If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KATU)   Meet the anarchists next door. She is kind of cute   (katu.com) divider line 307
    More: Interesting, anarchists  
•       •       •

24010 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Aug 2012 at 11:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



307 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-03 02:43:21 PM

Token Anarchist: Profits are people, bro. Profits are people.


popculturehasaids.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-03 02:44:38 PM

FarkedOver: cman: That is the point. No country who has tried can achieve real communism. It is impossible because of human nature. We are selfish little farks who ultimately care for our own selfs.

I am not saying that capitalism is perfect. It is not. There are many, many flaws. But, it is the best system for our current situation. Until humanity can evolve beyond the selfishness survival skills given by our ancestors will we be able to have a real "communist" system.

I disagree. I'd say cooperatives are more human nature than greed and selfishness. Let me ask you this: Every time there has been a socialist revolution why has the capitalist class always fought tooth and nail against it? i.e. the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Revolution, America's involvement in N. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and a shiat ton of other South American and Central American countries. If socialist thought is so discredited and it doesn't work why do capitalists feel the need to crush it ASAP?


We supported Loyalists in the Russian Revolution. That is a fact. Now, I really do not know the history behind it, so I will label this as strict opinion. Russia is a huge farking country with extreme resources and a large population. If you can create enough chaos in one part of the world they wont dare to challenge you on your home turf. As for the other nations, it was a matter of the Cold War. It was about preventing the spread of Soviet influences. Take a look at Yugoslavia. They were a communist country, but they were our communist country. They took the Marshall aid and were friends with us through out the Cold War.
 
2012-08-03 02:46:32 PM

cman: FarkedOver: cman: That is the point. No country who has tried can achieve real communism. It is impossible because of human nature. We are selfish little farks who ultimately care for our own selfs.

I am not saying that capitalism is perfect. It is not. There are many, many flaws. But, it is the best system for our current situation. Until humanity can evolve beyond the selfishness survival skills given by our ancestors will we be able to have a real "communist" system.

I disagree. I'd say cooperatives are more human nature than greed and selfishness. Let me ask you this: Every time there has been a socialist revolution why has the capitalist class always fought tooth and nail against it? i.e. the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Revolution, America's involvement in N. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and a shiat ton of other South American and Central American countries. If socialist thought is so discredited and it doesn't work why do capitalists feel the need to crush it ASAP?

We supported Loyalists in the Russian Revolution. That is a fact. Now, I really do not know the history behind it, so I will label this as strict opinion. Russia is a huge farking country with extreme resources and a large population. If you can create enough chaos in one part of the world they wont dare to challenge you on your home turf. As for the other nations, it was a matter of the Cold War. It was about preventing the spread of Soviet influences. Take a look at Yugoslavia. They were a communist country, but they were our communist country. They took the Marshall aid and were friends with us through out the Cold War.


I come from Croatian folks who call Tito "the only good communist"
 
2012-08-03 02:49:02 PM

FarkedOver: Elegy: In today's political climate, I've met many more of the former than the latter. Despite what faux need would have you believe, I've met a lot more radicals on the right of the political spectrum among university students than I have radicals on the left.

I'd say this speaks volumes to the geographic differences in the US than anything else haha.


As a geography nerd, I agree! In the deep south (I swear to gawd) you still hear the words "communists are trying to infiltrate our government" spoken with a straight face - on a regular basis I might add.

But the ultimate point is that radical libertarianism IS anarchism - it just starts from the premise of the individual, rather than the small group.

So saying "oh, you've met libertarians, not anarchists" is false - radicalized libertarians are often self-consciously anarchists in a philosophical sense, and draw heavily from the anarchist writers, as they are rabidly anti-state. Just because they aren't YOUR kind of anarchist, doesn't meant that they aren't anarchists.

And again, the radicalized libertarian anarchists (especially in the university setting) are, in my own experience, vastly more populous than the trotskyists, etc. I think I've met more radicalized anarchist that have read The Machinery of Freedom, versus your standard european/Russian works on anarchy.
 
2012-08-03 02:50:14 PM

cman: We supported Loyalists in the Russian Revolution. That is a fact. Now, I really do not know the history behind it, so I will label this as strict opinion. Russia is a huge farking country with extreme resources and a large population. If you can create enough chaos in one part of the world they wont dare to challenge you on your home turf. As for the other nations, it was a matter of the Cold War. It was about preventing the spread of Soviet influences. Take a look at Yugoslavia. They were a communist country, but they were our communist country. They took the Marshall aid and were friends with us through out the Cold War.


It wasn't so much the Cold War as it is with American politician's hard-ons for everything and anything socialist. Look how the Labor movement in this country has been treated from the get go. Look at how American citizen's have been blacklisted because of their socialist thoughts/writings. I'm sorry but capitalism is not the best we can do. It never has been and it never will be. It serves the needs of the few while oppressing the majority of people worldwide. Capitalism has known many names throughout history as well; feudalism, slavery, etc. Capitalism has always been the source of strife.
 
2012-08-03 02:50:46 PM

Token Anarchist: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

DUDE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND! These banks have a piece of paper with writing on it! That's like the most important part! It should rot on principle, while people starve on the streets!


Yeah, but it's never the people starving in the street who benefit if you ignore the pieces of paper. First it's overprivileged twits like these two in Portland, and next it's the mafia.

I think the biggest argument against utopian philosophies that reject coercive government power is the mob. You have a choice of the current somewhat democratic system that frequently oppresses people but includes SOME legal recourses. Or you can have the mafia. There is no third choice, because the only reason the mafia isn't in charge now is because of coercive government stopping them.

Reject property rights, and the people who don't REALLY don't believe in them will take all the property.
 
2012-08-03 02:53:36 PM

FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?


There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.
 
2012-08-03 02:53:37 PM

m2313: frunjer: Black Bloc is not a group. It is a style of dissent where everyone dresses in black to hide their identity. They are only loosely organized using social media and other means. They are protesting various issues such as the bank systems' corrupt practices, the oil company's energy monopoly, big businesses' abuse of low wage countries, child labor, human trafficking, etc. Yes it may seem wrong to "the Establishment" but to the "Dis-enfranchised" it is a source of hope. Darwinian and Orwellian. Depending on your point of view, it may be a problem or a solution.

This.
Also, even though the BB is known as "hey let's vandalize shiat" every time I've been in one we were there to protect the peaceful protesters. As in de-arresting, or being the buffer zone between the cops and them if they came in and started their gang warfare shiat in the middle of a peaceful protest.


Good point. I think people (mostly Americans) sometimes forget (or never knew) that protest, either peaceful or marginally confrontational, is a normal thing. It has been used for centuries to advance causes and achieve goals. Most people in a protest activity are passive but the police have a difficult time making a distinction. Most of the anti-anarchists comments on here are people whose primary objective is protecting their individual/familial interests versus broader concerns. It's ironic: the anarchists activism is aimed at protecting people's rights and not trying to freeload as many people imply. If we all just cave to the current status quo and let the world further slide into corporatism, then eventually most everyone will be a slave to the corporate state.
 
2012-08-03 02:54:57 PM

HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.


The bank president will be out mowing the lawn every weekend I'm sure.
 
2012-08-03 02:56:15 PM

Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: FBI is obviously on a fishing expedition, but I have little sympathy for squatters. Leave their politics out of it and just boot them out.

The property is owned by a bank, and it says it has been vacant for years. Anyone want to speculate about the ethical practices of said bank, or the house's financial history?

/fark banks.

I'm sure they're total shiatheads, but that changes nothing.

It's not your house, get the fark out.

It is our view that banks don't have a legitimate claim to these properties, and everyone knows damn well the government won't do anything about it. So instead of whining uselessly to currupt politicians, we take direct action. If you don't like it, well, that's like your opinion, man.

It is my view that it isn't your farking house, get out.

You obviously don't give a fark about "legitimate claim" because these two can't provide that either.

If the bank doesn't have a legit claim, and no one else does, then it's fair game.

Doesn't that mean it's fair game for the bank to take the house?

Not after it's been homesteaded by people who actually utilize the property.

So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

Do you happen to be a Libertarian? Because I believe this is generally their view on these matters.


No, I'm just someone that doesn't take things that don't belong to me.
 
2012-08-03 02:56:29 PM

FarkedOver: cman: We supported Loyalists in the Russian Revolution. That is a fact. Now, I really do not know the history behind it, so I will label this as strict opinion. Russia is a huge farking country with extreme resources and a large population. If you can create enough chaos in one part of the world they wont dare to challenge you on your home turf. As for the other nations, it was a matter of the Cold War. It was about preventing the spread of Soviet influences. Take a look at Yugoslavia. They were a communist country, but they were our communist country. They took the Marshall aid and were friends with us through out the Cold War.

It wasn't so much the Cold War as it is with American politician's hard-ons for everything and anything socialist. Look how the Labor movement in this country has been treated from the get go. Look at how American citizen's have been blacklisted because of their socialist thoughts/writings. I'm sorry but capitalism is not the best we can do. It never has been and it never will be. It serves the needs of the few while oppressing the majority of people worldwide. Capitalism has known many names throughout history as well; feudalism, slavery, etc. Capitalism has always been the source of strife.


Yes, you are right about the labor movement being stifled. That is a stain upon our national heritage and needs to be remembered.

At the same time, it boils down to scarcity. There are limited resources for 7 billion people on this planet. Capitalism is sort of an extension of biological idea of survival of the fittest. Now, as I said, capitalism has many flaws, but it is the best system for us. It incentivizes people to improve themselves. Steve Jobs did not come from a rich family. He was adopted by a family who could not have children of their own. He made his life better by making all of our lives better. He earned his money by making computers and electronics the right way.
 
2012-08-03 02:57:34 PM

cman: He earned his money by making computers and electronics the right way.


Wrong. He made his money paying low wages to workers in China.
 
2012-08-03 02:58:30 PM

FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.

The bank president will be out mowing the lawn every weekend I'm sure.


I wouldn't assume that squatters are interested in lawn chores.

And I bet if you put your thinking cap on, you could imagine a way for the lawn to get trimmed that doesn't involve the president of the bank.
 
2012-08-03 03:00:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.

The bank president will be out mowing the lawn every weekend I'm sure.

I wouldn't assume that squatters are interested in lawn chores.

And I bet if you put your thinking cap on, you could imagine a way for the lawn to get trimmed that doesn't involve the president of the bank.


*plops thinking cap on* HEY!! You're right! If I were a capitalist and the President of the Bank I would hire illegal immigrants and pay them peanuts! Damn I should have been a capitalist!
 
2012-08-03 03:03:08 PM

FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.

The bank president will be out mowing the lawn every weekend I'm sure.

I wouldn't assume that squatters are interested in lawn chores.

And I bet if you put your thinking cap on, you could imagine a way for the lawn to get trimmed that doesn't involve the president of the bank.

*plops thinking cap on* HEY!! You're right! If I were a capitalist and the President of the Bank I would hire illegal immigrants and pay them peanuts! Damn I should have been a capitalist!


White kids work pretty cheap too, in my experience.
 
2012-08-03 03:04:52 PM

HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.

The bank president will be out mowing the lawn every weekend I'm sure.

I wouldn't assume that squatters are interested in lawn chores.

And I bet if you put your thinking cap on, you could imagine a way for the lawn to get trimmed that doesn't involve the president of the bank.

*plops thinking cap on* HEY!! You're right! If I were a capitalist and the President of the Bank I would hire illegal immigrants and pay them peanuts! Damn I should have been a capitalist!

White kids work pretty cheap too, in my experience.


Damn, you're right! I didn't even think of using child labor.... that's been out of practice for a while but it's high time some industrious capitalist brought it back into fashion. Better to gives those hoodlums something to do other than mugging John Q. Taxpayer because we all know that's what those asshats do when they are left to their own devices.
 
2012-08-03 03:06:44 PM

Token Anarchist: notatrollorami: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: FBI is obviously on a fishing expedition, but I have little sympathy for squatters. Leave their politics out of it and just boot them out.

The property is owned by a bank, and it says it has been vacant for years. Anyone want to speculate about the ethical practices of said bank, or the house's financial history?

/fark banks.

I'm sure they're total shiatheads, but that changes nothing.

It's not your house, get the fark out.

It is our view that banks don't have a legitimate claim to these properties, and everyone knows damn well the government won't do anything about it. So instead of whining uselessly to currupt politicians, we take direct action. If you don't like it, well, that's like your opinion, man.

It is my view that purple is pink. But when the obvious falsehood of that statement is pointed out then no one will take my opinions seriously anymore. Same for yours. If you truly don't understand that when an item is purchased with borrowed money the lender has claim to the property until the loan is repaid you are an idiot. I don't believe this is the case. I think you are being disingenuous because you prefer the tangible benefits derived from ignoring the obvious truth of the above statement.

You don't seem to understand how the real estate market has worked in the last couple decades. There is a very good chance the bank how no idea who holds the actual title. They should produce it, if they have it. But they can't have to bother, because the police will take their orders without one.


The willful malfeasance of lending institutions bundling, chopping, parcelling, shipping, and generally screwing around with mortgages has resulted in a glut of homes for which ownership is uncertain or legally indeterminate. Especially when so many banks themselves have been bought, sold, partitioned, or dissolved. This situation takes time to resolve.

The fact that banks were criminally irresponsible assholes (and make no mistake I'll volunteer for the firing line for them) does not mean that the principle disappears. The entity that loaned the money to buy something has rights to it, whether it takes time to sort out that ownership or not. Disinterested third parties who have never done anything of any kind to earn ownership have no right to it. Period. End of story.
 
2012-08-03 03:06:56 PM

FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.

The bank president will be out mowing the lawn every weekend I'm sure.

I wouldn't assume that squatters are interested in lawn chores.

And I bet if you put your thinking cap on, you could imagine a way for the lawn to get trimmed that doesn't involve the president of the bank.

*plops thinking cap on* HEY!! You're right! If I were a capitalist and the President of the Bank I would hire illegal immigrants and pay them peanuts! Damn I should have been a capitalist!

White kids work pretty cheap too, in my experience.

Damn, you're right! I didn't even think of using child labor.... that's been out of practice for a while but it's high time some industrious capitalist brought it back into fashion. Better to gives those hoodlums something to do other than mugging John Q. Taxpayer because we all know that's what those asshats do when they are left to their own devices.


You're right, a kid's seasonal lawn mowing/leaf raking/snow cleaning money is evil and pretty much the same as industrial revolution abuses.
 
2012-08-03 03:08:22 PM

HotWingConspiracy: You're right, a kid's seasonal lawn mowing/leaf raking/snow cleaning money is evil and pretty much the same as industrial revolution abuses.


I merely suggesting they form a union for better wages. Local Mowers #69? International Brotherhood of Rakers?
 
2012-08-03 03:10:12 PM
Damn those anarchists! That property is rightfully owned by the banks. If the banks want the houses to rot from disuse, it is their right to do so. Besides, houses are for banks, not people. Get a job, Anarchists! Stop hurting the poor banks!
 
2012-08-03 03:18:12 PM

Weaver95: schubie:
And they do this without a government. The government isn't preventing the collapse of society. I argue that governments are hastening it, what with their wars and occupations. I guess I'm an anarchist. I do know that people aren't quite ready for it yet but a few thousand years ago, people thought the king was a god. Then they believed he was appointed by God and finally evolved to believing that pulling a lever every few years to vote made them a god. Eventually we'll get the message that government is an extortion racket/jobs program for sociopaths and slackers and do our own thing maybe even less than a thousand years from now.

sometimes I think we're not going to evolve as a society until we move off this planet. you try to pull a lot of this corporate shiat when you're living in an orbital habitat and you'd end up with a lot of dead people. if we lived in an environment that required horizontal authority or EVERYONE dies...then we'd see shift in the way we all behaved.

meh. that's just a theory tho.


You're right. But we are moving away from it. We are in the post-industrial age and big business is still the basic model for a large amount of jobs. While it seems big business is getting bigger and employment is contingent on big business, this model is crumbling. Small business and entrepreneurship is growing. It may take a few more generations but eventually it will prevail.
 
2012-08-03 03:23:09 PM

HotWingConspiracy: No, I'm just someone that doesn't take things that don't belong to me.


Good to have another anti-capitalist around then.
 
2012-08-03 03:24:14 PM

Token Anarchist: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

DUDE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND! These banks have a piece of paper with writing on it! That's like the most important part! It should rot on principle, while people starve on the streets!


What is the implication with the sarcasm? That its always ok to steal as long as you are doing it for the "people"?
 
2012-08-03 03:25:33 PM

notatrollorami: Disinterested third parties who have never done anything of any kind to earn ownership have no right to it. Period. End of story.


I'd say someone who takes the time to occupy and use an abandoned space and actually do something with is a more interested party.
 
2012-08-03 03:26:45 PM

FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?

There is little guarantee that they'll take better care of it.

The bank president will be out mowing the lawn every weekend I'm sure.

I wouldn't assume that squatters are interested in lawn chores.

And I bet if you put your thinking cap on, you could imagine a way for the lawn to get trimmed that doesn't involve the president of the bank.

*plops thinking cap on* HEY!! You're right! If I were a capitalist and the President of the Bank I would hire illegal immigrants and pay them peanuts! Damn I should have been a capitalist!

White kids work pretty cheap too, in my experience.

Damn, you're right! I didn't even think of using child labor.... that's been out of practice for a while but it's high time some industrious capitalist brought it back into fashion. Better to gives those hoodlums something to do other than mugging John Q. Taxpayer because we all know that's what those asshats do when they are left to their own devices.


Its even easier than that. Just dont do anything and let the city mow it after complaints, then they file a mowing lien against the real property owners. Now you get to stick it to em twice. You are taking their property AND making them pay for your yard work.
 
2012-08-03 03:29:21 PM

fonebone77: That its always ok to steal as long as you are doing it for the "people"?


Or that your definition of theft is ass backwards and you support an economic system where Chase bank can let people die or go homeless to fudge some bullshiat numbers in the right area, where you use the moral concept of debt (not economic) to justify using violence for theft to confuse the situation and absolve the lender of all responsibility.
 
2012-08-03 03:33:35 PM

m2313: notatrollorami: Disinterested third parties who have never done anything of any kind to earn ownership have no right to it. Period. End of story.

I'd say someone who takes the time to occupy and use an abandoned space and actually do something with is a more interested party.


Except they arent disinterested parties most of the time. Just because a property has been vacant for a few years doesnt imply lack of interest. While its true banks dont usually WANT these properties, they also don't want to just give them away and take a total loss once they have them. Some times they are waiting for title suits to complete, sometimes they are waiting for property values to rebound, sometimes they might just not have a property manager in the area to get the property sold. They could have any number of reasons for not immediately turning around a property they acquire in a foreclosure.

Just to be clear. I am not some kind of bank white knight. The mortgage industry acted pretty irresponsibly during the boom and deserve the legal hits they are taking in the crash. The people who took those horrible mortgages on some wishful thinking that they were going to be suddenly earning a lot more money when the retarded ARM they took out ballooned to 30% were just as irresponsible. That doesn't mean that a bunch of freeloading jackasses should be rewarded for those peoples bad decisions.
 
2012-08-03 03:35:14 PM

m2313: HotWingConspiracy: No, I'm just someone that doesn't take things that don't belong to me.

Good to have another anti-capitalist around then.


I am certainly not a big fan of our tard-hepped-up-on-goofballs style of capitalism.
 
2012-08-03 03:37:29 PM

m2313: fonebone77: That its always ok to steal as long as you are doing it for the "people"?

Or that your definition of theft is ass backwards and you support an economic system where Chase bank can let people die or go homeless to fudge some bullshiat numbers in the right area, where you use the moral concept of debt (not economic) to justify using violence for theft to confuse the situation and absolve the lender of all responsibility.


Where is the lack of morality? If someone takes a loan on a piece of property of any kinda and doesn't pay it back they lose their rights to that property. Im not advocating for debtors prison here. There is no magical importance of a house that places it above any other kind of property. Eviction isn't violence. Arrest isn't violence. If the cops show up to arrest your for breaking and entering and you resist them, then yeah, you can expect some violence. Its because you resisted arrest though, not because the bank foreclosed on the property.
 
2012-08-03 03:46:32 PM

fonebone77: Eviction isn't violence. Arrest isn't violence. If the cops show up to arrest your for breaking and entering and you resist them, then yeah, you can expect some violence. Its because you resisted arrest though, not because the bank foreclosed on the property.


So you're okay with violence and cool with not even calling it violence. Understood.
I guess we're at an impasse here with your inverted sense of morality.
And I'm sure you would say the same.
 
2012-08-03 03:53:10 PM
BTW, capitalism is a Marxist term, and modern day leftists seem to use it as a catch-all for everything bad and unfair about modern society. What "capitalism" actually boils down to is free enterprise economics. People are allowed to own things, and buy and sell things (including labor), with governmental protection of property rights and the marketplace. That's all capitalism is. You can have it in an authoritarian state, a quasi-socialist state or a democratic state. It's not perfect, but it creates the most overall prosperity for the most people, especially when you siphon off a big chunk of the income of the biggest winners in the game to pay for everyone else's health and comfort.

Corporate corruption feeding governmental oppression is something else, and you can police it without tearing down the free enterprise system. Totalitarian, centrally controlled economics has been a demonstrable failure everywhere it's been tried. The Soviet Union's not the only example: India suffered through decades of much worse poverty than they have now because of excessive state control of the economy.

The Netherlands is a capitalist country. Tell me with a straight face that you can create a system that is more fair, happy and prosperous than the Netherlands. Or Denmark, Norway, or Sweden.
 
2012-08-03 03:53:36 PM

meat0918: There's some old school Russian made bolt action rifle I'd like to get too, and they can be had for about $100, but the name escapes me at the moment.


Mosin-Nagant?
 
2012-08-03 04:07:01 PM
Oh, a house, eh, very nice. And 'ow'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.If there's ever going to be any progress,--
We're living in a dictatorship! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a
special bi-weekly meeting--By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major....
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
 
2012-08-03 04:12:51 PM

m2313: fonebone77: Eviction isn't violence. Arrest isn't violence. If the cops show up to arrest your for breaking and entering and you resist them, then yeah, you can expect some violence. Its because you resisted arrest though, not because the bank foreclosed on the property.

So you're okay with violence and cool with not even calling it violence. Understood.
I guess we're at an impasse here with your inverted sense of morality.
And I'm sure you would say the same.


So the moral stance is "finders keepers losers weepers". Got it.
 
2012-08-03 04:25:47 PM

mbillips: BTW, capitalism is a Marxist term, and modern day leftists seem to use it as a catch-all for everything bad and unfair about modern society. What "capitalism" actually boils down to is free enterprise economics. People are allowed to own things, and buy and sell things (including labor), with governmental protection of property rights and the marketplace. That's all capitalism is. You can have it in an authoritarian state, a quasi-socialist state or a democratic state. It's not perfect, but it creates the most overall prosperity for the most people, especially when you siphon off a big chunk of the income of the biggest winners in the game to pay for everyone else's health and comfort.

Corporate corruption feeding governmental oppression is something else, and you can police it without tearing down the free enterprise system. Totalitarian, centrally controlled economics has been a demonstrable failure everywhere it's been tried. The Soviet Union's not the only example: India suffered through decades of much worse poverty than they have now because of excessive state control of the economy.

The Netherlands is a capitalist country. Tell me with a straight face that you can create a system that is more fair, happy and prosperous than the Netherlands. Or Denmark, Norway, or Sweden.


Everyone (in the US, anyway) always looks at capitalism through rose colored lenses. In America I would bet most people are not taught Marxist thought in any official capacity during their academic careers. If they are introduced to Marxist thought they given the communist manifesto which isn't nearly as comprehensive as Das Kapital.

Why is it so wrong to want the power in the hands of the majority, the majority of people that actually create the wealth, instead of having those whose sole function it is to acquire wealth for the sake of acquiring wealth and fetishize the accumulation of more wealth at any and all costs?
 
2012-08-03 04:36:51 PM

Saberus Terras: meat0918: There's some old school Russian made bolt action rifle I'd like to get too, and they can be had for about $100, but the name escapes me at the moment.

Mosin-Nagant?


Yes. thank you.
 
2012-08-03 04:39:44 PM

Token Anarchist: why would an anarchist form a committee???

WHY???

if you all have been through this already, carry on and thanks.


Because we've done it all the time, since anarchism existed. It's a different decision-making process, not a lack of organization. Is it so hard for people to read a wikipedia article before spouting off about stuff they have no understanding of?



Token Anarchist: inner ted: Token Anarchist: Parson1122: is that where you use your "hand signals" to approve or disprove? or is it finger snapping?

/do you vote on it? or does someone actually make a decision?


It works a variety of ways. Occupy uses hand signals, one place I worked with used color cards, Red Yellow and Green. Red was a block, Yellow was pretty much "whatever", and Green was full support. Using a red card dedicates the wielder to discussion and finding a middle ground or acceptable solution.

Thanks, Token.

no need for the snark though. i was late for a job interview

(i know, i know. welcome to fark.jpg)
 
2012-08-03 04:41:15 PM

m2313: I'd say someone who takes the time to occupy and use an abandoned space and actually do something with is a more interested party.


Meh. We DO have adverse possession laws. It's not like that concept is incompatible with our current governance and economics as we stand right now. If these people failed to file a legal claim on the property and assume the payment of taxes on it, then kick 'em out. No sympathy for them.

There is a place for adverse possession our society. But you still have to follow the rules. Otherwise simply leaving for work in the morning, you might find someone has taken possession of your property when you get home that night. You have to draw the line somewhere. Without following a lawful process, any object you are not physically grasping at the time would be fair game.
 
2012-08-03 04:48:13 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Farking nose-bridge piercing.

/That's a mental health failure.


No, that's her ON/OFF button- RUN! SHE'S AN ANARCHIST ROBOT AND SHE'S GOING TO KILL US ALL!
 
2012-08-03 05:00:37 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: Damn those anarchists! That property is rightfully owned by the banks.


Until someone else makes a legal claim to it, then yes the deed holder of record is the rightful owner. Congratulations, you are most learned in the basics of private property.
 
2012-08-03 05:23:31 PM

FarkedOver: Everyone (in the US, anyway) always looks at capitalism through rose colored lenses. In America I would bet most people are not taught Marxist thought in any official capacity during their academic careers. If they are introduced to Marxist thought they given the communist manifesto which isn't nearly as comprehensive as Das Kapital.


There's a reason for that - primarily because it is so comprehensive. It's also (far) over and beyond what most people can grasp. Then you have the problem of it being Marx's life work, and the inconsistencies that crept in over the long period of time he was writing it.

I've read it, and if it hadn't been for my reading group and David Harvey's videos, I probably wouldn't have gotten through the damn thing.


Why is it so wrong to want the power in the hands of the majority, the majority of people that actually create the wealth, instead of having those whose sole function it is to acquire wealth for the sake of acquiring wealth and fetishize the accumulation of more wealth at any and all costs?

As for a personal answer to that question, I trust any political majority in America less than I trust the cops
 
2012-08-03 05:50:20 PM

m2313: notatrollorami: Disinterested third parties who have never done anything of any kind to earn ownership have no right to it. Period. End of story.

I'd say someone who takes the time to occupy and use an abandoned space and actually do something with is a more interested party.


And who, pray tell, determines what is abandoned? There's a little lake in east Texas, a nice constant level spring fed lake created by a largely earthen dam constructed in 1957. There are quite a few dilapidated places on it because it's somewhat remote and the people who originally owned there (meaning bought lots from the landowner who "built" the lake and subdivided waterfront lots around it) have passed on and their children are not in a position to maintain them. My wife and I might like to retire there as I believe the area will improve in coming decades and if I buy it now (when it's cheap due to current poor demand in the area) and fix it up later then , voila, lake front retirement despite limited means.

Two salient points here:

1. You would consider my interim use "abandonment" and, presumably, after squatting on it for a few years, fight me tooth and nail when I showed up to build my retirement cabin on my land.

2. Your philosophy skips over the part wherein I BOUGHT it in the first place. With your tidy theory you get to determine what the best use for something is without procuring that right.

If you want that run down place track down the owner, it's generally far easier than many posts here would imply, and make a low ball offer. They might very well take it and then you can use it as you wish. If you skip the buying step you are a trespasser and a thief, pure and simple.
 
2012-08-03 05:54:26 PM
www.portlandmercury.com

snocone: StrikitRich: Did they really have to blur out the Weeny's wiener?

Put it back!


Done.
 
2012-08-03 06:18:49 PM

FarkedOver: HotWingConspiracy: So it's merely a matter of who gets there first.

You'd rather let a house rot under bank ownership than have someone move in and actually take better care of it?


No. I'd rather someone follow the laws about taking adverse possession of property. Just like any transfer of property. Just like used car salesman should follow the law when transferring ownership of a used car. Adverse possession is not somehow specially exempt. Society requires that you follow the rules. And, sorry, you don't get to make up the rules yourself as you go along.

These rules vary from state to state, but generally involve -

1) Documenting your possession of property for a period of time, through a journal of occupation, maintenance, and upgrading the property (photographs help a lot here).

2) Payment of any and all HOA dues and local government fees such as trash collection during this period of occupation.

3) Notifying the local government of your intent to take possession of a property, after above documentation and payment of bills for a specified period of time.

4) Paying all back taxes owed on it. (Note that if the taxes are up to date, currently paid by someone else, then you may have a more difficult time making the claim that the property was abandoned in the first place.)

5) Paying the legal filing fees for transfer of property deed with the county court, property inspection for fitness to inhabit, licensed building and electrical wiring inspection, etc. In other words, all the same things a person must do when buying a house.


Now, what society generally doesn't support is simply walking in to someone else's property and saying "gimme gimme."
 
2012-08-03 06:36:34 PM

m2313: Solidarity showing.
Glad I got out of Portland when I did now.
fark the police and their state repression.
First you hit Occupy Seattle, then you hit Portland, Olympia and Seattle all at once.
Red and black is the new green is the new red.
They started raiding environmental groups and now they're trying to round up anarchists. It's all politically motivated.


Good.

The more of you self righteous d-ckbags they round up the better.

And stop breaking sh*t in my neighborhood. I've lived here since before you were born, and unless you broke everything in your own home town / family block first, its really hypocritical to come all the way to Seattle just so you can smash sh*t in a Starbucks or a Wells-Fargo.
 
2012-08-03 06:38:41 PM

hobodojo: Urgh... So many of Portland's fringe groups have developed a sense of entitlement and persecution! They biatch, whine, and moan about minor lifestyle inconveniences as if they were conspiracies to suppress to the point that it's really farking hard to tell when a civil rights violation HAS taken place.

/Met the dude at a party once. Didn't like him much- he squats at a place, lives there until it's too filthy/damaged, and then finds a new place. Acted like he was sticking it to The Man because he stuck it to a few homeowners. Asshole.


Sounds like a typical Occupyer. Everyone else is at fault and owes him free living.

Portland's leading export to Seattle is people with this point of view.
 
2012-08-03 06:49:12 PM

litespeed74: Typical weird ass Portlanders


You have no idea.
 
2012-08-03 06:49:24 PM
media.katu.com

Kind of cute? I beg to differ.

VERY CUTE!

8.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com
 
2012-08-03 06:51:56 PM

FarkedOver: mbillips: BTW, capitalism is a Marxist term, and modern day leftists seem to use it as a catch-all for everything bad and unfair about modern society. What "capitalism" actually boils down to is free enterprise economics. People are allowed to own things, and buy and sell things (including labor), with governmental protection of property rights and the marketplace. That's all capitalism is. You can have it in an authoritarian state, a quasi-socialist state or a democratic state. It's not perfect, but it creates the most overall prosperity for the most people, especially when you siphon off a big chunk of the income of the biggest winners in the game to pay for everyone else's health and comfort.

Corporate corruption feeding governmental oppression is something else, and you can police it without tearing down the free enterprise system. Totalitarian, centrally controlled economics has been a demonstrable failure everywhere it's been tried. The Soviet Union's not the only example: India suffered through decades of much worse poverty than they have now because of excessive state control of the economy.

The Netherlands is a capitalist country. Tell me with a straight face that you can create a system that is more fair, happy and prosperous than the Netherlands. Or Denmark, Norway, or Sweden.

Everyone (in the US, anyway) always looks at capitalism through rose colored lenses. In America I would bet most people are not taught Marxist thought in any official capacity during their academic careers. If they are introduced to Marxist thought they given the communist manifesto which isn't nearly as comprehensive as Das Kapital.

Why is it so wrong to want the power in the hands of the majority, the majority of people that actually create the wealth, instead of having those whose sole function it is to acquire wealth for the sake of acquiring wealth and fetishize the accumulation of more wealth at any and all costs?


Because you want a dictatorship of the proletariat. Which is bullshiat; it's a dictatorship of the party bosses. Marxist thought is just that. Thought. Has very little practical application to the real world. Power in the hands of the majority DOES. NOT. HAPPEN. in any way more profound than the limited means available in representative democracy. And when you eliminate private property rights, you just guarantee the thugs will be in charge. Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks were just gangsters with pseudo-intellectual trappings.
 
2012-08-03 08:33:15 PM

Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: Token Anarchist: HotWingConspiracy: FBI is obviously on a fishing expedition, but I have little sympathy for squatters. Leave their politics out of it and just boot them out.

The property is owned by a bank, and it says it has been vacant for years. Anyone want to speculate about the ethical practices of said bank, or the house's financial history?

/fark banks.

I'm sure they're total shiatheads, but that changes nothing.

It's not your house, get the fark out.

It is our view that banks don't have a legitimate claim to these properties, and everyone knows damn well the government won't do anything about it. So instead of whining uselessly to currupt politicians, we take direct action. If you don't like it, well, that's like your opinion, man.

It is my view that it isn't your farking house, get out.

You obviously don't give a fark about "legitimate claim" because these two can't provide that either.

If the bank doesn't have a legit claim, and no one else does, then it's fair game. Aren't libertarians all into homesteading? If it's not being used, it's being wasted.


Thank god we have you anarchists to determine claims of legitimate property ownership. 220 years of real property jurisprudence in America doesn't hold a candle to a Bauhaus fan with facial piercings.
 
Displayed 50 of 307 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report