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 . 83 reads.

  2. 5

    [Proposal] Anarchy Regional Map [Proposal]

    BulletinPolicy by Anarchadom . 195 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.

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

Regional Power: High

Anarchy contains 112 nations, the 108th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Pizza Delivery Sector in Anarchy

As a region, Anarchy is ranked 277th in the world for Largest Pizza Delivery Sector.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
31.The Following of Tyler Durden-Anarchy“All the ways you wish you could be, that's me.”
32.The Jingoistic States of CnaxAnarchy“Silence is Golden”
33.The Commonwealth of LovelikeAnarchy“Love, love, love”
34.The Free Land of Novaja ZemljaCorporate Bordello“My name - a hieroglyph, my clothes drifted away....”
35.The Rogue Nation of The Peoples Confederacy of Rusty ThingsCivil Rights Lovefest“Nulli dei, nulli domini”
36.The Rogue Nation of The Stormfell IslesAnarchy“Valar Morghulis”
37.The Community of ChaotziaCivil Rights Lovefest“Freedom is not given, it is taken”
38.The Fiefdom of TenreesInoffensive Centrist Democracy“The best lack all conviction”
39.The United Socialist States of LevetoriaTyranny by Majority“All Hail Socalist Levetoria!”
40.The Dominion of WraighAnarchy“Silence is Golden”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  . . . 11  12  »

Regional Poll • What's your favourite color?

The Xenopolis of YoriZ wrote:Flavours of anarchism.

Voting opened 6 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

The Green Community of Irontown II wrote:An addition: not all humans have full moral agency either. Babies, some people with significant cognitive disabilities/mental health issues that would affect their ability to understand concepts of right and wrong and even perhaps future generations (making our environment/the earth more inhospitable to us in the future could be said to harm the people who do not exist yet but who will. They would not be moral agents because they cannot act morally or immorally, but of course they matter).
Humans are not automatically considered moral agents simply because they are humans


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.

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 Anarchic Communes 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.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics