Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,568
Last seen: 2 hours, 5 minutes
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26854184 - 07/30/20 06:40 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Even an entirely corrupt affinity group would not have any authority over other affinity groups.




My biggest problem is with this right here.

In the modern world, a small group of people, corrupt or not, is able to exert their will onto others using technological advantage.

Just going with a "real world" analogy. Let's look at international politics. You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries. Let's not even think of corruption, that's besides the point. There are many countries that openly exert their will unto others through military and economic force.

What do you do, when one of your "affinity groups" has nukes?

More importantly, what do you do when one of your "affinity groups" decides that climate change is bullshit, and slowly poisons the entire world?

In other words, I think your idea makes sense, as long as affinity groups are not able to significantly influence one another. However, that is not possible in the modern world.



'You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries."

I'm going to have to stop you right there. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what an affinity group consists of - they are generally limited to a dozen or two people max. An affinity group consists of the immediate group of people you live, play, and/or work with - they aren't abstract membership organizations, they are predicated on real-life connections. An affinity group is autonomous, but multiple affinity groups can cooperate together(usually termed networks or federations) without compromising this autonomy, but the power-flow has to move from the ground up. There is not central authority.

With that in mind, I imagine it would be much more difficult to build and maintain nuclear weapons in an anarchist society. They don't really provide a direct benefit to just about anyone and so I don't think it would be easy to convince enough people to cooperate on this type of project without the benefit of authority. Still, assuming enough affinity groups cooperated together to build a nuclear weapon, I don't see why it wouldn't be the same choice we have now: negotiate towards disarmament or develop our own weapons for MAD.

An affinity group decides climate change is bullshit? Well, that's unfortunate but it's just a handful of people. It's conceivable that this group could go on to convince a greater and greater number of other people and affinity groups until they pose a significant obstacle but it's going to be a much more uphill battle compared to what we presently see with climate change deniers in positions of authority.

I agree that your criticism is valid - but can you explain why the same criticism doesn't hold true for our present system? My first two posts in this thread seem to have sufficiently established that anarchist organizing is better at limiting this risk.




I disagree that your first posts established that anarchist organizing is better at limiting this risk.

First off, an affinity group of a few dozen people is a pipe dream. Unless you're going for full luddite, because it takes a whole lot more than a few dozen people to put together the keyboard you're typing that post on. It takes literally thousands. All the way from raw material extraction to final product delivery, in front of you is the product of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people working together. That is quite literal. Maybe you've got a fraction of each person;s effort, but it takes a LOT of professionals who have dedicated their lives to little niches, and even more assembly line workers, to put that together.

So, unless we're technologically regressing to somewhere around the 17th century, your affinity groups will necessarily have to be bigger than the ~150 person limit that the human brain is designed for.

Next, you're basically creating a Snow Crash-esque anarcho-capitalist society if you do allow larger "equal" affinity groups to congregate. This is reminiscent of the current system, except without a central government regulating business. Which means that if Exxon decides to sink another Valdez off your little piece of beachfront property, you're swimming in oil, because nobody is there to make them clean it up.

The options for an anarchist society are limited to technological regression back to the enlightenment era, or a Randian dystopia controlled by a few powerful individuals that can do whatever the fuck they want.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVahn421
Awakening Moonlighter
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Kryptos]
    #26854590 - 07/30/20 11:10 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

^ This reminds me of the Unibomber's Manifesto which is actually a very compelling read. He basically makes the case that technology makes humans slaves and the only way we can ever have true freedom is to go back to the way things were before technology. In a sense, he isn't wrong. We've all become quite dependent on technology in our socieities.

If people haven't read this manifesto I'd encourage you to check it out. It basically highlights the problems and conflicts we have between freedom and technology.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,633
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
    #26855115 - 07/31/20 09:03 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

In that instance, humans would become dependent "on the way things were", instead of technology.How would that be better?

Kinda hypocritical for Theodore to condem tech, when he made so many sophisticated and tech savy bombs himself, that ended up killing people.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePastywhyteMDiscord
Say hello to my little friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/12
Posts: 37,830
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #26855284 - 07/31/20 10:48 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

I dunno, if I wanted to end the development of modern tech, I imagine using modern tech to end it would be poetic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVahn421
Awakening Moonlighter
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #26855872 - 07/31/20 05:09 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
In that instance, humans would become dependent "on the way things were", instead of technology.How would that be better?

Kinda hypocritical for Theodore to condem tech, when he made so many sophisticated and tech savy bombs himself, that ended up killing people.




He explains his entire thought process by the end. It's very compelling. One could argue his outlook on life was anarchist as well, but with a different vision on structure.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,418
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 17 hours, 35 minutes
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
    #26856746 - 08/01/20 07:10 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Vahn421 said:
^ This reminds me of the Unibomber's Manifesto which is actually a very compelling read. He basically makes the case that technology makes humans slaves and the only way we can ever have true freedom is to go back to the way things were before technology. In a sense, he isn't wrong. We've all become quite dependent on technology in our socieities.

If people haven't read this manifesto I'd encourage you to check it out. It basically highlights the problems and conflicts we have between freedom and technology.




I never knew anyone who actually read it. Most of us skimmed the first paragraph.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,722
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 55 minutes
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26856762 - 08/01/20 07:20 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

I suspect it would be a tortured read for anyone who is mentally healthy


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVahn421
Awakening Moonlighter
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: koods] * 1
    #26856885 - 08/01/20 09:04 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

It's enlightening. Very much so. (That doesn't mean I agree with a large portion of his take, but he's definitely got shit figured out. His observations are spot on, his so-called solutions to his observations are ... questionable. :lol:)


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVahn421
Awakening Moonlighter
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26856887 - 08/01/20 09:06 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Vahn421 said:
I'm confused by one major thing.

How is a "horizontal system" not just another system of checks and balances?

The pyramid is too basic of a structure to resemble America's government. I would argue we're far more horizontal in the first place. Not just with the 3 branches of government, but with federal and state... in particular the latter where all 50 states get to play by their own custom set of rules within rules... and then COUNTY rules within states! (Like house rules for a board game to fit the needs of the group.)

I can't think of a third possibility... either you have one human in charge of a group, or *multiple* humans in charge of a group, ranging from two to infinity. In this second group of power structures, everything is checks and balances, is it not?



A horizontal system is just another system of checks-and-balances and similarly fallible - but all other things equal, its structure is such that it will inherently limit the potential abuse of authority more than a hierarchical system.

You're correct that the American republic has taken some steps to limit centralization of authority but the structure of government is still undeniable hierarchical in structure. I would also argue that the argument you make here is odd, given your vocal support for the federal government sending unmarked troops into Portland against the explicit requests of all levels of local government. Clearly the US government still has a strong element of centralized authority.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that second group of power structures, but here's a third possibility: no one's in charge of the group.




Maybe I missed this in the thread, but what proof do you have that horizontal structures are less prone to corruption? My experience makes me inclined toward the position of, if you're intimate within a group, you can pull it off, but if you're strangers with others, it will backfire.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 9 hours, 3 minutes
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Rapjack]
    #26859486 - 08/02/20 06:40 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Rapjack said:
I love horizontal power structures in small organizations of consenting individuals. But what of the people that are flat out too lazy or unwilling to participate? My theory is they'd align themselves with whoever the biggest warlord in the area is. It's much easier to take or force tribute from communities rather than build. His troops become stronger than the farmers. A good warlord then patrols the roads for highwaymen, the communities in his control thrive because no more threats to trade. Other communities join on their own accord to receive that protection and prosperity. Fast forward a couple hundred years and the land is divided into empires again.

Anarchy assumes everyone wants independence but I don't think that's really the case sadly. I think average people mainly want security and ease, they'd join whatever large group in the area promises the best protection.




You’re correct to point out that individual desire for independence is necessary – it would be completely antithetical to force someone to be an anarchist – but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that anarchy requires the assumption that everyone shares in this want. I don’t need anyone else to share this desire in order to live my life along anarchist principles – to neither rule nor be ruled isn’t dependent on the disposition of the masses, although what I can achieve through my anarchy will definitely be amplified the more like-minded individuals out there to cooperate with. The whole point of anarchy is that you don’t need to give orders or get permission to change the conditions of your life. You don’t need the numbers to topple international borders before starting to build autonomous food supplies or disaster relief networks.

I think early human history is fascinating, but I also think it would be wrong to ascribe any ‘certainties of human nature’ based off the past 10,000 years or so. Most of us take armies for granted, as though they have always existed, but they had to start sometime. Any starting point for the development of the ‘military system’ has to be arbitrary, and in fact it must have roots in several dozens or hundreds of primitive armies – especially since we know that civilization began independently multiple times. In real life there are likely to be several scenarios for the development of the village, the army, and just about everything else in human culture; and it’s quite likely that each of them was played out in several different parts of the world and probably several times in each part too.

An army is an extension of a raiding party, which is a development of a traditional hunting party, but it is distinct from either of them. Hunting and raiding parties are temporary and when the hunt or raid is over, the hunters or raiders split the take and go home. They may go out again, but the party breaks up after each hunt or raid and it must reform for the next one. Even if the same people join each time, the party itself does not continue from hunt to hunt or raid to raid. A militia is also a temporary group; when raiders attack, the locals fight – but when the raid is over, the defenders go back to hunting and gathering or making pots or whatever. Members of a militia have a life of their own and they fight only when attacked; but soldiers of an army live to fight, and they may have nowhere to go when the battle is done. If they are raiders, they make their living by war – and if they are defenders, they make their living by the threat of war. Either way, soldiers don't grow food.

It might be easier to take food from someone else than it is to make it yourself – but it certainly isn’t easier to grow food for your village and an occupying army. Considering this, I think it’s a safe assumption that the first army based in a village was the result of intimidation, if not outright physical violence. Once the first army was based in a village, and because traders will avoid routes and territory where they are robbed, robbery very likely quickly transitioned to tolls. If one route is plagued by robbers and another is held by a robber baron who takes only some of their goods, traders will travel the route held by the robber baron. A robber baron lives better than a highwayman because they can build a fortress and hold land – historically, many castles were built to enforce a local aristocrat's claim to a toll on goods passing through ‘their’ land – but history also tells us that early peasants, villagers, and common soldiers lived in poverty, especially when compared to the hunter-gather lifestyle that immediately preceded this transition.

The point of all this is to illustrate that all signs point to this relatively recent development of human society being the product of force and coercion, rather than some sort of inevitable by-product of human nature. There’s no historic records where a stateless society was able to successfully resist the spread of nations and empires, but should a modern-day anarchist society be compared to stone-age hunter gatherers? On a similar note, the cultures we see as great civilizations were all supported by slaves who were brutally repressed, and dominated by kings and priests with absolute authority. Is such a society still viable in the present-age? Maybe historical comparisons don’t hold as much water anymore.

The way I see it, the worst danger of anarchism is that we might end up replicating a society similar to the one we currently live in. Why not keep trying? Human society has significantly changed in the past – the divine right of kings is gone and technology has given us an unprecedented global communication network. It's true that we'll never be able to establish a successful long-term anarchist society if we cannot defend against armies, but the only reason to assume it won’t ever happen is if we don’t try. Even if true anarchy is impossible, like ancient mariners using the stars as guides, it can still lead us to a new world.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 9 hours, 3 minutes
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #26859558 - 08/02/20 07:09 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Vertical organization is superior as it has less ambiguities within duties and a greater production ability. Decision making is more efficient; Less trust is needed.

Horizontal organizing by its very nature, is flat and must grow accordingly. There are multiple decision makers creating bottlenecks; there is less expeditious movement of the organization....everyone must trust themselves, and everyone else....

In short, trust and how it relates the human condition is very complex. You must see it all the time in contract law and torts. It could be spelled out verbatim in a contract; yet, you find the only way to enforce would be to litigate. Things that require more trust
restrain (unfortunately) growth and efficiency due to our flawed human nature.



My response would be this: should efficiency or autonomy be held to a higher priority for human organization? The organization of an ant colony is incredibly efficient but it would also make for an incredibly dystopian human society.




Quote:

Enlil said:
Efficient at getting a group of people to act with a common goal, yes.  That isn't all a social structure needs to do, though.  Ideally, government would serve two main goals:

1. Maximize freedom, and
2. Maximize human wellbeing.

A top-down approach can certainly be more efficient at 2, but it compromises 1 significantly.  IMO, horizontal systems are better at 1 but not as efficient at 2.

These two larger groups can be thought of as addressing these issues:

1. How can we live together peacefully?
2. How can we work together to improve our lives?

The first is about giving up some autonomy for the greater good, while the second is about setting up systems that encourage innovation and progress.  Those two are necessarily at odds to an extent.  Our current system has done the second part very well, but the first has slowly eroded and is now in a very bad state of affairs.



Yeah, same point I'm making - where should we place our priorities. I would argue that the two aren't necessarily conversely related either. Maybe maximizing freedom will lead to the maximization of human well-being - perhaps human well-being is directly dependent on human freedom. Also 'Efficiency' does not necessarily equate to human well-being - I would say it relates more directly to the productive potential of a society, which doesn't sound nearly as important.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 9 hours, 3 minutes
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
    #26859582 - 08/02/20 07:21 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:

Vahn421 said:

I'm inclined to agree. Most anarchists/far-leftists/antifa find the political right to be completely contemptible.

Unless you want to commit mass genocide on half the population, how do anarchists expect to get along with groups of different ideologies?




When it comes to their passion for destruction, anarchists often don't discriminate. For example the Frederick Douglass Statue in Rochester, N.Y that was destroyed. He is a prominent Black abolitionist. And Jesus and Christian figures being attacked.

Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King thinks that any statues or general depictions that showcase Jesus Christ with European features should be torn down. He says depictions of Jesus Christ are a form of white supremacy.

I'm tired of people saying the mob doesn't understand history. Lets be clear. The mob doesn't care about history. They care about one thing - destruction.




Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!

Mikhail Bakunin, revolutionary anarchist born into a Russian noble family



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,633
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26859609 - 08/02/20 07:40 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

shivas.wisdom:
.... the maximization of human well-being - perhaps human well-being is directly dependent on human freedom. Also 'Efficiency' does not necessarily equate to human well-being - I would say it relates more directly to the productive potential of a society, which doesn't sound nearly as important.
______________________________________________

Dude, the productive potential of a society is a fundamental bedrock of it's existence. Wars are fought for resources after all....it also is incorporated in the horizontial hierarchy theory.

Not that I dont see merit in what you purpose, however in order for it to work, the people that encompass the infinity groups would need to be void of becoming power hungry. How you could find like minded individuals would certainly be a significant obstacle.

In my 16 mins of research, I am unable find any significant historical example of horizontial organizing. Is that an example of  the vertical hierarchy being superior....and dare I say what we are stuck with? Or is there an example?


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,568
Last seen: 2 hours, 5 minutes
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #26859717 - 08/02/20 08:42 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

The Summer of Love in 1967 comes to mind.

Of course, it ended with people realizing they need a job. Whether that's due to social pressure or inherent failings of the movement (or both) is up for discussion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePastywhyteMDiscord
Say hello to my little friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/12
Posts: 37,830
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Kryptos] * 1
    #26859737 - 08/02/20 08:54 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Wasn’t Catalonia in much of the thirties considered anarchist or at least syndicalism?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 9 hours, 3 minutes
Re: A syllogism for analyzing [Re: Pastywhyte]
    #26872011 - 08/09/20 05:43 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Pastywhyte said:
I find many of the arguments against anarchy being made are actually arguments against chaos not anarchy. IIRC anarchy doesn’t mean the absence of order, it’s order without rulers or overlords. There are many issues surrounding achieving a horizontal society but we are getting to a point where some of those old obstacles are less formidable. Technology has the potential to limit or reduce the effects of social strain that are applied by resource scarcity. Labour scarcity is also becoming less of an issue. I believe we are reaching a point as a species where many of the old assumptions on social structures no longer apply.

Or course a major paradigm shift will be needed before people will be willing to accept things like abandoning consumer culture or keeping up with the Joneses. These are societal and cultural behaviours that are rooted in scarcity and oppression but that doesn’t mean people will easily abandon them despite having their needs and even their wants met. But the world is changing regardless, this pandemic and lockdowns etc, have made many people more aware of what actually makes the system run, who it really benefits from it, and who is truly essential to its ability to function as a system.

I don’t think people are ready to give up these old ways of organizing ourselves as they are very entrenched, but they are becoming less comfortable as of late. This is oddly beneficial to encouraging people to consider alternative mindsets.




Well said - a common refrain I hear is that 'anarchy means no rulers, not no rules'. If we wanted to get all etymological in here, the root of the word lies in the greek word arkhos, meaning ruler, and the prefix an, meaning without - literally without rulers. People may be more familiar with anarchist methods of resisting the state (probably because that's the only aspect consistently represented in corporate media) but if you ever get down to anarchy as an ideology, most of it revolves around alternative methods of human organization. That's it.

It's surprising how something so benevolent came to be depicted so harshly - until you realize that anarchy threatens the established elite in a way that not even state communism can. One of the most successful propaganda jobs of the 20th century was associating anarchy with chaos. 






I agree that widespread adoption will require a society wide paradigm shift that won't happen easily - but we've known human society to have gone through paradigm shifts of similar immensity in our past (shifting to agriculture, shifting to urban living, shifting away from divine monarchies, shifting to a digital world) that I don't see any reason to assume another won't happen. If there is any trait we can ascribe to human nature, it's likely to be our ability to change and adapt. And the beautiful part about anarchy, horizontal organizing, decentralization, etc - you don't need an established overarching societal structure in order for you to begin establishing these concepts in your life.

And that, in it's own way is one of the best form of anarchist propaganda: living your life according to anarchist principles - because if there's any validity to this ideology, we need to be able to practice it at the community and individual level. That's been my approach for my entire adult life, and the amount of times I've spent talking with strangers who weren't even aware that alternatives exist before we met is truly mind-boggling. That brings us to truly the best form of anarchist propaganda: direct participation. It's obviously a little more difficult to achieve in an online forum, but anyone who spends enough time with me in person isn't going to be fed with my anarchist theory about my life - they'll be offered to directly participate. The experience of autonomy, even if it's just a slight one to start like the classic of growing your own food garden, is self-affirming.

I guess that's just a complicated way of saying 'lead by example' but it's true more than ever with anarchy - you can't force people to be anarchists. Even people willingly choosing to follow an 'anarchist leader' is completely antithetical to the entire philosophy because an anarchist doesn't want to rule just as much as they don't want to be ruled.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Anarchists being harrased y police/ May Day Riots PGF 1,562 3 06/04/02 08:49 AM
by hongomon
* Anarchist libertarianism
( 1 2 3 all )
airclay 2,855 40 02/15/16 08:31 PM
by akira_akuma
* An Anarchistic Socialistic Democratic Society
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Teotzlcoatl 6,964 63 07/27/07 03:57 PM
by Teotzlcoatl
* Recipes For Disaster an Anarchist Cookbook, by Crimethinc al_uh_looyah 2,914 10 03/03/07 05:55 PM
by Turn
* Fellow Anarchists?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
MaxwellSmart 8,675 153 11/06/13 06:17 PM
by Smokey420
* You May Already Be An Anarchist.
( 1 2 3 all )
FutureExPatriot 5,007 45 10/16/02 01:16 AM
by zeronio
* The Reluctant Anarchist Evolving 2,014 17 06/12/04 09:27 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Someone help an anarchist out.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
psychedelicbath 5,070 63 09/22/14 04:28 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,296 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.