Anarchy RMB Anarchy was Liberated by Security Council Resolution # 135

WA Delegate: The Xenopolis of YoriZ (elected )

Founder: Illichia

BoardPollActivity History Admin

World Factbook Entry

Freedom For All!
"All things for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men worked to produce them in the measure of their strength, and since it is not possible to evaluate everyone's part in the production of the world's wealth... All is for all!" Kropotkin (1842 - 1921)

Information
LinkAnarchist Resources
LinkLibertarian Communism
LinkPopular Anarchist Links
LinkInfoshop News
LinkRevolution in South Asia
LinkNon-Establishment News
LinkAnarchist Economics

Activism
LinkAnarchy Linkin Linkthe LinkUK
LinkOccupied Factories of Argentina
LinkCNT Spain
LinkIWW
LinkOthers like you
LinkFood not Bombs

Anti-Consumerism
LinkAnti-Advertising
LinkGrow it yourself

Related to Nation States
LinkRegional Forum
LinkNation Tracker

Education
LinkFree schools



  1. 4

    Victory

    BulletinNews by The Violet Carson . 84 reads.

  2. 5

    [Proposal] Anarchy Regional Map [Proposal]

    BulletinPolicy by Anarchadom . 196 reads.

Embassies: The Socialist States of the Philippines, The Embassy, Liberate Anarchy, The Sanguine, The Federated Communes of Folkvangr, Gay, The Waters of Lethe, Federation of Anarchist Communes, Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army, The Unsettled Lands, Hippy Haven, End 500, Role Player Coalition, United Federation of Canada Embassy, Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, Laissez Faireholm, and 7 others.The Greenlands in Exile, Philosophy 115, Taoism, the Rejected Realms, belgium, Subterranean Atlantis, and Themiscyra.

The embassy with The Waters of Lethe is being withdrawn. Closure expected .

Tags: Democratic, Enormous, Featured, Anti-Fascist, Founderless, Anarchist, and Liberated.

Regional Power: High

Anarchy contains 112 nations, the 109th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Welfare Programs in Anarchy

Governments ranked highly spend large amounts of money on social welfare programs. Nations ranked low tend to have weak or non-existent government welfare.

As a region, Anarchy is ranked 136th in the world for Largest Welfare Programs.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
21.The Empire of ProudhonorCivil Rights Lovefest“Anarchy is order without power”
22.The Federation of VertwayLeft-Leaning College State“Liberty or Death”
23.The Free Land of Yveria LibertisCivil Rights Lovefest“Victoria Concordia Crescit”
24.The Confederacy of FerekaiaWA MemberLeft-wing Utopia“Freedom and Liberty”
25.The Free Land of The MeerkatsLeft-wing Utopia“Meerkats don't need no god!”
26.The Disputed Territories of MariguanasLiberal Democratic Socialists“Vaccines gave my son autistic mariguanas!”
27.The Community of AUFILeft-wing Utopia“Freedom is the only road to success.”
28.The Didacticracy of HattifnattiaWA MemberScandinavian Liberal Paradise“Roads cross where sparks will dance”
29.The United Socialist States of LevetoriaTyranny by Majority“All Hail Socalist Levetoria!”
30.The Disputed Territories of MarechaliaLeft-wing Utopia“We Will Not Be Silent”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  5  6  . . . 11  12  »

Regional Poll • What's your favourite color?

The Xenopolis of YoriZ wrote:Flavours of anarchism.

Voting opened 8 days ago and will close . Open to all nations. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.

Regional Happenings

More...

Anarchy Regional Message Board

On a completely unrelated note:

https://youtu.be/Bo9LhoPJ1Nk

Only seven more months to wait. :o

Something about fighting statist fascists *and* nihilist terrorists alike is *very* appealing to me. Sorry, just a huge Deus Ex fan passing through.

*sunglasses sound*

The Multitudinous Singularity of Renewed Dissonance wrote:Sorry for the delayed response; I never argue philosophy while sober (such is extemely unsafe) and, unfortunately, my tastes are expensive. Now that this proletarian has saved up a bit, let us continue:
Variation in intellectual capacity (to wit, "intelligence") is precisely why capacity for suffering is the better standard. The ability to reason cannot be the basis of moral status, as then infants, children, and the intellectually disabled may be tortured and murdered with impunity. Nevermind non-humans. Moral relativism also leads to this horror, and my response to that case, as expressed in a post long ago, remains: FU*KING NEVER.
So, humans and non-humans are instead morally relevant to the extent that they can be made to suffer. In this state of equality it necessarily follows that humans do not automatically prevail merely because they are human (or, human supremacy must be rejected). But it must also necessarily follow that non-humans do not automatically prevail either (non-human supremacy must also be rejected).
Therefore, it cannot be *always* wrong to use non-humans for human purposes. For instance, I think equine-derived vaccines, benefiting humans and non-humans alike, are ethically defensable (where great care is normally and reasonably taken to ensure the welfare of the equine in question to the greatest extent possible, of course.)
It's my impression that "animal liberation" is frequently a cover for non-human supremacy. I must reject this position not only because it is indefensable by reason, but also because it creates a safe space for supremacy of any sort. Including that of homo sapiens.


I'm just curious, do you subscribe to a utilitarian system of ethics with minimization of suffering as its basis?

The United Socialist States of DEN Puppet wrote:*blink*

The United Republic of Narintia wrote:Hello, new friend


Hewwo! I'm just wandering around.. till I have a new mission..

Post self-deleted by Irontown II.

Post self-deleted by Irontown II.

The Multitudinous Singularity of Renewed Dissonance wrote:Sorry for the delayed response; I never argue philosophy while sober (such is extemely unsafe) and, unfortunately, my tastes are expensive. Now that this proletarian has saved up a bit, let us continue:
Variation in intellectual capacity (to wit, "intelligence") is precisely why capacity for suffering is the better standard. The ability to reason cannot be the basis of moral status, as then infants, children, and the intellectually disabled may be tortured and murdered with impunity. Nevermind non-humans. Moral relativism also leads to this horror, and my response to that case, as expressed in a post long ago, remains: FU*KING NEVER.
So, humans and non-humans are instead morally relevant to the extent that they can be made to suffer. In this state of equality it necessarily follows that humans do not automatically prevail merely because they are human (or, human supremacy must be rejected). But it must also necessarily follow that non-humans do not automatically prevail either (non-human supremacy must also be rejected).
Therefore, it cannot be *always* wrong to use non-humans for human purposes. For instance, I think equine-derived vaccines, benefiting humans and non-humans alike, are ethically defensable (where great care is normally and reasonably taken to ensure the welfare of the equine in question to the greatest extent possible, of course.)
It's my impression that "animal liberation" is frequently a cover for non-human supremacy. I must reject this position not only because it is indefensable by reason, but also because it creates a safe space for supremacy of any sort. Including that of homo sapiens.

I kept noticing horrible typos on my part and had to delete this twice :D
Yes, of course the ability to reason should not determine moral status. All of these groups matter for their own sake, have the right not to be violated by others and have the right to have their interests represented (I would say they have more of a moral claim on others to represent/consider their interests, since they have a limited ability to do it themselves.) I was specifically talking about moral agency, or their ability to make moral judgements, act based on these moral judgements and be accountable for them. I was saying that these groups are not full moral agents but that they are moral patients. All moral agents are also moral patients, but moral patients are not necessarily moral agents. My only point there was that being human does not automatically make one a moral agent, the ability to reason does. The ability to feel or to experience the world in some way makes one a moral patient, a being worthy of moral consideration who should have rights. By the way, I would say that if a being could have their own experiences, but was not capable of suffering, they might still have preferences and those preferences should be given some consideration. I'm thinking about possible future AI. I would say a being morally matters if they either feel or experience the world.
As to us having the right to use horses to create our vaccines, the horses cannot agree to be used or harmed in this way. It is a violation of their rights. Subjecting humans to nonconsensual testing would also violate their rights. I don't think that this is inconsistent at all. Another feeling being does not exist for us to use, they exist for their own purpose an have their own inherent value. They have the right not to be violated, viewed as an object or used as a tool. I believe that all feeling beings are entitled to these rights (including humans of course). This does not support any sort of nonhuman supremacy. If we were going to apply your stance with equality, humans could also be used to test vaccines for horses. I do think that once a vaccine has been created (particularly if it has great social benefit) it should continue to be used, even if it was created unethically. That does not mean that I think we should continue to use animal testing though.

The Federation of Vertway wrote:So you must be homosexual ;]

Uh... well, it's a little more complicated than that, but let's call it homosexual indeed.

Hi workers, I'm back just so they don't delete my country. Hope you like it. visite my u tube user Tomdeargentina if you like suggestions.

There resides the greatest issue : how can we bring equality rights to both humans and animals... Under an anarchist system ? Some people would claim that it can only be brought by policies and enforcement THROUGHT the state. And so, we must find some points where where animal rights were not brought by it, but rather by independant citizens. It is true that every single culture of resistance was not brought by a government (obviously). This is why veganarchists should continue their work (even if most of them are becoming extinct for some reasons...) in order to show people that individuals get pissed by our current state of obedience, but are not willing to demand a surplus on their salary or whatsoever ; but rather take direct action for animals' liberty, rights and life.

The day when chickens, cows, pigs and turkeys will not be seen as property anymore, people would have realized that they are part of something bigger and much precious, if you already know what I mean (*kuf kuf! Ecosphere... Kuf kuf!).

Politicians tend to do what the general opinion tells them to do. But if they think from the scale of a four years mandate, their actions will be surely forgotten under a pile of issues. If there was a human project behind that, there would not be this political chaos we're living now, and people would be more concerned on the future of their country rather than their own future.

American Khans

Animals, like some others, have a a very limited ability to represent themselves. They're not going to be organizing and fighting for their rights. Their interests mostly have to be represented by others. The law sometimes has a welfarist language to it and grants some animals (the large and beautiful ones, the ones that we see as our pets) little acts of mercy. Even then it sees them as resources or property to be preserved, not as beings with rights. Governments have been the primary enforcers of a social policy towards other animals that treats them as property. Factory farms (and other businesses/institutions) put this policy into practice. Legal policies have so far not brought animals any rights at all, just some little acts of mercy for some of the societally favored animals. Mostly the law has harmed them. Social anarchy is based on concepts of freedom and equality. Now, animals can be excluded from this by social anarchists, but if they were going to apply their own philosophy with equality they would not violate any being who has experiences or who feels. Violence and objectification are the ultimate expressions of domination, and we literally see animals as objects and are systematically violent to them. Anarchism is opposed to domination. Since you can't treat property with equality and property can't have freedom, the state is already an enemy to animals. Never underestimate people's inability to recognize normalized brutality as brutality though, including anarchists.

We are all a part of our ecosphere, humans and other animals alike. We tend to affect it more than others do, but all animals impact their own ecosphere. That said, we have caused many animals to be born who would not be able to survive by themselves if they were released. Many chickens can't even stand by themselves, all farm animals have lived their whole lives in captivity, etc. Also, there's just too many of them. Some use the fact that we cause them to be created to imply that this makes it OK to use them, which sucks. Creating someone does not mean that you then have the right to do whatever you want with that being (a decent person would not make this argument for a parent and child for example) it rather means that you have the most responsibility for lives that you create or who are the most dependent on/vulnerable to you. I'm saying that although they are a part of the ecosystem in a way, they cannot be released into wilderness.

Politicians tend to do what large corporations want them to do more than anything else, although sometimes they listen to their constituents... Corporations are also pretty good at manipulating people's attitudes, so overall they're mostly getting what they want.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics