Good Rant on Religion by Adam Corolla

[Will]

I'll join you...I'm pretty good with a bow staff.  

Ah, but that's just it. We'd be a government, which negates the anarchy. We'd pair up, then other people would pair up. Organizations would become bigger and more powerful until an equilibrium of power was reached. That's what we have now, and it's the natural state of an overpopulated human population. When there aren't enough resources to go around, we band up and fight. This behavior can be seen in most intelligent mammals including dolphins.

[Vichy]

Dolphins, as smart as they are, are hardly capable of rational interaction and division of labour on the level human beings are.  And the fact is that rational, voluntary cooperation is far more effective than Statism, which is nothing but jungle-law.  The state is not 'us', nor 'society' in fact it is the greatest enemy to civil society which has ever existed - as a casual examination of Stalinist Russia can easily prove.  Beyond that even if what you said were true it would only mean that it is highly likely that people will choose to behave in an aggressive and evil manner, something I can not condone regardless of the alleged 'benefits'.  Perhaps I can make it entirely clear by quoting Leo Tolstoi, a man whom I do not agree with much on except in the area of the State and War (and, as Bourne says, War is the health of the state).
"It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it...I only know that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures that are necessary to the existence of a government."

[Will]

Dolphins, as smart as they are, are hardly capable of rational interaction and division of labour on the level human beings are.  And the fact is that rational, voluntary cooperation is far more effective than Statism, which is nothing but jungle-law.  The state is not 'us', nor 'society' in fact it is the greatest enemy to civil society which has ever existed - as a casual examination of Stalinist Russia can easily prove.  Beyond that even if what you said were true it would only mean that it is highly likely that people will choose to behave in an aggressive and evil manner, something I can not condone regardless of the alleged 'benefits'.  Perhaps I can make it entirely clear by quoting Leo Tolstoi, a man whom I do not agree with much on except in the area of the State and War (and, as Bourne says, War is the health of the state).
"It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it...I only know that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures that are necessary to the existence of a government."

So you're more of a council communist?

[Vichy]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  I believe in private property, which is why I am an anarchist.

[Will]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  I believe in private property, which is why I am an anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalism means if you're poor you're fucked, so it's proponents either think their ambition is stifled or they're already rich. What the stifled people fail to realize is that if you can't make it in a capitalist system like we have now, you wouldn't stand a chance in an anarcho-capitalist system. You'd have to live on the charity of others and that'd make you a hypocrite.

[Vichy]

I totally disagree, but that is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making.  As I said, I believe that invasion of private property is aggression, aggression is evil and therefor I refuse to sanction it at any time under any circumstances for any purpose.  Moral consistency and integrity are more important to me than the material circumstances of one or another person's life, regardless of how unfortunate or fortunate that those circumstances may be.  This is what I had hoped that Tolstoi quote would have made clear.  Given my understanding of the logic of ethical behaviour, using aggression to any end is totally repugnant to me.
Also, there is nothing evil about charity (although it can be morally hazardous).  All voluntary behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

[rlrose328]

It is politicized because it has to be in order to play their game.

In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can benefit.

I tend to be a bit negative and pessimistic at times, but you've got me beat.

I don't believe that only evil can benefit.  I refuse to see things that way.  I have my days when I feel beaten down, but I won't ever concede the battle.

[Vichy]

I don't believe that good can ever benefit from compromise with evil, any more than truth can ever benefit from compromise with falsehood.  I am not pessimistic, I have a high opinion of human capacity, but a low opinion of human history.  I do not hope that evil can ever be used to benefit good, but I do not give up - I simply refuse to compromise.