in itself lands you outside the proximity of thinking humans that value truth, intergrity, and the humility required to persue truth.

In essence your post can be boiled down to "NO". You offer nothing besides irrational statements based on prior prejudices that in summation offer nothing to those of us who actually are here seeking arguements, counterarguments and rational proofs. If you have a problem with the video, state your argument vs it for all to see and let us prove or disprove your claims. Saying "NO" is less valuble and informative than saying nothing at all. And for your information, your banal and limp laziness only boosts your opponents arguments to the casual reader such as myself.

To refute the one sentence that you typed that had some substance but had not supporting arguments, yes, a Stateless society is of course 'extreme' in relation to the current climate, Your claim that is it indeed extreme, (which I agree with) in no way invalidates the substance of anarchy itself. An end to slavery would have seemed extreme in the prevailing political climate 200 years ago. Opposition the the church would have been extreme in the time of the inquisition. Not sacrificing hundreds of live humans to an evil and manufactured diety would have seemed extreme to the late South American civilizations. Women not wearing a burqua (sp?) might seem extreme in many muslim cultures to this day.

So 'extreme' is a relative term that has no meaning when not compared to the prevailing culture of the extremists. So of course, in a world of 190+ states (or whatever) someone advocating statelessness would seem extreme. This does not invalidate their arguments, though, as the above examples show. You cannot dismiss rational arguments with the wave of a hand simply because youre currently part of the majority, If you want to be taken seriously by any thinking person you must deconstuct the arguments presented and show the logical flaws in reasoning. Hey, if you could do that you might even convince me, or Mmenth. But waving the magic wand of dismissal get you no cred with us, or anyone else who values truth or even merely entertainment, as simply saying 'no' and changing the topic is boring as hell and provided no food for thought, not even junk food.

So try again, if you please or dare, Tell us all exactly the points from the vid that you disagree with, tell us exactly why you disagree, and prove us wrong with your superior state schooled mind and dry british wit. Dont be afraid to engage in sophistry to convince us, as it would be nice to be entertained as were being schooled. But for the love of all things objective, dont tell us 'WRONG' without showing us the error of our ways. Anything less if just noise.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
You dismiss a video

I didn't dismiss it.

presentation is more powerful that content.

Not more powerful, but it has a lot of influence. Hitler, Mussolini, and others managed to rally many around to their ideas not necessarily because they were good ideas but because they were charismatic and powerful speakers. Likewise, the opposite is true - a poor public speaker can damage the message s/he is trying to give.

You attempt to convince the reader to dismiss, as you do, purely by your choice of words, and not by deconstruction of logic of any kind.

No I don't. Think of it more as friendly advice. It is certainly easier to address the points given in written form as well, as I'm doing here now.

You lay the blanket dismissive statement that anarchy is an extreme ideology, which in your Statist mind effectively renders any discussion on the matter unnecessary.

I wish you wouldn't keep making assumptions about my intent.

So basically youve dismissed

No, I haven't.

You provide no insights, critical thought or logical rebutals to the information presented.

Because, as already stated, I don't have the means to watch the video. I'm also not particularly interested in watching a video, and would rather have it written out as we are writing to each other now.

To refute the one sentence that you typed that had some substance but had not supporting arguments, yes, a Stateless society is of course 'extreme' in relation to the current climate, Your claim that is it indeed extreme, (which I agree with) in no way invalidates the substance of anarchy itself.

I didn't say it was.

So 'extreme' is a relative term

Obviously.

You cannot dismiss rational arguments with the wave of a hand simply because youre currently part of the majority

Luckily, I didn't.

Tell us all exactly the points from the vid that you disagree with, tell us exactly why you disagree

As previously mentioned, I can't.