Orcka

1.) I am a straightforward person, if I find something that pushes my button I will tell you straight away. I'm sure you can take a bit of criticism. 2.) If overpopulation is such a defining factor, why is the driving force of progress focused on taking as much oil out of the ground, or producing the most cheapest touchscreen phone? Again, this also goes back to what I sated about food corporations wasting the food they buy for maximum profit. So yes, basic morality tells me that if people are being killed for the benefits of the few, then I do not find purging to be very benefiting to the human race as a whole. 3.) The purpose of the statement is to explain how the rich do not work to the equivalence of what they earn. If a mine owner generates 80% of the profit from gold deposits, but the miners only make 20% out of paychecks from the owner, doesn't that mean that the mine owner gains something that he didn't physically worked for? When countless of dollars are dumped into off shore bank accounts, not helping circulating the economy, it becomes a huge problem. I'm sure the Dwarves from The Hobbit appreciate Smaug for hording the riches of their people. Such a lovable creature! /s 4.) China isn't considered very socialist first of all, the only aspects it holds that are considered remotely socialist is health care, and food preservation tactics. Remember, China is only socialist in name. But a socialist country that allows it's people to be used by entrepreneurs for cheap labor, doesn't seem very fitting to the name. The reason why western countries have developed descent living conditions is because of exploitation from other countries around the world for the past 500 years. The driving force of capitalism is irrelevant if you do not have the resources to boast it. Ironically, it is not the workers from 1st world countries that made western countries the way they are today, but the workers from 3rd and 2nd world countries that entrepreneurs love to exploit for cheap labor. 5.) Oil is the driving force of capital because it is easy to monopolize. If now, a critical moment in history, when we have to desperately find more renewable power sources to prevent pollution of the Earth, oil is still after 100 years the most important source of energy? This is a perfect example how the market hinders progress, if their is no incentive for profit, even when the Earth is choking on greenhouse gasses, even when people are dieing from water supply pollution, even when the carbonate level of the oceans are increasing. If their is no incentive for profit, the human race might go extinct before the market "shifts" into other sources of energy. Ironically towards your statement, China is one of the forefronts of renewable energy. Mostly because they don't have the luxury to place oil rigs around the world: India also doesn't nearly use as much oil/coal as the US does (and yet they overpopulate us 3 to 1). They mostly base their economy of other resources like cotton and rice. 6.) The mortality rate of humanity plummeted during the middle ages, and the industrial revolution in Europe. Both are considered unsanitary working conditions and is the major reason why are life spans were so low. Today, for humans in first word countries to prevent stress deficits and super bugs from killing off large quantities, there is a huge market for anti depressants and antibiotics. These do not "solve" the problems but instead mask them, to exploit the work-front as much as possible without having them continuously dyeing from living in crowded cities and factories. In fact, in countries that do not posses crowded living conditions, the age discrepancy is significantly different. Even 3rd world countries posses the same statistics, the problem is that they are not given basic health care and thus have a low child mortality rate. 7.) Ironically, you just stated exactly why the market hinders progress. Many scientists have died penniless because their original investors saw no benefit from their work. Possibly the greatest historical context I can find is the Nichole Tesla, and how his inventions were never used simply because of the fact that anyone could use them (no monopoly, no profit after all). Wouldn't it have been nice for inventors to change the world themselves, instead of constantly kissing the feet of the entrepreneurs for their work to develop some kind of stain to history? 8.) The Spanish Revolution and Historical Iceland are two counter examples to your statement. And I'm pretty sure Right wing ideology isn't very "balanced", what you are referring to is called "centralism", which is nearly non existent in the 21st century. The world is mostly dominated by capitalism, and simply because it is the most "common" doesn't justify it's actions. 9.) Because basic morality tells me to place humans above other species. I am not saying that we should kill off animals for the hell of it (after all, this will bite us in the ass later), but I do care more about people dyeing for unjustifiable reasons than other species dyeing for human consumption. Priority is key. So I would choose "preservation of resources" over "purging" any day, simply because basic morality tells me so. 10.) The reason why I was referring to the video is because of this statement: "You say this like it's a bad thing." Even when I stated specifically: "I would recommend watching this, it is a video explains how individual self concern harms other people: ". If you wanted an answer to your statement, all you had to do was watch it. ​One final entry for you however; it is obviously easy for you to find justification for the purging of humanity, because you are not on the purging list (well, not YET at least). Let that sink in for a minute........

That is one of the most sickening things I have ever heard. You think that there is justification for billions of people suffering from starvation and famine as a form of "cleansing" for overpopulation? You think that their deaths are necessary, while the rich sit on their asses and horde the wealth of the world for themselves? Every economist would agree, the beating heart of every economy is the working class, absolutely nothing in human history would have progressed without them, the rich only bask in their "privatized" glory and take the credit for themselves. For instance: Steve Jobs does not make your Iphone, they are made by countless of Chinese workers on 12 hours shifts who are so exhausted that they actually fall asleep on there assembly line, causing major accidents. The reason why we are not moving on to more renewable resources like solar, is because oil is one of the most profitable businesses in the world, after all you cannot monopolize the sun. The drive of progress is meaningless if it only benefits the few, progress to get as much oil out of the ground as possible is progressing humanity forward? Yea, such progress, all of those lung cancer victims must of really enjoyed the "progress" of the industrial revolution. I'm sure the Cambodian silicon miners enjoy their time digging in the baking heat to help make the processor for your computer. I'm sure Simoleons enjoy having their banks stained with pollution for the benefit of "progress" waste dumping right? And no, the reason why you are enjoying the comfort of you home, is not because the rich have "progressed" society forward, it's because of inventors, scientists, agriculturalists, engineers, constructors, doctors, basically everyone who worked their asses off in the labor front of innovation. The reason why you are not being exploited to the maximum potential of the capitalist machine is because of socialists/progressives like myself who went against the exploitation of workers. By all means, lets see how far you will last in a capitalist system without something like the minimum wage, or workers rights, let's see how much you will enjoy "progress" then. So no I don't find justification for millions of people to starve to death, just so the rich can sit on their high horse. And what is this idea of "we kill billions of animals every year" have to do with your statement? We kill plants and animals to eat, it's not rocket science, however, I would argue that corporations waste the majority of their food to generate as much profit as possible. For example, McDonalds wastes 60% of the food they buy and refuses to give the leftovers of the day to the homeless. How is this justifiable again? Based on your argument, doesn't this mean that we should try to STOP the food corporations from wasting food to prevent starvation? No, no, wait, we obviously need to purge the poor, why do they have to be so hungry all the time, why can't they be a middle class citizen of a first world country like me? /s So no, killing plants/animals is not the same as killing people for greedy individuals who want to make an extra buck. Before you respond to me, I highly recommend watching the video that links to the first comment you responded to, since It's obvious that you missed the "why" factor in my statement:

If the 67 richest people in the world hold the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest, leaving countless of people to starve to death, then yes it is a demonstrably horrific thing.

To be honest that is based on a lot of assumptions. For this I believe the general consensus is to follow along the lines of dialectical materialism where over time through discourse and debate we reach ethical and philosophical conclusions as to what is the most "right". Remember, you cannot compare today's social system to an Anarchist society, especially since an Anarchist society cannot be achieved without the masses working together. It seems ironic to work so hard in cooperation and achieving this goal, but then "popular opinion" will somehow shift into a different direction.

Very well...........Kinasai! **Que Fighting Music**

First off, Anarchists are not against all forms of hierarchies, only those that fail to meet their burden of proof. A justifiable case of hierarchy is that of a child and his/her guardian. It is morally acceptable to protect a child from danger, like a car for example. Me pushing the child away from the car is a justifiable act of force that protects the life of the child. I believe your second statement can be summarized as "humanity will not change whether it is anarchy or some other form of political ideology, and thus Anarchy is not better or worse than other political ideologies." Perhaps this is something more primal psychedelic, but in fact you are correct. Human beings are easily susceptible to greed and corruption. However, this is the EXACT reason why Anarchists advocate the removal of hierarchies. Time and time again, we have been shown historically that humanity is morally incapable of holding positions of power (even if some individuals were just, this not true for all cases). You might think that Anarchists "trust" humanity more than we should. This cannot be further from the truth, we in fact see humans as morally questionable creatures. The reason why we place so much emphasis in having everyone socially equal in both status and creed, is so that there is very little chance that someone will begin to exploit others out of corruption. The reason why Anarchists advocate economical equality is to prevent individuals from succumbing to greed and hording the wealth of the world to themselves. Now to answer this quote: "When a government dosn't work, the ideology may have a hand in it, but more offten than not it's the people involved." This statement screams "I am just doing my job" a statement that many individuals have used to justify their brutal actions. And I am glad to see that their is someone smart enough to have a sense of interest in the psychology of humans, so I will applaud you for making this statement. This is basically the answer to your statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment "The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience." In other words, humans are not only unable to stay pure in positions of power, but we are also gullible towards others who have a higher stature than us, because we believe that our actions are just an extension of the authoritative figures.

Welcome to the Monstercat Thread! The rules of this thread are simple: -Post your favorite Monstercat songs by using their Youtube Channel and placing the link of the song's video in your post (remember to place the videos inside spoilers to prevent loading issues). -Feel free to comment on each other's music. As such, I will start off with my favorite song from their new album, 023 Voyage:

Ok, let me try to make this as clear as day for you: Anarchism is a process, this what the process looks like: step 1.) Question a social hierarchy, and ask the opposing front if the X value is justifiable. step 2.) If the opposing front cannot provide a justifiable reason to why the social hierarchy is needed to function in a human society, we will then attempt to dismantle it since it is void of justification. One can say that this process leads to the movement between "more anarchy" to "less anarchy". More anarchy represents social hierarchies being removed, while less anarchy can represent social hierarchies being unjustifiably added (unjust laws, police control, ect...). The ultimate goal of anarchists is to remove as many social heiresses as possible that do not meet their burden of proof. Even if we achieve this today, tomorrow, new ideas, problems, propositions will occur, which will bring up the two steps I stated earlier. Pure anarchism is a fictional term because it is based on the assumption that once a system void of social hierarchies is achieved, the society will become stagnant and never change. If you ask any sociologist, they would state that this is impossible because outside/internal forces and issues will continuously effect and change the social structure of societies.

1.) Rifles are not at all hard to make, but perhaps I can understand your statement of fuel. BUT, you are assuming that without a large quantity of oil, it would be difficult to fight off an opposing threat, which is not true. Take the Vietcong for example, they had hardly any vehicles and still managed to defeat the US. Again, technology can only get you so far in war, you can be amazed how well individual can utilize their resources when they are forced to dig in and set up. 2.) I should of explained this earlier, but when Anarchists refer to "democratic" voting it usually is referring to what we call "flexible unanimous" voting. For example, lets say two opposing sides are 51% to 49% in terms of voting. The 51% will try to then compromise to the 49% to try to gain a higher percentage. If the 49% doesn't budge, the proposition is then ended and a new idea needs to be brought up to the table. The goal is to reach as close to unanimous as possible by compromising with all sides until they agree unanimously (99% is the preference since their are always trolls that propose flaming arguments). The reason why it is still considered "democratic" is because the proposition that the majority will follow is usually the proposition that becomes compromised and then agreed upon unanimously. 3.) In order to hold the working class, what dictators do FIRST is significantly disarm the workers. THEN they control them with force by instigating military occupations in factories and such. In an Anarchist society, there is no state to enforce laws like gun control and the police force to keep an eye on the workers and imprison anyone who "breaks the law", and no such thing a "private property" to provoke the workers in exacting vandalism and creating another excuse to arrest them. Without these structures it is very difficult to control the working class. Plus you DON'T want to kill your workers unless it is absolutely necessary, you would want to subjugate them to the point where they cannot fight back, and even if they do they have a lot to loose from it.

Just as the title states, feel free to ask me about Libertarian Socialism (another way of stating "Anarchism"). I wish to clear up misconceptions about both the word and it's political meaning. So please, don't be shy, throw everything you got at me! ---------------------------{EDIT}--------------------------- I have decided to add a video that answers a lot of frequently asked questions about Anarchy, if you want to ask more specific questions, feel free to continue questioning me:

Orcka-Orcka MY STATS

Thank you!

I just got back into VNs, and I was wondering what are good starters to get back on the saddle. The only VNs that I can remember fro m about 3 years ago are Steins;Gate, Fate/Zero, When They Cry, and Clannad. So I'm basically new to the VN scene.