Reilly

If the majority of humans are not rational, how does a system based on the rule of the majority work towards gains for the society? What I mean with rational is the ability to follow one's self-interest in a given situation, nothing more. How do we have rational regulation, if the majority that creates these laws is not rational? All evidence points out that humans are normally very much rational in their day-to-day activities. Very well, thanks for the discussion, I'll wait for another person to challenge my argument. A system of self-interest and determination will never materialize, there are too many individuals with conflicting ideals on how the world should be run. You're completely disregarding the complexity of social affairs and how broadly politics encompasses our everyday lives. Anarchism will never work, people are not smart enough to self-determine their own lives while everyone else attempts to do the same. If it fails in all practical senses I see no need to discuss whether or not we have the right to do so, because it's not going to happen. Anyway, I'm actually done now.

I'm no longer interested in carrying on this debate to be completely honest, though it was intellectually stimulating which is more then I can say about 95% of the crap I read on here lol. I'll just leave with this, the majority of humans are not rational, and they will do what furthers their own ends before considering the needs of others. This is a huge reason a political system structured around the principles of anarchism will fail imo, and why we require some form of regulation.

these lists made me laugh. 1 Rakim 2 KRS One 3 BIG 4 Cube 5 Nas educate yourselves on the art of hiphop kids.

not as simple as mb to dds :(

Mahatma O X O or King K0er18

What a stupid topic, you're a stupid person. Edit: A major problem with society is people that have little to no common sense or reasoning abilities. I've said all I can.

What gives anyone the right to do anything? You're assuming we have some form of metaphysical rights granted upon us. You suggest in your next paragraph that these rights stem from some social contract or notions of law, so I'll address this later on. Our current discourse of rights, as with property, has been constructed through social structures and regulated by the government and various moral contracts (Humanistic values, religion, etc). The rights that you have are carved through legalities and enforced through a complex system of rules, regulations and laws upon which we abide by. What I believe is that these various systematic ways of approaching our understanding of rights must be regulated by some form of objective entity, in this case the government. If we have rights, are they not objectively universal to all humans, regardless of geo-political structures, moral hierarchies, religious teachings, etc. If this is the case why are these rights not instated fully in practice for all humans, where do they originate and what evidence validates this theory to begin with? Once again governments are necessitated to regulate our 'social world' practically. I feel as though you're suggesting that we can only have a radical system of anarchism or a completely authoritarian dictatorship lol. There can be some middle ground here where government realistically improves and works towards the betterment of its citizens. Our notions of rights have originated throughout a historical dimension, being shaped and warped by different philosophical shifts in thinking, new scientific advancements, religious influence throughout the centuries and their different value/virtue systems, social structures and so on. At one point it was a believed 'right' to own slaves; if that is false than why has the universal right to self-determination and control not been practiced in reality? Imo, this suggests an egocentric human core that has been shaped by our desire to maintain the best possible life, and manifested through social, religious and political systems. We owned slaves because they were not human according to some, or because social hierarchies simply accepted this form of perception as normal and natural. Whatever it may be the conceptualization of rights is fundamentally no more than a very dearly accepted human virtue, and because of the subjectivity of these virtues we must have some form of regulation that transcends privatized communities. This form of thinking is simply impractical for contemporary society, we are not ready for these differing varieties of privatized communities because the powerful would rule over the weak apathetically (Though many would argue this happens right now anyways lol, so whats the difference really?) The governments legitimacy lies within the social contract we form with them, just as you're implying privatized communities would form social contracts. We need no moral justification - Morality, as with the government and other social structures is ever changing and being impacted by many different things throughout a historical dimension. It’s necessitated by human nature and the sheer complexity of the current social systems: From globalization to economic systems, cherished values and social hierarchies, our personal lives and macro-communities, the government oversees, regulates and intersubjectively links all these different social structures that effectively aids in running our everyday lives. It simply is not realistic to radically scrap all systems of governments that has such a clear social discourse in one swoop; we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves because the government is so intertwined in our day to day lives. What would happen to our monetary systems? How would we enforce laws? What would be our means of trade, who would regulate this and how would countries run themselves? Herein lies the need for government: The complexity of the social world and its monolithic impact on our lives. Problem: Society may not collectively agree on a set of universal rights. Your solution: Private violence machinery/Private court system. Uhm, I was under the impression that the whole objective in dismantling the government was to actualize the ‘right’ of self-determination. How would private violence machinery or a private court system do this? You would just be under the unregulated control of those more powerful than you; that doesn’t seem like a community of self-determination to me. Furthermore, who would implement a private court system and why would anyone bother adhering to it..? All you’re doing is taking governmental aims, privatizing them and in turn destroying all pervious regulations, rules and laws that help keep our society intact. Problem: The conceptualization of property, and differentiating between who owns what. Your solution: Private violence machinery/Private court systems. Once again you’re completely contradicting the purpose of dismantling what we know as the government to begin with. I saw that you mentioned we have to have certain prerequisites, ie a majority of people that would have to willingly adhere to these privatized court systems. Firstly, why would anyone adhere to these systems? You’re assuming social pressures would manifest themselves into individuals following these court rulings – Ha, because that works so well in contemporary law, right? As I’ve attempted to explain before, property itself isn’t inherently ingrained within our psyche. It’s a social discourse which has been shaped throughout a historical dimension. Stop assuming individuals inherently understand what property is, property rights are, etc. Private property requires regulation - there is a reason that governments have and continue to thrive for centuries, you should think about that. I understand what you’re suggesting insofar as if we accept these specified values than you’re potentially an anarchist at heart. In reference to human nature, I still believe contemporary western thought disallows our ability to actualize this political system of anarchism (I also believe that certain virtues are universal amongst all humans; ie A core of egocentricity/Desire for power, etc). What’s somewhat ironic is that I would consider myself an anarchist in theory haha, but I’m also a realist by nature and seriously wonder whether this system of politics will ever be a reality.

looks gay

you 2 are so intelligent

Used to be into RSB forum clanning in 04-05, found out about PC through a buddy around 05ish, didn't really get involved until 06.

I had a lot of fun with IR; glad you guys had the longevity that most clans never achieve.

bump

I agree with most of the fundamental virtues of Libertarianism, but the problem I see unfolding in a state of anarchy is not premised on moral justification, rather a realistic gap between theory and practice. I feel as though you're debating this particular topic from a meta-ethical perspective which can be paradoxical by virtue of contradiction when compared to tangible, real world situations. First I'd like to analyze your first statement however: "1. Every human being has a right to self-determination and control over his self and property." Firstly, to what lengths do humans realistically have the ability to self-determine their own lives? (Obviously I'm challenging your notion of free-will). Neuro-biological, psychological, socio-poltical, etc. structures all restrict the ability for humans to fulfill and live by the notion of freedom that most individuals adhere to. We could debate the sociological and political structures all day, but it is impossible to escape our own biological shortcomings. Second, in a state of political anarchism it is paradoxical to assume individuals could control 'property'. This particular discourse is impacted and regulated very clearly through governmental laws, so in a state of anarchy how could one individual control property over another? My real problem with anarchism, however, doesn't lay in either of these faults. To be frank, I agree with much of Locke's social contract theory, and believe government holds legitimacy and requires an existence in theory to better the citizens lives as a whole. In practice I believe we need government because human nature simply requires it; without government citizens would commit acts of wrongdoing against each other to further their own causes. Egocentricity and the apathetic nature of human interactions is the necessitated reason for the existence of governments, imo.

Who's the biggest retard topic.

Why are you here? Well stupid, I came here to see what the pure community has been up to lately. Clearly its turned into a bunch of overly-zealous teenagers with lots of time on their hands. "FI MORE THAN A CLAN IT MY FAMILY!!@@" "DDOSIN MODAFOKERS". Like I said, you're taking the game far too seriously.

My thoughts exact.

Depends on what you mean by eldars. If you're talking about ex-ranks that have made a significant impact on their clans then Mm, Foe, Tlp and Fi all have legendary warrers. Mahatma, Faken, Hiei, Dave, James, etc etc. The list could go on forever lol, you gotta keep in mind these are some of the oldest clans with the densest histories and therefore have some of the best leadership around.

OH THIS IS A GREAT IDEA, I MEAN PAST RUNESCAPE RIOTS HAVE BEEN SUCH A GREAT FOKIN SUCCESS!!

hahah omg so funny hahah

the same guys that won in 07

eop closed at one point, in case you didn't know ;)

Old AAO or Th

I think the question you need to ask is 'What am I' before you answer 'What happens when you die'. Personally, I lean towards the biological reductionist's understanding of the human body, though the problems of hard consciousness and potentiality of the soul do cloud what would otherwise be a straight forward discussion. However, the burden of proof rests on those making the positive claim, and because I've never seen or heard of any quantifiable evidence implying the existence of any soul it's hard for me to believe in any form of afterlife. I think the biggest misconception that a large percentage of people hold is that we are, and always will be. By this I mean as a conscious organism that can rationalize and think critically most cannot comprehend the possibility of simply 'not being' (existing in some form, whether that be physically or otherwise). What I honestly believe is that when we die we (though this term is misleading, because we is nothing) return into the realms of non-existence. The best analogy I can give to summarize my beliefs is this; think about what you were before you were born. Nothing.

That have played the game before dec07, how the hell do you managed to stay interested in rs anymore? Serious question, with all the new updates, weapons and ******** what keeps you guys playing? I'm assuming most of you, as I, are at least 18+ by this point in your lives, and I was wondering what keeps you interested in the game now a days. Is it the community that you've indulged yourselves in for all these years, or do some of you legitimately still enjoy playing rs to pass time and have fun?