9 ms·

In the same vein, there's also anarcho-tyranny[1] coined by Samuel Francis What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state

In the same vein, there's also anarcho-tyranny[1] coined by Samuel Francis What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny – the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny. which is sort of inverted authoritarianism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyranny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyra...

rayiner 13y ago
Sensitivity training as a totalitarian tool. I love it! A lot of the people who complain about "totalitarianism" are simply ideological minorities who don't like the majoritarian consensus and seek to delegitimize it.
- seanhandley 13y ago
  Fascist!
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...ideological minorities who don't like the majoritarian consensus and seek to delegitimize it. What's wrong with that?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    There's a difference between disagreeing with the majoritarian consensus, and trying to paint it to be the result of illegitimate process just because you disagree with it.
    - RodericDay 13y ago
      ...but it is the result of an illegitimate process
    - bobbydavid 13y ago
      You are clearly a government plant spewing lies! Naw, just kidding. But that would be a deliciously ironic way to interpret your comment.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      There may be some hypothetical situation in which there could be such a difference, but in USA politics right now, your suggestion amounts to a vapid, lame attempt to curtail discussion. There are very few controversial policies that haven't arisen through all manner of illegal, unethical, and otherwise corrupt (what is your word, "consensus"?) processes, on all sides. If something exists in the current environment, then of course it arose at least partially through "illegitimate process", and it's certainly apropos to acknowledge the specific factual circumstances of that. Elsewhere on this page reference is made to the "democratic" way we elect legislators and certain law enforcement officials in the USA. Polls repeatedly show clear majorities for the legalization of marijuana use, possession, and distribution. Yet somehow we still have (poor) people going to prison, and (not poor) LEOs and attorneys paying off their mortgages, due entirely to marijuana enforcement despite this wonderful process of consensus? I guess you should just hope you always find yourself on the "majoritarian" side, if in fact you don't continuously censor and mold your own thoughts to ensure that.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        > suggestion amounts to a vapid, lame attempt to curtail discussion. No, claiming that any popular policy you disagree with must be the product of illegitimate factors or influences is an attempt to sidestep the essential process of establishing majoritarian consensus. > Polls repeatedly show clear majorities for the legalization of marijuana use, possession, and distribution. Marijuana is a bad example for your position, because: 1) The consensus reached the point of favoring marijuana legalization just in the last few years (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor...). As recently as 2005, the Gallup poll showed that Americans were against marijuana legalization almost 2:1. And unsurprisingly, now that the consensus has shifted, you're seeing real movements all across the country to legalize marijuana. 2) The polls are still based on a random sampling of people, instead of a sampling of likely voters. People under 30 favor legalization more than 2:1, but people over 65 still somewhat oppose legalization. Guess which demographic is more likely to vote? It's not really a fault of the process if younger people don't care to participate.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
wissler 13y ago
"Laws are spider-webs, which catch the little flies, but cannot hold the big ones." -- Anarcharsis

rayiner 13y ago

Sensitivity training as a totalitarian tool. I love it! A lot of the people who complain about "totalitarianism" are simply ideological minorities who don't like the majoritarian consensus and seek to delegitimize it.

seanhandley 13y ago
Fascist!
jessaustin 13y ago
...ideological minorities who don't like the majoritarian consensus and seek to delegitimize it. What's wrong with that?
- rayiner 13y ago
  There's a difference between disagreeing with the majoritarian consensus, and trying to paint it to be the result of illegitimate process just because you disagree with it.
  - RodericDay 13y ago
    ...but it is the result of an illegitimate process
  - bobbydavid 13y ago
    You are clearly a government plant spewing lies! Naw, just kidding. But that would be a deliciously ironic way to interpret your comment.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    There may be some hypothetical situation in which there could be such a difference, but in USA politics right now, your suggestion amounts to a vapid, lame attempt to curtail discussion. There are very few controversial policies that haven't arisen through all manner of illegal, unethical, and otherwise corrupt (what is your word, "consensus"?) processes, on all sides. If something exists in the current environment, then of course it arose at least partially through "illegitimate process", and it's certainly apropos to acknowledge the specific factual circumstances of that. Elsewhere on this page reference is made to the "democratic" way we elect legislators and certain law enforcement officials in the USA. Polls repeatedly show clear majorities for the legalization of marijuana use, possession, and distribution. Yet somehow we still have (poor) people going to prison, and (not poor) LEOs and attorneys paying off their mortgages, due entirely to marijuana enforcement despite this wonderful process of consensus? I guess you should just hope you always find yourself on the "majoritarian" side, if in fact you don't continuously censor and mold your own thoughts to ensure that.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      > suggestion amounts to a vapid, lame attempt to curtail discussion. No, claiming that any popular policy you disagree with must be the product of illegitimate factors or influences is an attempt to sidestep the essential process of establishing majoritarian consensus. > Polls repeatedly show clear majorities for the legalization of marijuana use, possession, and distribution. Marijuana is a bad example for your position, because: 1) The consensus reached the point of favoring marijuana legalization just in the last few years (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor...). As recently as 2005, the Gallup poll showed that Americans were against marijuana legalization almost 2:1. And unsurprisingly, now that the consensus has shifted, you're seeing real movements all across the country to legalize marijuana. 2) The polls are still based on a random sampling of people, instead of a sampling of likely voters. People under 30 favor legalization more than 2:1, but people over 65 still somewhat oppose legalization. Guess which demographic is more likely to vote? It's not really a fault of the process if younger people don't care to participate.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

wissler 13y ago

"Laws are spider-webs, which catch the little flies, but cannot hold the big ones." -- Anarcharsis