geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: keyboardlover on Wed, 30 January 2013, 09:13:15
-
The belief in statism is essentially the belief that certain parts of society like fiscal, commerce, healthcare, etc. should be controlled by a central governing body. This belief is actually merely a belief in a monopoly on violent force, since no state is able to enfore anything without the inherent or implied threat of violent force. The belief in government as a "necessary evil", therefore, is essentially a belief that evil is necessary. People who are truly peaceful and virtuous, then, cannot believe in government; since it is a legitimization of all the evils which happen in the world anyway. Therefore, anarchists accept that life is inherently filled with risk, and that two wrongs do not make a right (you cannot effectively fight fire with fire). And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government).
Edit: I'm genuinely impressed with all the interest and participation in this thread. It's really something!
For all you "tl;dr" people, here's a running tally of the best/worst debaters in the thread so far:
[Best debaters]
Krogenar
hashbaz
[Worst debaters]
Malphas
TheGreatAmphibianPling
sth
tufty
The best ones are NOT the ones who agreed with me - they're the ones who have provided clear and respectful arguments. The ones in the "worst" category have either been completely ineffective at debating at all, or their arguments are wrought with fallacies, biases and incomplete research. They have often times also been rude, accusatory, attacked my person rather than my beliefs, or simply trolled the thread and tried to throw it off course. They also are seemingly always unable to admit when they are wrong, which is not true of the folks here who are quite good at debating.
Here's one of many good articles on ways to improve your debating techniques:
http://suite101.com/article/how-to-debate-effectively-a74703
Now, to debunk some of trollphibians rants from another thread he tried to derail into oblivian:
I'd actually say that you are evil person, because you are willing to allow very large moral abuses to be committed so that you don't have to commit what are at most smaller ones.
On the contrary; that is wholly not true. Both our governments commit intensely large moral abuses every day, so why do YOU legitimize them as such? I do not.
This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...
Singapore is peaceful? LolWAT? Like their monopoly on violence doesn't directly impact their own citizens every damn day? You can always tell a statist's arguments suck when they bring up Somalia: Somalia's conflict has always been due to a struggle for bringing statism in Mogadishu. Since they have been stateless, all their industries are booming and their overall standard of living is much higher than it was. I will post some articles from the Mises Institute which will open your eyes to the reality of Somalia a bit later.
Edit: here they are:
https://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia
http://mises.org/daily/2066
..So your the answer to your silly rhetorical question has already been given - which is that no thinks that the state can reduce risk to zero, but that this is a stupid criteria for whether to have a state. Vaccinations, seat belts, parachutes, air bags, etc, don't reduce risk to zero - but you're still an idiot if you jump out of a plane without a parachute because the parachute isn't guaranteed to work *perfectly.*
How do you enforce any of those things in statism? At point of gun. So that's really all you're advocating. As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.
-
Did you ever read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? About a supposed state of chaos after which people actually chose to relinguish their right to violence to the state because it has certain advantages. Now the original state of chaos thing is probably bull****, but a state can be a necessary evil.
And even if someone was truly good and virtuous, I do not think this means they cannot accept the fact that evil exists. Denying someone else's wish to be evil is actually an act of violence in itself and would make them 'not perfectly good'. Accepting the minor evils of a government and legitimising evil can have it's advantages, even for good people.
Personally I have always thought that a country's population has to make a choice on how much self-responsibility it accepts. Either you accept "bad luck" or the consequences of your own "stupidity" or you look for someone else to take care of this. And that can be a state, family or an insurance company.
Saying that the perfect government doesn't exist does not matter here as proof. The perfect anarchist society doesn't exist either.
There is a really nice word for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember right now.
-
The belief in statism is essentially the belief that certain parts of society like fiscal, commerce, healthcare, etc. should be controlled by a central governing body. This belief is actually merely a belief in a monopoly on violent force, since no state is able to enfore anything without the inherent or implied threat of violent force. The belief in government as a "necessary evil", therefore, is essentially a belief that evil is necessary. People who are truly peaceful and virtuous, then, cannot believe in government; since it is a legitimization of all the evils which happen in the world anyway. Therefore, anarchists accept that life is inherently filled with risk, and that two wrongs do not make a right (you cannot fight fire with fire). And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government).
I think there's a lot of interesting ideas at work here, keyboardlover, and I'm curious to see where our ideas about politics intersect. I believe that there are some things that government is better at doing than individuals, but that there's nothing that a group of individuals cannot ultimately do on their own without a government. I'm of the general opinion that power over other people should be distributed as widely as possible (but not necessarily evenly). Ideally, power is distributed to individuals via the market. More on that later.
Government, in my eyes is 'evil' -- 'stupid' is perhaps a better label here, but one is easily confused for the other. I consider 'evil' to be defined as 'horribly inefficient'. Government is 99% of the time the least effective way to do anything. The most efficient use of money is to have the person who earned the money spend the money on themselves. The individual knows his or her desires more intimately than anyone else, and since they earned the money, they are most likely to spend it as economically as possible -- to maximize the utility gained. Government, by contrast, has a third party spending another person's earned income on yet another person. It maximizes inefficiency on all levels.
But government can and does impose useful restrictions on liberty. Building codes that restrict the freedom of builders are good -- they require that doors swing outwards, so that in a dangerous situation people can escape the building. These are restrictions on liberty, but they are useful because they make life safer for everyone. If you die in a burning building, your liberties are now gone.
The catch is finding that balance between individual liberty and public liberty.
This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...
Singapore is peaceful? LolWAT? Like their monopoly on violence doesn't directly impact their own citizens every damn day? You can always tell a statist's arguments suck when they bring up Somalia: Somalia's conflict has always been due to a struggle for bringing statism in Mogadishu. Since they have been stateless, all their industries are booming and their overall standard of living is much higher than it was. I will post some articles from the Mises Institute which will open your eyes to the reality of Somalia a bit later.
Wow! I went to Singapore. My brother-in-law lives there, and my wife and I visited him just last year. My impression was thus: a beautiful country. Imagine a golf course that encompasses an entire country and you would get the general picture. I had never seen median strips on highways look so perfectly groomed. In the U.S. we have yellow grass -- the Singaporeans have gardens on their median strips. Beautiful, beautiful country -- and I was warned in advance that they fine you very steeply for spitting on the street, graffiti, etc. Yeah, can you imagine a society that frowns on public urination, and fines you for it? ("But it's my right! --- and I'm not finished yet!") I work in NYC, where people routinely drop their house garbage bags in front of my business, and homeless people have the right to defecate on my doorstep -- so these rules were pretty attractive to me.
So my trip caps off with me, my wife and my brother-in-law and his family walking along a gorgeous boardwalk. The boardwalk is comprised of very thin strips of wood that curve into a kind of artful topographic wall alongside. And there are tiny little lights embedded in between the boards that twinkle. Being the kind of guy I am, I thought, "This is beautiful! It wouldn't last a week in the U.S.!" There would have been graffiti in days, gum and trash wedged into the crevices of the wood boards, a few pools of stagnant urine, etc.
See, in Singapore they fine you for that sort of thing and then they cane your feet, or your back. Not sure how I feel about it. Seems like there's positively no real punishment for people in the U.S. that make life miserable. Also, I asked my brother-in-law about the police. I hadn't noticed any -- at all! He said that they were all plainclothes. All of them. And there were cameras everywhere, which felt a bit weird. You know that you're in a bit of a police state, but it doesn't feel that way.
I chalk it up to cultural differences. Asians generally are very group oriented, with a tendency towards orderliness. (SEE: Aftermath of Fukushima Reactor Meltdown -- Japanese wait patiently in line for relief. Would that happen in the U.S.? Don't think so.) So I have a feeling that these laws are not generally need to be enforced.
All told, I think I like my society a bit more rough and tumble than the Singaporeans, but it seemed like a nice place to live, and it suits them.
How do you enforce any of those things in statism? At point of gun. So that's really all you're advocating.
I don't believe that there's any way to have a society without the presence of force. Government's primary function is to funnel all that power into a single, trusted (there's the rub) entity. If violent force were allowed freely to every individual, then might would be right. The strong would take from the weak, etc. -- that's not good. But with the sole authority to use force, people should be more wary of government than they tend to be.
As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.
Seatbelts? I think an individual has the right to decide whether they want to take a safety precaution so long as no one else's liberty is put at stake. If I don't wear a seatbelt, whom do I harm besides myself? Childseat laws I endorse because the child is not yet able to make their own decisions about safety. So those laws I do support. People should be allowed to smoke so long as their health problems do not become my financial burden. Parachutes -- not gonna touch that one, not aware of any laws regarding them. Air bags -- I don't think the government needs to regulate this. I think most companies would want to make them standard features without having their arms twisted by government.
Finally, keyboardlover, you refer to statism as the most dangerous religion in the world.
Sadly, I have to agree because the facts support you. The last century was the bloodiest century in human history, and the vast majority of the millions murdered were democides -- murdered by their own government. From Stalin's purges, to the Holocaust, to Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' -- they all lead to massive death, often preceded by misery. And yet, some people still have a massive hard-on for government.
Don't believe me? Look up 'The Great Leap Forward' -- millions of Chinese sacrificed on the altar of one man's really bad idea. They starved to death, which (this is morbid, I know) is probably the worst possible way to die.
Keyboardlover, I think there's a lot we agree upon, but we may disagree on whether government's are required. I think they are necessary, but should be treated with great caution.
-
As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.
I like the way you think.
-
Did you ever read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? About a supposed state of chaos after which people actually chose to relinguish their right to violence to the state because it has certain advantages. Now the original state of chaos thing is probably bull****, but a state can be a necessary evil.
Sure, if you believe so. I do not. But statists gonna state. But to answer your question, no, I have not read Leviathan.
And even if someone was truly good and virtuous, I do not think this means they cannot accept the fact that evil exists. Denying someone else's wish to be evil is actually an act of violence in itself and would make them 'not perfectly good'. Accepting the minor evils of a government and legitimising evil can have it's advantages, even for good people.
I think you may be confusing my stance here: I believe that evil exists; that is precisely why I choose not to legitimize it. I do not think any of these things are ok when anyone does it (statists believe that they are only ok when the state does it).
Personally I have always thought that a country's population has to make a choice on how much self-responsibility it accepts. Either you accept "bad luck" or the consequences of your own "stupidity" or you look for someone else to take care of this. And that can be a state, family or an insurance company.
Yes, I prefer voluntary forms of managing risk (which can include things like insurance as well as independent dispute-resolution organizations).
Saying that the perfect government doesn't exist does not matter here as proof. The perfect anarchist society doesn't exist either.
There is a really nice word for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember right now.
I don't think I said that, but I agree. Human beings are by nature imperfect so of course that is true.
-
Ah, no anything that has to do with "africa" is simply due to the power vacuum left by imperialist britain.
Statism is "Not" as extreme as you say, because the governing body is inherently still "human", However detached from the subjects they rule, their "humanity" and all its attributes are constant. Thus, it is out of organization that we have governance...
True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare...
Without statism, is a society without a parent...
-
Good to see everyone putting their keyboards to good use with some REAL and INTERESTING discussion.... I am new to forums and I certainly like what I see so far :)
-
I think there's a lot of interesting ideas at work here, keyboardlover, and I'm curious to see where our ideas about politics intersect. I believe that there are some things that government is better at doing than individuals, but that there's nothing that a group of individuals cannot ultimately do on their own without a government. I'm of the general opinion that power over other people should be distributed as widely as possible (but not necessarily evenly). Ideally, power is distributed to individuals via the market. More on that later.
But don't people self-organize all the time anyway? Don't people enjoy all kinds of voluntary associations with businesses, places they work, churches, schools, etc.?
But government can and does impose useful restrictions on liberty. Building codes that restrict the freedom of builders are good -- they require that doors swing outwards, so that in a dangerous situation people can escape the building. These are restrictions on liberty, but they are useful because they make life safer for everyone. If you die in a burning building, your liberties are now gone.
The catch is finding that balance between individual liberty and public liberty.
What is useful for you, is not necessarily useful for others. I don't care how people want to make buildings...if I don't like the building, I can make the choice not to go in it. I will use the ones I choose to.
All told, I think I like my society a bit more rough and tumble than the Singaporeans, but it seemed like a nice place to live, and it suits them.
See? If you give them an inch, they will take everything. 1984 was meant to be a warning, NOT an instruction manual.
I don't believe that there's any way to have a society without the presence of force. Government's primary function is to funnel all that power into a single, trusted (there's the rub) entity. If violent force were allowed freely to every individual, then might would be right. The strong would take from the weak, etc. -- that's not good. But with the sole authority to use force, people should be more wary of government than they tend to be.
I believe in the non-aggression principle; I believe that any and all initiation of force is illegitimate. I believe that people should not be restricted in any way to, therefore, protect and/or arms themselves in any way they see fit. I believe that people can (and are) peaceful, even though they own weapons.
Childseat laws I endorse because the child is not yet able to make their own decisions about safety. So those laws I do support. People should be allowed to smoke so long as their health problems do not become my financial burden.
I think it should be at their parents' discretion; not enforced at point of gun. Don't forget, these kinds of rules are often enforced voluntarily by communities all the time (they'll call you a bad parent if you don't do it). I much prefer that idea to one of force. And I agree that people's health problems should not be anyone's financial burden. Healthcare, like everything else, should be voluntary.
True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare...
Without statism, is a society without a parent...
Depends how you define "true tyranny", but there are very real examples which happen all over the world today, all too often. Where the monopoly on violence legitimized by statism, that gun, is fired upon peaceful people ALL too often. Without statism IS a society without a parent, and that is what I'm advocating for. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules" but merely, "no rulers".
Keyboardlover, I think there's a lot we agree upon, but we may disagree on whether government's are required. I think they are necessary, but should be treated with great caution.
Let me just ask you this question then: do you believe people should have the right to be left alone?
-
But don't people self-organize all the time anyway? Don't people enjoy all kinds of voluntary associations with businesses, places they work, churches, schools, etc.?
Absolutely so -- people are self-organizing, and no state ordinarily has to step in make these sorts of ad hoc organizations come into being. I couldn't disagree more with tp's statement that a people without a government are like a family without a parent. I don't know about tp or others, but I'm not a child in need of coddling. KBL you point out that these associations are voluntary -- but who is to say that the current government was not voluntarily entered into as well? Assuming you are American like myself, we are free to leave this country for greener shores. Our decision to remain means we are willingly accepting the rules of society. I think government is a natural extension of these people-based organizations, but they can grow out of control.
Also, I recognize (as I think you do) the primacy of the individual over the state. The state was created for the people, by the people. Government should be subservient to people, not the other way around. The people do not exist for the sake of the government. This seems so simple as sound almost stupid, but before the American Revolution it was decidedly the opposite; the people of France existed for the sake of the monarchy.
But government can and does impose useful restrictions on liberty. Building codes that restrict the freedom of builders are good -- they require that doors swing outwards, so that in a dangerous situation people can escape the building. These are restrictions on liberty, but they are useful because they make life safer for everyone. If you die in a burning building, your liberties are now gone.
The catch is finding that balance between individual liberty and public liberty.
What is useful for you, is not necessarily useful for others. I don't care how people want to make buildings...if I don't like the building, I can make the choice not to go in it. I will use the ones I choose to.
Well, if you enter a building (any building) it should be built in a fashion that protects the most primal of all your liberties -- your life. How can you or I look at a building and necessarily know that it is safe in the event of fire, or other emergency. You or I may not be capable of making an informed choice. Pick up any bit of food -- can you say for certain it was not sprayed with a chemical that was dangerous? I don't mind sacrificing a small amount of freedom if I receive a larger sum in return, in the long term.
Think of it like surgery. Cutting people with knives is generally considered unacceptable -- but if I had to remove a gangrene-infected, necrotic limb to save my life, I wouldn't hesitate. Some people might! And I think those people are in a very, very small minority, however. And if you were to oppose, say, fire code ordinances in relation to building construction, your insistence on such matters would infringe upon the liberty of others.
Again, this is about necessity. People's liberty should be infringed upon only when it benefits everyone. A seat belt only benefits the individual, so allow the individual to make the call. Earlier KBL (please accept this acronym?) you pointed out that you accept that it is impossible to create a risk free world. I concur. But that doesn't mean simple guidelines for safety should be shot down.
I grant you that government regulations have grown far beyond basic safety and become stultifying, confused and sclerotic. Politicians often intone, "If it saves even one life." Well, that's a lot of flapdoodle. (Real word: look it up, I'm bringing it back.) So if we reduced highway speed limits to say 5 MPH, we would undoubtedly save someone's life... so we should do it? No.
All told, I think I like my society a bit more rough and tumble than the Singaporeans, but it seemed like a nice place to live, and it suits them.
See? If you give them an inch, they will take everything. 1984 was meant to be a warning, NOT an instruction manual.
Are you saying I'm giving Singaporeans an inch? Not sure what you mean.
I don't believe that there's any way to have a society without the presence of force. Government's primary function is to funnel all that power into a single, trusted (there's the rub) entity. If violent force were allowed freely to every individual, then might would be right. The strong would take from the weak, etc. -- that's not good. But with the sole authority to use force, people should be more wary of government than they tend to be.
I believe in the non-aggression principle; I believe that any and all initiation of force is illegitimate.
Eh... processing that statement carefully... so you're saying that the initial taking by force is always illegitimate, always wrong? I generally try to shy away from absolute statements. I like my wiggle room. Can I take baby formula from someone else if it's the only way to feed my baby daughter? Or would I be morally more righteous to watch her starve? It's an extreme example and not likely to happen, true. We're edging away from politics and more into ethics, now.
I believe that people should not be restricted in any way to, therefore, protect and/or arms themselves in any way they see fit. I believe that people can (and are) peaceful, even though they own weapons.
No, I think there should be some sensible restrictions on the Second Amendment. Not all gun owners are peaceful -- probably the vast, vast majority. And I believe an armed society is more likely to be a polite society. But every right enshrined by the American Constitution is to some degree or another limited. As an example, the right to free speech is NOT absolute. You cannot say absolutely anything you want. Threatening others, libel, slander -- not free speech, as you are using your speech to infringe upon another person's rights.
If people should not be restricted in any way to protect themselves, then I could, theoretically build a nuclear bomb in my basement and would be completely within my Constitutionally protected rights to do so. You couldn't possibly endorse that, could you? On account of your opinion elsewhere I will give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to imprecise language. But let's slide it down from nuclear weapon to, say, something less -- how about a Sherman tank? Should a private citizen be allowed to own a tank? I think that would be overkill, wouldn't you say? Again -- I'm not declaring the exact point where individual rights balance out against the rights (safety) of others. That's for society (legislators) to determine.
KBL I feel your ire at the constant assault on the Second Amendment, and I agree. It's nearly impossible to own a firearm in NYC, ensuring that only criminals are armed. I agree with requiring that firearm owners be licensed, and require that they receive training -- guns shouldn't be available via a vending machine (don't try bumping the machine if the Uzi fails to drop off the hook). But the government is taking it to an extreme and it should be resisted.
Childseat laws I endorse because the child is not yet able to make their own decisions about safety. So those laws I do support. People should be allowed to smoke so long as their health problems do not become my financial burden and second hand smoke does not harm others.
I think it should be at their parents' discretion; not enforced at point of gun. Don't forget, these kinds of rules are often enforced voluntarily by communities all the time (they'll call you a bad parent if you don't do it). I much prefer that idea to one of force. And I agree that people's health problems should not be anyone's financial burden. Healthcare, like everything else, should be voluntary.
I guess it gets back to the issue of who the child belongs to; the state or the parents. I could acquiesce to relaxing child safety seats, but would still voluntarily choose to use one.
-
Ah, no anything that has to do with "africa" is simply due to the power vacuum left by imperialist britain.
I'm curious, tp -- what state do you think Africa would be in had the colonials not arrived? Also, how can you be so sure that all the problems that Africa experiences are directly attributable to the colonials? At what point (if ever) does Africa become responsible for itself? Or is it a problem that will never go away. Also, to save you time, I am white -- not that it should matter.
Statism is "Not" as extreme as you say, because the governing body is inherently still "human", However detached from the subjects they rule, their "humanity" and all its attributes are constant. Thus, it is out of organization that we have governance...
Only humans are capable of evil. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, serially murderers all -- they were all human too. Evil humans using governments to murder other humans. Not all governments do this, so it's fair to say that these men (and other men who espouse their political actions and views) are on the outside (extreme) of the norm.
True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare... Without statism, is a society without a parent...
There are petty tyrannies all over. "True" tyranny (the negation of the individual) is seen most often in collectivist/communist/socialistic countries, like North Korea, China, Cuba, and Iran. Tyrants aren't rare, sadly --- and there's no shortage of people ready to make excuses for them. The word 'tyrant' is abused about as often as 'Nazi' ("Give me a free BBQ sauce packet, you tyrant!") but tyrants aren't rare enough. In any case, death to tyrants -- real tyrants. What number of genuine tyrants would make them no longer rare?
-
Ah, no anything that has to do with "africa" is simply due to the power vacuum left by imperialist britain.
I'm curious, tp -- what state do you think Africa would be in had the colonials not arrived? Also, how can you be so sure that all the problems that Africa experiences are directly attributable to the colonials? At what point (if ever) does Africa become responsible for itself? Or is it a problem that will never go away. Also, to save you time, I am white -- not that it should matter.
Statism is "Not" as extreme as you say, because the governing body is inherently still "human", However detached from the subjects they rule, their "humanity" and all its attributes are constant. Thus, it is out of organization that we have governance...
Only humans are capable of evil. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, serially murderers all -- they were all human too. Evil humans using governments to murder other humans. Not all governments do this, so it's fair to say that these men (and other men who espouse their political actions and views) are on the outside (extreme) of the norm.
True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare... Without statism, is a society without a parent...
There are petty tyrannies all over. "True" tyranny (the negation of the individual) is seen most often in collectivist/communist/socialistic countries, like North Korea, China, Cuba, and Iran. Tyrants aren't rare, sadly --- and there's no shortage of people ready to make excuses for them. The word 'tyrant' is abused about as often as 'Nazi' ("Give me a free BBQ sauce packet, you tyrant!") but tyrants aren't rare enough. In any case, death to tyrants -- real tyrants. What number of genuine tyrants would make them no longer rare?
I don't know what Africa would be like without colonials, my point is, their "current" strife was heavily due to the thwarting that occurred.
I would "imagine" that they'd be quite happy naked and drinking goat milk... The white man brought to Africa systems that the natives were not ready for.. THEN.. they fk-ed off before it was ever fully setup because of internal collapse.
The hitler stalin mao thing, obama kills just as many people for EVEN LESS virtuous reasons.... Let's not go here...
Tyranny is rarely possible because it requires a very child like mentality... most people who achieve great power eventually grow out of it, because given age, it isn't terribly hard to realize that externalized success can not truly be possessed.
For example,,, Putin,, he was a super evil guy... but now that he's got all the power in the world.... over the years he's placated... and not the child he used to be.
-
Did you ever read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? About a supposed state of chaos after which people actually chose to relinguish their right to violence to the state because it has certain advantages. Now the original state of chaos thing is probably bull****, but a state can be a necessary evil.
Sure, if you believe so. I do not. But statists gonna state. But to answer your question, no, I have not read Leviathan.
The reason I am bringing him up because he is one of the origins of the idea of statism. Or at least the reason why people believe in it;
The basic fear that we might have been worse off if we did not have a state to govern our lives.
Whether you believe this fear is real or not doesn't matter. State of nature - Hobbes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#StaNat)
It provides a background for the opposing idea.
Anyway, your story reminded me of this. Godawful book though. Read the condensed version to get the basic idea.
Oh, and please do not try to use Ad hominem by saying "statists gonna state". You have no idea what my idea on statism or anarchy is. By saying this you are showing you are not interested in the views of the other side and just want to drink some tea with likeminded people. In that case you should not have made a topic such as this.
And even if someone was truly good and virtuous, I do not think this means they cannot accept the fact that evil exists. Denying someone else's wish to be evil is actually an act of violence in itself and would make them 'not perfectly good'. Accepting the minor evils of a government and legitimising evil can have it's advantages, even for good people.
I think you may be confusing my stance here: I believe that evil exists; that is precisely why I choose not to legitimize it. I do not think any of these things are ok when anyone does it (statists believe that they are only ok when the state does it).
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Do you believe in a universal stance on good and evil? Some things are never good. :)
I believe in that some things which are evil in one community can be considered good in the other. That even within a single society (state governed or not) some people will feel very strong about one thing and call it evil, while others don't care and find it a minor nuisance.
EDIT: So in that case it is not so black and white that you can 'not legitimize' evil.
Personally I have always thought that a country's population has to make a choice on how much self-responsibility it accepts. Either you accept "bad luck" or the consequences of your own "stupidity" or you look for someone else to take care of this. And that can be a state, family or an insurance company.
Yes, I prefer voluntary forms of managing risk (which can include things like insurance as well as independent dispute-resolution organizations).
That is fine. But it also means that some weaker members of society might not be able to do just that. They do not have the choice.
EDIT: Not the money, no family or friends that can take care of them in times of need.
Saying that the perfect government doesn't exist does not matter here as proof. The perfect anarchist society doesn't exist either.
There is a really nice word for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember right now.
I don't think I said that, but I agree. Human beings are by nature imperfect so of course that is true.
Actually you did:
"And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government)."
-
Oh wow. I was REALLY surprised when I saw this thread on spy and it made me happy! I also believe governments are fictional entities that only exist because people believe in them.
"The gun in the room". - Thank You for starting this thread keyboardlover :)
Quoting from a friend of mine -
Firstly, a government has a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area. Without this monopoly it would not be a State.
Secondly, a government has nothing todo with governance or leadership. Governments neither govern nor lead, they rule, threaten and harm.
-
What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.
Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse
-
What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.
Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is as an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse
Then there are those who say "given how boring life is in this wonderful world... sure could go for some anarchy righ'bou'now"
I must admit, I've felt that way at times, but it was BEFORE I experienced a 4 day power outage, that had me rethink how GREAT life is being under a suppressive government.
-
I don't know what Africa would be like without colonials, my point is, their "current" strife was heavily due to the thwarting that occurred. I would "imagine" that they'd be quite happy naked and drinking goat milk... The white man brought to Africa systems that the natives were not ready for.. THEN.. they fk-ed off before it was ever fully setup because of internal collapse.
So you think Africans would not have progressed beyond tribalism in all this time? Scary thought, that.
The hitler stalin mao thing, obama kills just as many people for EVEN LESS virtuous reasons.... Let's not go here...
What? We're already here! As for Obama, Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- you are partially correct. Obama kills people. In fact, no other Nobel Peace Prize winner has launched as many cruise missiles as President Obama, but as a murderer he pales in comparison to Hitler, Stalin and all the other collectivist dictators of the past century in terms of the number of murders. He doesn't even come close to Hitler, let alone Stalin and Mao. Obama is no where near any of them, and you .... you really didn't know that, did you?
Tyranny is rarely possible because it requires a very child like mentality... most people who achieve great power eventually grow out of it, because given age, it isn't terribly hard to realize that externalized success can not truly be possessed.
What does that even mean? For every person who says this sort of crap, they should be dropped into North Korea or Cuba forever. Have fun -- the grass there isn't for smoking, it's for making soup.
For example,,, Putin,, he was a super evil guy... but now that he's got all the power in the world.... over the years he's placated... and not the child he used to be.
Putin dumped his wife of like twenty years to marry an 18-year-old rhythmic gymnast, and he throws dissidents in jails. He strong-arms his opponents, rigs elections, and pretends to be a macho outdoorsman. This sort of behavior is befitting a tyrant. He's just dressing it up. And you, you believe it? I suppose Cuba is a worker's paradise, right?
-
I don't know what Africa would be like without colonials, my point is, their "current" strife was heavily due to the thwarting that occurred. I would "imagine" that they'd be quite happy naked and drinking goat milk... The white man brought to Africa systems that the natives were not ready for.. THEN.. they fk-ed off before it was ever fully setup because of internal collapse.
So you think Africans would not have progressed beyond tribalism in all this time? Scary thought, that.
The hitler stalin mao thing, obama kills just as many people for EVEN LESS virtuous reasons.... Let's not go here...
What? We're already here! As for Obama, Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- you are partially correct. Obama kills people. In fact, no other Nobel Peace Prize winner has launched as many cruise missiles as President Obama, but as a murderer he pales in comparison to Hitler, Stalin and all the other collectivist dictators of the past century in terms of the number of murders. He doesn't even come close to Hitler, let alone Stalin and Mao. Obama is no where near any of them, and you .... you really didn't know that, did you?
Tyranny is rarely possible because it requires a very child like mentality... most people who achieve great power eventually grow out of it, because given age, it isn't terribly hard to realize that externalized success can not truly be possessed.
What does that even mean? For every person who says this sort of crap, they should be dropped into North Korea or Cuba forever. Have fun -- the grass there isn't for smoking, it's for making soup.
For example,,, Putin,, he was a super evil guy... but now that he's got all the power in the world.... over the years he's placated... and not the child he used to be.
Putin dumped his wife of like twenty years to marry an 18-year-old rhythmic gymnast, and he throws dissidents in jails. He strong-arms his opponents, rigs elections, and pretends to be a macho outdoorsman. This sort of behavior is befitting a tyrant. He's just dressing it up. And you, you believe it? I suppose Cuba is a worker's paradise, right?
All the economists agree, if Africans weren't so dame happy being free, they could do so much with that nation... but alas, they're happy.... why is that, when they've got balls nothing...
North Korea and Cuba, are great nations... They've got missiles and everything... Had they given in to regulation, they'd still be like the south asia: philippine, thailand, vietnam, which are dominated by American economic powers.
Not to mention, High literacy rate..
Which man wouldn't dump a wife of 20 years for an 18 year old rhythmic gymnast had he had the opportunity....
Who's to say the wife doesn't sleep with 18 male rhythmic gymnasts.
Dissidents belong in jail.... that's the whole point
Elections are for children and the poor who believes in them... This is not a conspiracy theory... this is fact
-
The basic fear that we might have been worse off if we did not have a state to govern our lives.
Whether you believe this fear is real or not doesn't matter. State of nature - Hobbes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#StaNat)
It provides a background for the opposing idea.
I am familiar with such a stance and as to why the belief originated/why states originate. That doesn't change my stance though.
Oh, and please do not try to use Ad hominem by saying "statists gonna state". You have no idea what my idea on statism or anarchy is. By saying this you are showing you are not interested in the views of the other side and just want to drink some tea with likeminded people. In that case you should not have made a topic such as this.
Oh no no! That was not meant to be ad hominem at all; merely tongue-in-cheek. Not directed towards yourself at all either.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Do you believe in a universal stance on good and evil? Some things are never good. :)
I believe in that some things which are evil in one community can be considered good in the other. That even within a single society (state governed or not) some people will feel very strong about one thing and call it evil, while others don't care and find it a minor nuisance.
EDIT: So in that case it is not so black and white that you can 'not legitimize' evil.
I think it is black and white when it comes to the NAP: violating another's right to life, unless in self-defense, is evil IMO. The initiation of force is evil IMO.
That is fine. But it also means that some weaker members of society might not be able to do just that. They do not have the choice.
EDIT: Not the money, no family or friends that can take care of them in times of need.
Sure, but that also happens now. It's part of my stance in accepting the risk inevitable in life.
-
The belief in statism is essentially the belief that certain parts of society like fiscal, commerce, healthcare, etc. should be controlled by a central governing body.
Anyone capable of writing the above is incapable of intelligent thought. What does "controlled" mean? A command economy or regulations to prevent the use of child labour and the sale of nuclear weapons? The above idiotically lumps them together.
This belief is actually merely a belief in a monopoly on violent force, since no state is able to enfore anything without the inherent or implied threat of violent force.
Fail. All that is required for the state to eg prevent the sale of nuclear weapons is that it should be able to use force, NOT that it should have a MONOPOLY of force - a preponderance, yes. Almost all states recognize the right of citizens to use force eg in self defense. (Note: people who write in cliches think badly.)
The belief in government as a "necessary evil", therefore, is essentially a belief that evil is necessary.
Who says that using force to prevent child abuse or the sale of poisoned food is evil?
People who are truly peaceful and virtuous, then, cannot believe in government; since it is a legitimization of all the evils which happen in the world anyway.
Ok: so if a policeman or a citizen uses force to prevent eg a rape, then he is "legitimizing" rape... Maybe this makes sense in your parent's basement, but in the real world no.
Therefore, anarchists accept that life is inherently filled with risk, and that two wrongs do not make a right (you cannot effectively fight fire with fire).
Your ignorance is apparently boundless: "fight fire with fire" is a cliche because counter-fires are often crucial to fighting forest fires....
And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government).
This is immeasurably silly and dishonest: you haven't defined what a successful government is.
I'd actually say that you are evil person, because you are willing to allow very large moral abuses to be committed so that you don't have to commit what are at most smaller ones.
On the contrary; that is wholly not true. Both our governments commit intensely large moral abuses every day, so why do YOU legitimize them as such? I do not.
This is Pure Fail: that someone else is a shoplifter does not excuse your being a murderer; the two are separate issues.
...Logic is something to with tree trunks to you, isn't it?
This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...
Singapore is peaceful? LolWAT?
Compared to Rawanda and Somalia? Yes.
I will post some articles from the Mises Institute which will open your eyes to the reality of Somalia a bit later.
Which is about as intellectually respectable as publishing a party from the Nazi Party on the benefits of Hitler's Jewish Policy...
..So your the answer to your silly rhetorical question has already been given - which is that no thinks that the state can reduce risk to zero, but that this is a stupid criteria for whether to have a state. Vaccinations, seat belts, parachutes, air bags, etc, don't reduce risk to zero - but you're still an idiot if you jump out of a plane without a parachute because the parachute isn't guaranteed to work *perfectly.*
How do you enforce any of those things in statism? At point of gun. So that's really all you're advocating.
Congratulations on failing to understand what a metaphor is! The point isn't that the state should make people use parachutes, but that your argument that the state can't reduce risk to zero so therefore any risk reduction it does make should be ignored is, again, nothing but Fail. The laws a state should enforce are things like "No rape or murder", "Don't sell poisoned food", "Children go to school instead of to work in factories or brothels" - all of which you have rejected.
As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion
I'm fine with idiots doing things to hurt themselves, but you are now you are being a moral coward. The question we were debating (in "Commercialism vs Community") was not whether the state has the right to make people wear seat belts, but whether it has the right to stop businesses from poisoning customers, parents from selling children from profit, ordinary idiots from driving while drunk, and terrorists from buying nuclear weapons. These things are very different to whether or not people should be free to decide whether they want to wear a seatbelt or not!
-
What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.
Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse
You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family. Statism is nothing more than another religion, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown. Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.
If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.
The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.
-
As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.
I like the way you think.
I don't think anyone could object to what he wrote there. Unfortunately, what he wrote is dishonest! What he means by "statism" is that any law - eg the one that stops your neighbours from killing you and taking you stuff, or requires that any nuclear power or chemical plant built near you be up to code - enforced by the "violence" of the state is a Bad Thing. See "Commercialism vs Community."
-
What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.
Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse
You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family. Statism is nothing more than another religion, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown. Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.
If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.
The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.
Non-statism means with rules, not rulers.
One of the most naive things I've ever read. If you think violence and antisocial behaviour are the result of statism and modern society rather than something hard-wired into our DNA then you're delusional.
-
KL, can you tell me how an anarchist society deals with the problem of gangs looting, raping, and destroying property?
-
Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling, in other words, making a statement to elicit an emotional response. Please come back when you have something to say which is both logical and germane to the subject being discussed, and which you can support with evidence.
-
Ancap here, don't have time to reply with anything good, just to commend you.
-
And now for a catalogue of logical fallacies:
You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family.
..Argument by assertion.
Statism is nothing more than another religion
..Same.
, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown.
..And again! In fact, the above is quite simply preposterously ignorant. The modern idea of the state is only about 400 years old, and during that time science and education levels have increased in the West - can we say "Correlation is not causation"??? Perhaps we could even find out what it means? And there are certainly counter examples in that time - for example Nazi Germany was by any sane measure more religious and more statist than either modern Germany or 1940s Sweden.
Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.
Ok: tell me in what way eg the Swedish system of government is based on child abuse?
If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.
Ummm... unless you learn it later. People do do that you know.
The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.
Congratulations on not knowing that the strong form of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis was disproved decades ago. (Translation: "Mr Science, him say you talking krazee!")
[/quote]
-
What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.
Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse
You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family. Statism is nothing more than another religion, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown. Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.
If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.
The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.
Non-statism means with rules, not rulers.
One of the most naive things I've ever read. If you think violence and antisocial behaviour are the result of statism and modern society rather than something hard-wired into our DNA then you're delusional.
It's actually the other way around. Statism and the modern society are the result of violence, bad parenting, etc. As for "hard-wired into our DNA", epigenetics covers all of this and goes even further to combine both hard-wired and envionmental together. Look it up
-
Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling
I think you need to learn to read. Or at least, that you should *bother* to read, rather than jumping in half cocked on the side of posters you agree with.
1. The post I was responding to called me, without provocation, a troll. So, yes, I feel free to respond a little more brusquely to silliness than I normally would.
2. On no occasion did I rely on "Fail" as an argument. Instead I wrote eg "Fail. All that is required for the state to eg prevent the sale of nuclear weapons is that it should be able to use force, NOT that it should have a MONOPOLY of force - a preponderance, yes.: That's rather different, yes?
-
Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling, in other words, making a statement to elicit an emotional response. Please come back when you have something to say which is both logical and germane to the subject being discussed, and which you can support with evidence.
Sometimes certain things aren't deserving of a full rebuttal though, and are patently ludicrous to the point where something like "fail" is an appropriate response.
-
It's actually the other way around. Statism and the modern society are the result of violence, bad parenting, etc.
And you know this because...?
As for "hard-wired into our DNA", epigenetics covers all of this and goes even further to combine both hard-wired and envionmental together. Look it up
I don't think anyone who makes arguments as ignorance based as "Violence is a language, if it isn't taught it won't be practiced - No, I've never heard of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis and have no idea that what you mean by the-strong-form-has-been-disproved" shouldn't be making such lofty recommendations to "look it up." Honestly, the idea that you understand a whole body of complex science when you've just demonstrated profound ignorance of a simple concept is not of the credible. In fact, "I know a multi-syllable word, and therefore I am right" should just never be used as an argument anyway - if you think there is something in epigenetics that agrees with your position (which I profoundly doubt) then you should say explicitly what that something is and what you reasoning is. Does that sound unreasonable?
-
I think you need to learn to read. Or at least, that you should *bother* to read, rather than jumping in half cocked on the side of posters you agree with.
Trolling again, are we? :)
-
I think you need to learn to read. Or at least, that you should *bother* to read, rather than jumping in half cocked on the side of posters you agree with.
Trolling again, are we? :)
Ok: pointing that you obviously didn't bother to read the thread - because you were asking me to be polite to someone who started the thread by calling me a troll, while my reply had been considerable more polite in return - makes me a troll. In fact, the meaning of the word "troll" is hereby redefined, across the entire Internet, as "Anyone who points out that anything that jdcarpe says is factually, provably incorrect, or who otherwise makes him look less intelligent, charismatic, and generally froodish than he would he like." So mote it be!
And no, I'm not being ironic! :)
-
Actually, no, I agree with jdcarpe that you're a troll.
-
Actually, no, I agree with jdcarpe that you're a troll.
Well, yes: given that you are the person who started off the thread by calling me a troll simply because I don't share your and jd's opinions, you would.
Why you feel it is necessary to post, in effect, that you agree with yourself that "troll" can be used as a term of abuse simply for anyone who disagrees with you is another matter....
-
My point being that you can attempt to refute someone's statement, using logic and examples as evidence. No need for the desultory comments. That's what makes you a troll, and I don't feed trolls. :D
-
My point being that you can attempt to refute someone's statement, using logic and examples as evidence.
No, that wasn't your point. That was what you claimed to be your point, but you were either lying or hadn't read the thread: you singled out me, the person you disagree with, as being "derogatory" AND IGNORED THAT THE POSTER I WAS REPLYING TO HAD GRATUITOUSLY CALLED ME A TROLL WHEN HE OPENED THE THREAD! Really, this isn't rocket science: if you are rude to people, they will be less polite than would have been otherwise in reply. And if you attack the people you disagree for bad manners, when they are merely replying to bad manners - and more moderately - then people will tell you that you are showing bias.
No need for the desultory comments. That's what makes you a troll, and I don't feed trolls. :D
I.e. you realize that staying in this thread making probably untrue assertions will cause you greater and greater loss of face, so you are attempting to make the least undignified exist you can. Vive le power power de illusion!
-
Oh, and please do not try to use Ad hominem by saying "statists gonna state". You have no idea what my idea on statism or anarchy is. By saying this you are showing you are not interested in the views of the other side and just want to drink some tea with likeminded people. In that case you should not have made a topic such as this.
Oh no no! That was not meant to be ad hominem at all; merely tongue-in-cheek. Not directed towards yourself at all either.
Fair enough. Let us continue the discussion then.
Like gentlemen. :D
And now for a catalogue of logical fallacies:
Actually, I prefer this one:
Top 20 Logical Fallacies - TheSkepticsGuide (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx)
For most people getting into a debate like this one it is hard to keep emotions or hatefull comments towards the other side out of it.
I have even seen professors of mine, philosophers with years of experience, slip in a punch under the belt. It's not easy to stay cool, especially if you are really convinced of being right. The only way of this being a fun conversation if people are not sure of their stance yet and want to view a few different side.
I haven't seen a lot of that yet though...
-
KL, can you tell me how an anarchist society deals with the problem of gangs looting, raping, and destroying property?
if, as you posit, there is a codified society that these hypothetical gangs are looting, raping and destroying the property of, then the society can do what they see fit, be that physical violence, running them out of town, enacting extreme self-defense measures etc. there are some... shall we say... factions of anarchism that are completely opposed to all forms of physical violence even in cases of self defense, but they are in the minority (though there are many interesting philosophical discussions that can be had about it).
now, you may think (as many legitimately do) that that constitutes a form of mob rule, which is certainly possible, but it is also possible for those decisions to be made in a comparatively rational way when you look at how we deal with criminals now (turn them into monsters, villify and destroy them if they are not already past the point of rehabilitation in some cases).
you could also, i think fairly, assume that however an anarchist society forms, it forms out of a shift in thought process of a population as a whole, not merely as a plurality of individuals with 'good ideas'. taking that into account, it might be that there is simply less 'raping looting and destruction' as you put it. we just don't know at this point.
my friend described society (and he may have been paraphrasing another source) as an equation that produces remainders -- things like violent acts, vast imbalances of wealth at the expense of the majority of the population, pollution, rape culture, homelessness and poverty, and trying to work those problems out using the same equation we've been using is not going to give us any different results. you have to change the equation to get different results. that sounds sorta undergrad-intellectual, but it's a good metaphor.
and KL
statism is bad BUT you are using it as a boogeyman to represent a ton of issues that are related but that do not all boil down to statism, or to any one problem source. i hope you start learning about feminism and classism before you go too far off into manarchy land, because the end of statism will never come so long as there is implicit acceptance of hierarchical oppression outside of a governmental context, and they are issues that we can actually do something about in our daily lives. the way you have talked about minorities and the poor in the past leads me to believe that you might not want to be looking at the bigger picture, but there is ALWAYS a bigger picture and things are always connected. nothing is without context.
privilege mother****er, do you have it? yes, and so does everybody on geekhack. choosing to ignore it makes you no better than the statists you decry in the same way conservatives sling the word 'liberal' at anyone they disagree with. and please try to remember that not everybody has had anywhere near close to the level of privilege you have been raised with, so postulating about the lives of people with vastly different life experiences is just not helpful to anybody but your ego.
JaccoW: wasn't Hobbes near-universally decried by his peers for being uneducated and jumping to massive conclusions about how 'all people' work (or that it was even possible to boil down all peoples' behavior into a common human behavior)? I haven't read Leviathan yet... maybe someday.
sorry if i'm ranting... haven't read the whole thread yet.
-
It's not easy to stay cool, especially if you are really convinced of being right.
I think a good tip is not to start the thread by calling people who disgree with you trolls and then to get your friends to join in... (Not "You" as in "You, JaccoW", obviously!)
The only way of this being a fun conversation if people are not sure of their stance yet and want to view a few different side.
I'd disagree. I respect people with views strongly differing from mine if they can argue logically - instead of hitting virtually every fallacy on that list you linked - and honestly. For example, the thread starter was explicit in the last thread that he regards "statism" as any use of force to enforce any law - but now he is referring only to the unobjectionable case of laws designed to prevent injury to the self, eg seatbelt laws. Why he has such a desperate need for people to agree with him that he will mis-state his position I have no idea, but there you go:
http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39684.120#quickreply
So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?
Nope. Unlike you I am a peaceful person and unlike you I don't legitimize even my own slavery now. P.S. what is Al-qaeda exactly?
..What the point of defending your opinions is if you won't even be honest about them I have no idea!
-
Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.
-
Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.
No, I enjoy easy targets...
-
jeez.
i know the thread says caveman in it but we don't need to act like it in here.. can we cut out the potshots unless they're really really funny?
-
No joke, sth. I thought we could all continue to debate in a civilized manner, but I guess emotions get the better of some.
-
Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.
No, I enjoy easy targets...
I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you? That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")
All I've seen is a bunch of "No, you're wrong and if you don't think what I think, clearly you can't think" and a lot of preposterous internet posturing about how he started it by calling you a troll. A claim, that in and of itself isn't entirely true because I believe you started things off in the other thread, again with baseless allegations, claiming that if he believed what he posted he *couldn't* use logic.
-
Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.
No, I enjoy easy targets...
I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you? That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")
i don't think you're being entirely fair here... he's actually not the only one who has done this, nor has anybody been better or worse about it.
also... i reject your assumption that anybody has to respect anybody's opinion. i sure as hell don't respect the opinion of people who i disagree with. that doesn't mean i disrespect them, just that i think that their worldview is more beneficial to them than to anyone else.
you also have to understand that being right is very tiring.
-
I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you? That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")
All I've seen is a bunch of "No, you're wrong and if you don't think what I think, clearly you can't think"
It's easy to claim this when you disgree with someone - just as it is easy for jd to make abusive and partisan posts and then pretend to be Teachers Pet. But if you think there is a claim I have made that I haven't proved, then post it and I'll explain why you are wrong. You may not agree with my arguments - I expect you wouldn't - but they have been made.
and a lot of preposterous internet posturing about how he started it by calling you a troll.
I think you are being a touch hypocritical: someone was rude to me, I was brusque back. When jd resented I hadn't been politer to a poster whose opinions he shares, I pointed out that I wasn't the one who had initiated the rudeness, and jd then became obsessed with saving face. You can either ignore this diversion (I would) or say "What goes around, comes around." Or you could join in with jd and demand that people who disagree with you put you with being called trolls, but I'd hope that you'd be more mature than that.
A claim, that in and of itself isn't entirely true because I believe you started things off in the other thread, again with baseless allegations, claiming that if he believed what he posted he *couldn't* use logic.
This is utterly untrue, although I accept that you may think it is true because you can't understand what I actually said. Which is that his arguments were wrong - mostly because they fitted classical categories of logical fallacies - independent of his position. Not because of it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you won't understand me now - but trust me; VERY different!
I'll give you a free example:
I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you?
1. Pointing out that someone is arguing by conclusion is not an ad hominem attack. Sorry, but if you don't know the difference, it's your problem - really. You need to use google, a dictionary, or that list of fallacies someone posted. Really, do - in fact read the whole list, you'll benefit from it.
2. Pointing out that what some said is provably wrong because it relies on the strong form of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis is, again, not an ad hom. You not know what the hell it means- I am sure you don't - but that doesn't make it an ad hom. Use google, or ask for an explanation.
..And I these two points alone cover eight of my replies! So the idea that I haven't made substantive logical replies is ludicrous - you might not have understood them, but again, not my problem!
-
Absolutely so -- people are self-organizing, and no state ordinarily has to step in make these sorts of ad hoc organizations come into being. I couldn't disagree more with tp's statement that a people without a government are like a family without a parent. I don't know about tp or others, but I'm not a child in need of coddling. KBL you point out that these associations are voluntary -- but who is to say that the current government was not voluntarily entered into as well? Assuming you are American like myself, we are free to leave this country for greener shores. Our decision to remain means we are willingly accepting the rules of society. I think government is a natural extension of these people-based organizations, but they can grow out of control.
Also, I recognize (as I think you do) the primacy of the individual over the state. The state was created for the people, by the people. Government should be subservient to people, not the other way around. The people do not exist for the sake of the government. This seems so simple as sound almost stupid, but before the American Revolution it was decidedly the opposite; the people of France existed for the sake of the monarchy.
See, here is where I think you're missing some things (at least in terms of American history). First off, the current government was NOT entered into voluntarily. Those who were against federalization ended up getting screwed by those who did. This is very ironic since many of the framers were against direct democracy (preferring the concept of a republic for fear that minorities would get screwed) - yet that's exactly what they did!
More info here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html
http://jim.com/treason.htm
As for "being free to leave", I didn't choose to be born here. And yet I was born into a bondage and a slavery; a system of force and coercion. If I want the right to be left alone, where can I go? Antarctica? Should the native americans have "just left" if they didn't like the rules? Or what about the Syrians or Palestinians, or countless other Arabs being mowed down by oppressive government forces? That argument legitimizes tyranny. Why should I leave when I'm trying to make things better? Why should I leave when Congress are the ones who suck?
Well, if you enter a building (any building) it should be built in a fashion that protects the most primal of all your liberties -- your life. How can you or I look at a building and necessarily know that it is safe in the event of fire, or other emergency. You or I may not be capable of making an informed choice. Pick up any bit of food -- can you say for certain it was not sprayed with a chemical that was dangerous? I don't mind sacrificing a small amount of freedom if I receive a larger sum in return, in the long term.
Think of it like surgery. Cutting people with knives is generally considered unacceptable -- but if I had to remove a gangrene-infected, necrotic limb to save my life, I wouldn't hesitate. Some people might! And I think those people are in a very, very small minority, however. And if you were to oppose, say, fire code ordinances in relation to building construction, your insistence on such matters would infringe upon the liberty of others.
I'm not saying guidelines or rules are not good or useful; just that they should be voluntary.
Are you saying I'm giving Singaporeans an inch? Not sure what you mean.
No, I just meant in the context of statism i.e. even a minarchical view of statism means oppression is inevitable.
No, I think there should be some sensible restrictions on the Second Amendment. Not all gun owners are peaceful -- probably the vast, vast majority. And I believe an armed society is more likely to be a polite society. But every right enshrined by the American Constitution is to some degree or another limited. As an example, the right to free speech is NOT absolute. You cannot say absolutely anything you want. Threatening others, libel, slander -- not free speech, as you are using your speech to infringe upon another person's rights.
If people should not be restricted in any way to protect themselves, then I could, theoretically build a nuclear bomb in my basement and would be completely within my Constitutionally protected rights to do so. You couldn't possibly endorse that, could you? On account of your opinion elsewhere I will give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to imprecise language. But let's slide it down from nuclear weapon to, say, something less -- how about a Sherman tank? Should a private citizen be allowed to own a tank? I think that would be overkill, wouldn't you say? Again -- I'm not declaring the exact point where individual rights balance out against the rights (safety) of others. That's for society (legislators) to determine.
Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun, RPG, tank, nuclear weapon, etc. if they so choose to. Because, not only does that happen now, but because it's legitimized by government, those who end up owning such things are inevitably 90% more likely to be the most dangerous people who could be in control of them. Hundreds of thousands of CHILDREN dead in the middle east - dude, I would prefer any peaceful individual owned these bombs rather than anyone taking orders from congress. Is it a risk? Of course, but it's one I'm willing to live with. If legislators actually represented the will of the people, then these children would still be alive today, the Mexicans wouldn't have been sold guns, all kinds of other atrocities would never have occurred, and the oligarchical reality of our government would not be so.
I guess it gets back to the issue of who the child belongs to; the state or the parents. I could acquiesce to relaxing child safety seats, but would still voluntarily choose to use one.
Of course I believe that children belong to their parents but there's no question who they belong to in statism. Notice how every president will refer to them as "our children". They belong to the state, and so do I, and so do you.
i hope you start learning about feminism and classism before you go too far off into manarchy land, because the end of statism will never come so long as there is implicit acceptance of hierarchical oppression outside of a governmental context, and they are issues that we can actually do something about in our daily lives. the way you have talked about minorities and the poor in the past leads me to believe that you might not want to be looking at the bigger picture, but there is ALWAYS a bigger picture and things are always connected. nothing is without context.
Didn't we discuss that before in a PM? Of course I agree that things like sexism, racism, etc. are bad but remember: statism legitimizes these things too. Weren't both written right into the Constitution? It's privelages were only for "free men" - which of course didn't include women or blacks. Anarchical communities could handle these things in the same way you mentioned looting, rape, etc. The key is in not legitimizing these evil things. And don't assume that ending statism isn't something every single person can work on in their every day lives as well; we can stop believeing in government, educate our children and our peers, lead by example, etc. I definitely agree with you about bad things happening to minorities: that's exactly why we shouldn't have oligarchies! I think that your other paragraph was pretty insulting (especially since I consider us to be pretty friendly) no offense, but you don't know me. You don't know about my life. I won't cry or whine like I haven't had certain privelages, but I wouldn't say I've lived an "easy life" either. And regardless of that, class war isn't helpful for anyone: I don't need to be poorer than you to have empathy for my fellow man. What is poverty anyway; isn't it simply having less than someone else? **** happens in life, and sometimes it just freaking sucks. I've accepted that. But I refuse to legitimize these evils by believing in government.
-
From this forum's TOS:
Members are expected to treat each other with respect, and be courteous of each other's opinions and advice, regardless of his or her relative experience. There are a few things that will not be tolerated:
...
Trolling - Trolling can be defined as when a member posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent or consequence of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Trolling can also be accomplished by harassing another member by following them through various threads, creating threads directed at another member or group of members, or intentionally creating the same thread in various forums despite being warned or told to post in the correct forum. Members who feel they are being "trolled" should contact a moderator immediately, as this is the only effective way to prevent this behavior.
I think that first sentence under the "Trolling" heading is important to note, so I'll paste it again here:
Trolling can be defined as when a member posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent or consequence of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. (Emphasis added)
Pointing out the fact that someone has been doing exactly that is not the same as making "abusive and partisan posts." Trolling is a violation of this site's TOS.
Breaking any of the above listed forum rules may result in the loss of posting privileges and possible loss of your forum account.
-
Didn't we discuss that before in a PM? Of course I agree that things like sexism, racism, etc. are bad but remember: statism legitimizes these things too. Weren't both written right into the Constitution? It's privelages were only for "free men" - which of course didn't include women or blacks. Anarchical communities could handle these things in the same way you mentioned looting, rape, etc. The key is in not legitimizing these evil things. And don't assume that ending statism isn't something every single person can work on in their every day lives as well; we can stop believeing in government, educate our children and our peers, lead by example, etc. I definitely agree with you about bad things happening to minorities: that's exactly why we shouldn't have oligarchies! I think that your other paragraph was pretty insulting (especially since I consider us to be pretty friendly) no offense, but you don't know me. You don't know about my life. I won't cry or whine like I haven't had certain privelages, but I wouldn't say I've lived an "easy life" either. And regardless of that, class war isn't helpful for anyone: I don't need to be poorer than you to have empathy for my fellow man. What is poverty anyway; isn't it simply having less than someone else? **** happens in life, and sometimes it just freaking sucks. I've accepted that. But I refuse to legitimize these evils by believing in government.
i'm sorry to be flippant and reductive but that was spoken like a person who is not willing to explore and accept their privilege. poverty is not simply having less than someone else.
people who say things like 'class war isn't helpful for anyone' are the ones most liable in the event of a radical uprising.
-
Poverty: "The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. The state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money"
Well damn dude, I'd say you and I both meet that definition now don't we? Otherwise we'd both be as rich as Bill Gates.
people who say things like 'class war isn't helpful for anyone' are the ones most liable in the event of a radical uprising.
I don't understand your point, please explain how I am most liable in the event of a radical uprising.
-
Poverty: "The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. The state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money"
Well damn dude, I'd say you and I both meet that definition now don't we? Otherwise we'd both be as rich as Bill Gates.
people who say things like 'class war isn't helpful for anyone' are the ones most liable in the event of a radical uprising.
I don't understand your point, please explain how I am most liable in the event of a radical uprising.
dude the fact that you're calling yourself impoverished compared to one of the richest men in the world is exactly why i said you're not willing to examine your privilege.
-
dude the fact that you're calling yourself impoverished compared to one of the richest men in the world is exactly why i said you're not willing to examine your privilege.
I don't understand that argument at all. I correctly used the word poverty. You're going to have to explain that one...
-
dude the fact that you're calling yourself impoverished compared to one of the richest men in the world is exactly why i said you're not willing to examine your privilege.
I don't understand that argument at all. I correctly used the word poverty. You're going to have to explain that one...
you are making yourself into a victim of your definition, when you know damn well that you are not in a state of poverty.
-
you are making yourself into a victim of your definition, when you know damn well that you are not in a state of poverty.
By definition of the word itself, of course I am! And of course I'm a victim of statism, so are you!
You have to really clarify that argument dude...that's fuzzy as hell...
-
okay, i think this conversation has ceased to be productive. you're intentionally missing the point to service your argument by broadening the definition of the term.
-
okay, i think this conversation has ceased to be productive. you're intentionally missing the point to service your argument by broadening the definition of the term.
It might help if you clarified what you believe someone's wealth/privilege/class status has to do with their perceptions of statism. The vast majority of liberty/anarchy people I know are lower to middle class. But even if that wasn't the case, I'm failing to see a connection.
In fact, I would argue that since modern day statism is largely based on corporatism, more people at the top would be advocates of statism, since their wealth is dependent upon it. And poverty is caused by statism; more government or reform never actually ease poverty. Poverty and war will always exist so long as statism does, because these things are good for business.
-
I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you? That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")
All I've seen is a bunch of "No, you're wrong and if you don't think what I think, clearly you can't think"
It's easy to claim this when you disgree with someone - just as it is easy for jd to make abusive and partisan posts and then pretend to be Teachers Pet. But if you think there is a claim I have made that I haven't proved, then post it and I'll explain why you are wrong. You may not agree with my arguments - I expect you wouldn't - but they have been made.
and a lot of preposterous internet posturing about how he started it by calling you a troll.
I think you are being a touch hypocritical: someone was rude to me, I was brusque back. When jd resented I hadn't been politer to a poster whose opinions he shares, I pointed out that I wasn't the one who had initiated the rudeness, and jd then became obsessed with saving face. You can either ignore this diversion (I would) or say "What goes around, comes around." Or you could join in with jd and demand that people who disagree with you put you with being called trolls, but I'd hope that you'd be more mature than that.
A claim, that in and of itself isn't entirely true because I believe you started things off in the other thread, again with baseless allegations, claiming that if he believed what he posted he *couldn't* use logic.
This is utterly untrue, although I accept that you may think it is true because you can't understand what I actually said. Which is that his arguments were wrong - mostly because they fitted classical categories of logical fallacies - independent of his position. Not because of it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you won't understand me now - but trust me; VERY different!
I'll give you a free example:
I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you?
1. Pointing out that someone is arguing by conclusion is not an ad hominem attack. Sorry, but if you don't know the difference, it's your problem - really. You need to use google, a dictionary, or that list of fallacies someone posted. Really, do - in fact read the whole list, you'll benefit from it.
2. Pointing out that what some said is provably wrong because it relies on the strong form of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis is, again, not an ad hom. You not know what the hell it means- I am sure you don't - but that doesn't make it an ad hom. Use google, or ask for an explanation.
..And I these two points alone cover eight of my replies! So the idea that I haven't made substantive logical replies is ludicrous - you might not have understood them, but again, not my problem!
As to this:
I apologize as I got the order of events out of whack and then spoke out of turn because of it. I had thought that you had either stated something earlier than you did or confused something someone else said as something from you.
But perhaps such inflammatory language such as "you can't use logic" "you don't understand them" and the other assumptive language about my(and others') knowledge background has been substantial enough to obfuscate your logical replies? This may be a fault of mine, but I can't take a differing(or even similar) opinion unguarded when it comes cloaked in ad hominem statements. This lead to my original post.
Even still, you'll note that I'm not using quotes around logical or even stating that I think you're wrong, but more that it's not what I took from your statements. Which lead to my original question; which, as you've just stated, you're ok with. I'm not surprised that it wasn't taken at face value, what with this being the internet and everything sounding like an attack, but there it is. Hell, I agree with most of what you think as I think that while KL paints a nice picture of how awesome things would be if we were all "left alone", it's not how the world is or even can be.
-
Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling, in other words, making a statement to elicit an emotional response. Please come back when you have something to say which is both logical and germane to the subject being discussed, and which you can support with evidence.
Right on. Attack ideas not people.
-
Voluntaryism in action, right here :)
-
My favorite thing about Ayn Rand's fan club is that they never shut the **** up. They are worse than the preachers at a university campus.
-
Absolutely so -- people are self-organizing, and no state ordinarily has to step in make these sorts of ad hoc organizations come into being. I couldn't disagree more with tp's statement that a people without a government are like a family without a parent. I don't know about tp or others, but I'm not a child in need of coddling. KBL you point out that these associations are voluntary -- but who is to say that the current government was not voluntarily entered into as well? Assuming you are American like myself, we are free to leave this country for greener shores. Our decision to remain means we are willingly accepting the rules of society. I think government is a natural extension of these people-based organizations, but they can grow out of control.
Also, I recognize (as I think you do) the primacy of the individual over the state. The state was created for the people, by the people. Government should be subservient to people, not the other way around. The people do not exist for the sake of the government. This seems so simple as sound almost stupid, but before the American Revolution it was decidedly the opposite; the people of France existed for the sake of the monarchy.
See, here is where I think you're missing some things (at least in terms of American history). First off, the current government was NOT entered into voluntarily. Those who were against federalization ended up getting screwed by those who did. This is very ironic since many of the framers were against direct democracy (preferring the concept of a republic for fear that minorities would get screwed) - yet that's exactly what they did!
True, when the Constitution was finally ratified (and when the Civil War was ended) there was not a perfect consensus -- but when has there ever been a complete consensus on anything? Too idealistic a goal in my opinion. The overwhelming sense I get from you KBL is that you desire (like me) to be left alone. Just get out of my underwear please, Uncle Sam? I'm in business for myself, and the government resembles an idiot partner who can not do anything right who demands his fair share of the profits so he can then piss it away on magic beans. I know how you feel, KBL, I do. But still, when I say that membership in the American Experiment is voluntary I mean that there are no walls. I do not mean figurative walls, I mean walls with barbed wire and guards. That sounds like not much, but, look abroad -- there are places where the government doesn't let you leave. You belong to them. I'm talking about Cuba, China (to some extent) and North Korea. Everyone who lives in America right now tacitly agrees to abide by the laws of the country. Or they can leave. That may not be an appealing option, but it is an option. Still waiting for Alec Baldwin to become Canadian.
You say, "there's no where else to go!" -- well, what you're sort of saying then is that there's nowhere that's better to go. So America is still the best available option we have.
As for "being free to leave", I didn't choose to be born here. And yet I was born into a bondage and a slavery; a system of force and coercion. If I want the right to be left alone, where can I go? Antarctica? Should the native americans have "just left" if they didn't like the rules? Or what about the Syrians or Palestinians, or countless other Arabs being mowed down by oppressive government forces? That argument legitimizes tyranny. Why should I leave when I'm trying to make things better? Why should I leave when Congress are the ones who suck?
You're making an argument to remain, but not an argument that you are being forced to remain under their power. You could choose some other country, that provides for more liberty, or a more satifying mixture of liberties (Singapore, as an example.) I'm not claiming the choices are necessarily varied or attractive, just there. There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.
I'm not saying guidelines or rules are not good or useful; just that they should be voluntary.
Well, when we say 'rules' we mean laws. Laws cannot be voluntary, or they would serve no purpose. It would be fun for a while, sure (Krog: "Red light?... going to take it as more of a suggestion." (upshifts gears) Woo-hoo!!!") but eventually chaos would ensue, or other people's liberties would be infringed upon. You clearly value your own liberty, KBL, as you should -- what about the freedoms of others? Your freedom ends where mine begins -- working out where they begin and end is the tricky (often screwed up) part.
Are you saying I'm giving Singaporeans an inch? Not sure what you mean.
No, I just meant in the context of statism i.e. even a minarchical view of statism means oppression is inevitable.
Minarchical -- a minimalized state. I guess it depends on what you deem to be oppression. I think we may differ on where the threshold lies.
Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun,
I agree! Yay! (jumps up and down excitedly)
RPG,
(jumping slows down)
tank
(stops jumping)
nuclear weapon
Ok, maybe we should go back to talking about keyboards.
, etc. if they so choose to. Because, not only does that happen now, but because it's legitimized by government, those who end up owning such things are inevitably 90% more likely to be the most dangerous people who could be in control of them. Hundreds of thousands of CHILDREN dead in the middle east - dude, I would prefer any peaceful individual owned these bombs rather than anyone taking orders from congress. Is it a risk? Of course, but it's one I'm willing to live with.
I'm not thrilled that any government has a nuclear weapon, but if you really, really believe that a private individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, then there's a gulf between our two philosophies that just really can't be bridged. Applying the principles of Utilitarianism (what is right is that which maximizes happiness for the maximum number of people) to the idea that everyone should have the right own a nuke just doesn't make any sense to me. Please don't take this personally, KBL. In order to determine if something would be a good law or ethical principle, consider: if everyone followed this principle, would the overall outcome be good, or overall bad? Imagine everyone owning a nuke, KBL. Would that be a world you want to live in? It's not even about whether you trust all the people in the world (an impossibility) with owning a nuclear weapon, KBL. It's about this -- cats. Cats in a world in which everyone owns a nuke? We. Are. Dead.
Anyway, please, please, please retract your 'private individuals should be allowed to own a nuke' statement. I pinky swear promise I won't mention it again if you won't. :(
-
There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.
somalia, but that is changing.
-
There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.
somalia, but that is changing.
Somalia is getting so gentrified; that whole neighborhood used to have so much more character, y'know? Now all the yuppies are movin' in.
-
I do not mean figurative walls, I mean walls with barbed wire and guards. That sounds like not much, but, look abroad -- there are places where the government doesn't let you leave. You belong to them. I'm talking about Cuba, China (to some extent) and North Korea. Everyone who lives in America right now tacitly agrees to abide by the laws of the country. Or they can leave. That may not be an appealing option, but it is an option. Still waiting for Alec Baldwin to become Canadian.
You say, "there's no where else to go!" -- well, what you're sort of saying then is that there's nowhere that's better to go. So America is still the best available option we have.
Well America has a special kind of walls don't they...they have the taxes you are still forced to pay even if you move to another country, unless you renounce citizenship (a tool of control). They also have a global police force which, arguably, no one is free from. I agree that America is still preferred to most other places though, if only because we can own firearms.
You're making an argument to remain, but not an argument that you are being forced to remain under their power. You could choose some other country, that provides for more liberty, or a more satifying mixture of liberties (Singapore, as an example.) I'm not claiming the choices are necessarily varied or attractive, just there. There are no truly lawless places in the world, anymore, if that's what you're after.
That's not the point though; the point is why should I leave when they're the ones who suck? I'm trying to make things better, so why should I leave?
Well, when we say 'rules' we mean laws. Laws cannot be voluntary, or they would serve no purpose. It would be fun for a while, sure (Krog: "Red light?... going to take it as more of a suggestion." (upshifts gears) Woo-hoo!!!") but eventually chaos would ensue, or other people's liberties would be infringed upon. You clearly value your own liberty, KBL, as you should -- what about the freedoms of others? Your freedom ends where mine begins -- working out where they begin and end is the tricky (often screwed up) part.
Rules or laws within an association can be voluntary - but if you don't follow them you can be kicked out of the association. That's still voluntary, because you're not forced to be in the association. See what I mean? I'm not advocating for no rules, rather, no rulers.
I'm not thrilled that any government has a nuclear weapon, but if you really, really believe that a private individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, then there's a gulf between our two philosophies that just really can't be bridged. Applying the principles of Utilitarianism (what is right is that which maximizes happiness for the maximum number of people) to the idea that everyone should have the right own a nuke just doesn't make any sense to me. Please don't take this personally, KBL. In order to determine if something would be a good law or ethical principle, consider: if everyone followed this principle, would the overall outcome be good, or overall bad? Imagine everyone owning a nuke, KBL. Would that be a world you want to live in? It's not even about whether you trust all the people in the world (an impossibility) with owning a nuclear weapon, KBL. It's about this -- cats. Cats in a world in which everyone owns a nuke? We. Are. Dead.
Anyway, please, please, please retract your 'private individuals should be allowed to own a nuke' statement. I pinky swear promise I won't mention it again if you won't. :(
The "nuke" argument is not a good one, because attaining a nuclear weapon is not something that the vast majority of individuals can effectively do. It takes serious wealth to purchase one and an incredible amount of resources to build one. That's something that only a state or a very large corporation in the context of corporate statism could really do. In a true voluntaryist society, it would just be highly unlikely that folks or a group would even have a weapon such as that. And if they did own it, for the purpose of being protected from governments, I have no problem with that. Hope that clarifies the point for you.
-
I agree that America is still preferred to most other places though, if only because we can own firearms.
what about dozens other countries in the world where people can own firearms?
-
what about dozens other countries in the world where people can own firearms?
That's a good point and I was thinking about that...unfortunately I'm not too familiar. Aren't most of them typically much more restrictive though?
Edit: Krog, I thought more about the nuke argument today. I think it is even less likely than I originally thought (not just from the standpoint of cost and labor) but also from a market standpoint. Who are the biggest consumers in the nuke market? Very large monopolies on violence, of course; states. In a Voluntaryist world, the idea of a nuke market even existing, without a central government and an industrial military complex, doesn't seem likely at all, does it?
-
what about dozens other countries in the world where people can own firearms?
That's a good point and I was thinking about that...unfortunately I'm not too familiar. Aren't most of them typically much more restrictive though?
Again, the point I was making is that no one is being forced to live in America, under American law. Just as anyone who posts at GH has implicitly agreed (actually, scratch that -- we have all clicked the checkbox when registering and therefore explicitly agreed) to the TOS (Terms of Service). When we break those rules, there are consequences. Now, there's no box to click for the U.S. Constitution, but we all are aware that we must live according to the laws of the country. And similar to GH, if we feel that the laws are unjust, unevenly applied, etc. we have the right to leave. Sounds stupid, but there are countries that don't let you leave.
Cuba is a standout in this regard. Socialist ideas transformed an island paradise into the Caribbean's version of Alcatraz. Behold the power of bad ideas. :(
Edit: Krog, I thought more about the nuke argument today. I think it is even less likely than I originally thought (not just from the standpoint of cost and labor) but also from a market standpoint.
Well, no -- this is not about whether it is feasible or likely for individuals to own a nuclear weapon -- it's whether they should be allowed to own or make one. Is it an extreme example of Second Amendment rights? Yes, it is -- but extreme examples can help us explore the strength of our beliefs. A single man with a handgun can defend himself, a man with a nuke can not only defend himself, he could accidentally vaporize Detroit. Once you go beyond a certain level of lethality, your liberties start to seriously endanger the liberties of others. My cat decides to use my nuclear weapon as a scratching post, so you and your family are vaporized as a result? Not a reasonable position. Is an RPG or a grenade reasonable? I don't think so. But hey, this is why states should have more authority, because we don't have to have a single solution for everyone. States could differ on what is or is not reasonable.
Now you will inevitably ask -- "if an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, why should the government?" -- well, the one serious advantage to large numbers of people being in control of something as dangerous as a nuclear weapon is that it reduces their number, there is at least some semblance of oversight, and large bodies of people (committees) tend to move ponderously slow. And nukes are really for national defense, not personal defense. Only one body is really responsible for national defense, and that's the federal government.
Who are the biggest consumers in the nuke market? Very large monopolies on violence, of course; states. In a Voluntaryist world, the idea of a nuke market even existing, without a central government and an industrial military complex, doesn't seem likely at all, does it?
Sadly, there is a market for nuclear weapons. The highest demand for them is from people who do not have them. But let's go to your hypothetical world (correct me if I'm getting the details wrong)... we're going to your world now.
(things get fuzzy... doodly, doodly, doodly...)
(Krog appears in Voluntaryist World)
Ok, we're here. There are laws, but no rulers. Is that correct? (I don't think that's possible, frankly, like having eggs but no chickens, so no chicken poop to clean up, but it's your world, so here we go) I imagine we all live in very well-defended armored, underground complexes -- like Fallout 3 but without the apocalypse happening. Generally speaking, when people interact they are extraordinarily polite. Then there's news: one of these groups is building a superweapon. Some people think it's a load of nonsense, but some people aren't so sure. Then they demonstrate the weapon in an uninhabited area with the simple statement that despite everyone being very well defended, they are really, really people you don't want piss off.
Before long, this group begins to exert social pressure on others: "No, you go ahead. No, it's fine I don't mind!" These people built the weapon solely to enhance their own security (and according to your earliest statement, they have every right to do so). In order to regain the balance of power everyone has to have a nuclear weapon, and everyone will start trying to make or obtain them. I don't believe that there's a way to have an advanced society without laws (and therefore lawmakers, and the means to enforce those laws). Humans have a natural tendency to associate and there's no avoiding it, hence, no way to avoid laws, lawmakers and the forceful application of those laws. All we can hope to do is keep the those governments from becoming oppressive.
KBL, the only statement I'm trying to wrangle from you is this: the individual freedom to protect oneself is not absolute. I'm not asking you to declare that you have no right to defend yourself, I'm just asking that you acknowledge that in a modern society a limitless right to protect yourself would be injurious to the rights of others.
Also, if you do agree with me, there's no shame in it. There's never any shame in modifying or updating what you believe. Exchange truth for falsehood without ego. That's why I love to debate as much as I do -- I'll never know if my beliefs are actually right or wrong if I don't test them against the beliefs of others. Mills said it best:
[T]hough all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?
You were right about child safety seats. The idea that children are wards of the state (when they already have parents) is a bad idea. I've updated my own beliefs. I think you should as well. Oh, and there's this --
You may want to research seasteading -- fascinating idea. What if we could create a free, open market for economies? It's a wild idea, check it out: http://www.seasteading.org/ (http://www.seasteading.org/)
So picture it -- we all own a ship of some kind, with the necessary technology to produce drinking water, food, electricity, etc. -- and each man (and his or her family) can be an island. These various ships can then congregate in international waters and form their own government. Then, when the government gets out of hand, the various ships can part ways. As you pointed out, yes, you could leave the U.S., but there's not a lot of options. Well, with seasteading you could experiment with governments. The main problem with governments is that they are the original 'too-big-to-fail' entities. With seasteading when a government grouping of individual ships 'failed' (as defined by the majority or the minority) an individual ship could choose to leave.
So imagine it... governments competing for citizens! You run your government like crap, soon you won't have any citizens! Open-source goverment. :eek:
-
You may want to research seasteading -- fascinating idea. What if we could create a free, open market for economies? It's a wild idea, check it out: http://www.seasteading.org/ (http://www.seasteading.org/)
So picture it -- we all own a ship of some kind, with the necessary technology to produce drinking water, food, electricity, etc. -- and each man (and his or her family) can be an island. These various ships can then congregate in international waters and form their own government. Then, when the government gets out of hand, the various ships can part ways. As you pointed out, yes, you could leave the U.S., but there's not a lot of options. Well, with seasteading you could experiment with governments. The main problem with governments is that they are the original 'too-big-to-fail' entities. With seasteading when a government grouping of individual ships 'failed' (as defined by the majority or the minority) an individual ship could choose to leave.
So imagine it... governments competing for citizens! You run your government like crap, soon you won't have any citizens!
I really like the basic ideas of seasteading-- heck, if someone built a self-sufficient boat, I'd be quite tempted to buy one and live on it-- but implementation is difficult. How do you ensure that ships can always leave ship-clusters? It seems like it'd be very easy for a ship to become physically trapped, or held in place by the threat of force. But also...suppose you succeed in implementing a system where ships can leave whenever they'd like. How could any of the governments that arise implement laws, if people can just leave rather than receive punishment? On the other hand, if you allow governments to suspend an individual's right of departure if the individual has committed a crime, then they could construct their laws so as to keep everyone's right of departure suspended unless the government chooses to release them.
The only fix I can see to these issues would be to have some sort of minimal, overarching government, but then you are in the same boat (pun intended) as any other theorist-- how do you keep the government under control?
-
The only fix I can see to these issues would be to have some sort of minimal, overarching government, but then you are in the same boat (pun intended) as any other theorist-- how do you keep the government under control?
Like this (the original reason for needing the 2nd Amendment, which was the genesis of this discussion):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
-
I really like the basic ideas of seasteading-- heck, if someone built a self-sufficient boat, I'd be quite tempted to buy one and live on it-- but implementation is difficult. How do you ensure that ships can always leave ship-clusters? It seems like it'd be very easy for a ship to become physically trapped, or held in place by the threat of force. But also...suppose you succeed in implementing a system where ships can leave whenever they'd like. How could any of the governments that arise implement laws, if people can just leave rather than receive punishment? On the other hand, if you allow governments to suspend an individual's right of departure if the individual has committed a crime, then they could construct their laws so as to keep everyone's right of departure suspended unless the government chooses to release them.
The only fix I can see to these issues would be to have some sort of minimal, overarching government, but then you are in the same boat (pun intended) as any other theorist-- how do you keep the government under control?
All valid points, but don't confuse a failure present in the system, for a failure of the system.
The judge of a truly good system (in my own view) is not a system that produces no failures (a practical impossibly, as the inputs to any system are in a constant state of flux), but rather a system that adapts to failure successfully. Let's use capitalism as an example. A manufacturer makes a product everyone wants (success), but then they abuse their customers (failure). Because the system is arranged such that customers can rebel against the manufacturer, the system can adapt. The manufacturer can change their behavior (success!) or customers can abandon their product (also success). This is evident everywhere in nature. The water level drops and some animals die (failure) but other animals adapt and grow lungs, or prehensile flippers.
So yeah, some cluster-ship government might decide that no one can leave. Well, news will get around, and eventually no one will trade with them, and they become pariahs -- they fail, and their failure ends with them. The people they oppressed may or may not escape, but there are consequences to bad behavior. I do not believe there is any perfect system -- and there won't be, until we have perfect people.
-
Well, no -- this is not about whether it is feasible or likely for individuals to own a nuclear weapon -- it's whether they should be allowed to own or make one. Is it an extreme example of Second Amendment rights? Yes, it is -- but extreme examples can help us explore the strength of our beliefs. A single man with a handgun can defend himself, a man with a nuke can not only defend himself, he could accidentally vaporize Detroit. Once you go beyond a certain level of lethality, your liberties start to seriously endanger the liberties of others. My cat decides to use my nuclear weapon as a scratching post, so you and your family are vaporized as a result? Not a reasonable position. Is an RPG or a grenade reasonable? I don't think so. But hey, this is why states should have more authority, because we don't have to have a single solution for everyone. States could differ on what is or is not reasonable.
Ok, and if that's your stance, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. It is a voluntary action, not an ownership of property, that infringes your rights.In the same way that my ownership of a firearm does not infringe upon your right to life, my ownership of an RPG, tank or nuclear weapon does not infringe upon your right to life either. It is an action which does so. So whether or not you believe owning one type of property or another is reasonable is beside the point; by forcing another person at threat of violence to not own something (which doesn't work very well anyway as we know), you are violating their rights to own property which in no way violates your rights. How are you not going to allow a person to acquire or own any of these things? Isn't the issue with gun control exactly the same? It is only an action which can violate your rights. I'm sure you understand this difference. And by saying "states" should be able to decide, you're legitimizing statism; you're saying that a group of people in power who do not represent you and are controlled by corporatism should be able to decide how you should be able to defend yourself. That is so obviously more inherently dangerous than my world!
Now you will inevitably ask -- "if an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, why should the government?" -- well, the one serious advantage to large numbers of people being in control of something as dangerous as a nuclear weapon is that it reduces their number, there is at least some semblance of oversight, and large bodies of people (committees) tend to move ponderously slow. And nukes are really for national defense, not personal defense. Only one body is really responsible for national defense, and that's the federal government.
Again, you need to STAHP legitimizing statism! If nukes are only for national defense and the federal government should be responsible for such, why don't we lead by example and disarm? If national defense and the industrial military complex are so great, why are they violating others' rights to life in foreign countries (and domestically as well) ALL THE DAMN TIME?? If they are supposed to defend, why aren't they doing it? Because, statism! Because politicians are slaves to corporatism, and they're the ones who control our lives with guns and nukes! Why are you advocating such a dangerous world? Isn't it clear now how much less inherently dangerous mine is?
Regarding how you are imagining a voluntaryist world, I don't think it means what you think it means. You need to question statism at every single level to see that voluntaryism is not that much different from the way we voluntarily self-organize every day. People won't really live that differently. Will people be able to defend themselves and will bad things happen? Of course, but the key is that violence won't be legitimized like you are doing by legitimizing statism. One group building a weapon really doesn't concern me...they can own whatever property they want. It's the initial action of using it violently on another person which violates the NAP, and those affected have the right to defend themselves. See, your assumption that a limitless right to protect oneself is injurious to the rights of others is utterly false; owning one type of property or another in no way violates other people's rights and it's the same way now with firearms.
-
Actually, no, I agree with jdcarpe that you're a troll.
You say that to anyone who disagrees with your bizarre philosophies though, regardless of what they've said or how they said it.
-
KL, can you tell me how an anarchist society deals with the problem of gangs looting, raping, and destroying property?
if, as you posit, there is a codified society that these hypothetical gangs are looting, raping and destroying the property of, then the society can do what they see fit, be that physical violence, running them out of town, enacting extreme self-defense measures etc.
That requires organisation, and the better organised the measures are the more effective they'll be. At what point do you decide organisation, consensus-based decision making, etc. - i.e. some of the things that define government - are bad?
On a side note, I think I'd prefer the statist police and judicial system we have now, regardless of its imperfections than a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs.
-
On a side note, I think I'd prefer the statist police and judicial system we have now, regardless of its imperfections than a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs.
Because statism isn't a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs? Bro, do you even industrial military complex? Do you even indefinite detention? Talk about bizarre philosophy...hell, talk about extremism!
And no, those who disagree with me aren't trolls. Trolls are those who troll (like those who make fun of me or my arguments without providing any legitimate arguments to refute them). The writing is on the wall as to who those people are.
-
Because statism isn't a system that runs on vigilantes and lynch mobs? Bro, do you even industrial military complex? Do you even indefinite detention? Talk about bizarre philosophy...hell, talk about extremism!
There's an obvious difference between the abuses in the current system and an actual system based solely on chasing down people who may-or-may-not be guilty of a crime and shooting them or hanging them from the nearest tree. Your childish refusal to acknowledge that just highlights how juvenile your repeated arguments on this topic really are.
-
Indulge me then Malphas, what exactly IS the clear difference? Why are murder and theft "ok" when the government does it?
-
I never said it was OK. Will you ever quit with the incessant strawmans? The difference is that the current system is mostly fair and occasionally unjust/abusive (in first world countries). That doesn't mean abuses aren't still rife, but they're the minority. You'll probably deny that, but it's accurate. Whilst with a disorganised mob it's the other way round.
-
Ok, and if that's your stance, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. It is a voluntary action, not an ownership of property, that infringes your rights.
If I understand your position correctly:
Only actions can infringe upon people's rights, not ownership of something that could potentially infringe upon someone else's rights?
Is that correct?
-
That's correct Krog. In order to try to keep someone from owning certain property, you will need to initiate force, which is a violation of that person's rights.
-
That's correct Krog. In order to try to keep someone from owning certain property, you will need to initiate force, which is a violation of that person's rights.
what gives you the "right" to own property? and why do you, as an anti-statist, even speak in terms of rights?
-
I think that people should have the right to own things they purchase or barter/trade for. Rights aren't necessarily statist; I don't believe in rights granted by the state, rather, those voluntarily agreed to.
-
I think that people should have the right to own things they purchase or barter/trade for. Rights aren't necessarily statist; I don't believe in rights granted by the state, rather, those voluntarily agreed to.
well that is a somewhat contentious definition of property for an anarchist, but i'm being a little pedantic on purpose.
rights are absolutely statist. there is no authority to grant rights other than a state or other hierarchical organization. the entire concept of rights assumes that there is a list of things a state should not do or should protect its citizens from infringements thereof.
in a voluntary agreement, there is very little stopping anybody from infringing upon another's previously agreed-upon 'rights' other than direct retaliation (as in, nonmediated). not that that's a bad thing per se, but rights are basically a nonissue at that point.
-
On the Right to Property, I here paraphrase Jefferson, while inserting the original concept as Locke described:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and [Property.]"
The state doesn't grant rights. It's supposed to recognize the Rights we already possess, and to protect those Rights. The only power the state should have are those powers granted to it by its citizens.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
-
Yea the concept of rights doesn't have to be those granted by the state. When I first started to learn about anarchism I felt the same way as sth, but "rights" are really just a concept...they aren't, by definition, a statist one. For instance, I was born and therefore have a right to my life.
-
Yea the concept of rights doesn't have to be those granted by the state. When I first started to learn about anarchism I felt the same way as sth, but "rights" are really just a concept...they aren't, by definition, a statist one. For instance, I was born and therefore have a right to my life.
who gives you the right to your life? why do you have a right to your life? what about being born guarantees anything other than that you will at some point die?
-
who gives you the right to your life? why do you have a right to your life? what about being born guarantees anything other than that you will at some point die?
It's not the point who gave it to me...but I have it because I was born. It's not a question of whether anything is "guaranteed" or not. It's "self-evident" as jdcarpe mentioned. I am alive, therefore I have the right to be alive. "Rights" are just a concept...they don't have to be provided by someone or guarantee anything. We can use a different word but I think you're sticking to the statist concept of "rights" too much...I mean, I think that the concept is useful otherwise. Now, of course death is a part of life but that doesn't mean another person has the right to take my life. I believe that the initiation of force is not legitimate.
-
who gives you the right to your life? why do you have a right to your life? what about being born guarantees anything other than that you will at some point die?
It's not the point who gave it to me...but I have it because I was born. It's not a question of whether anything is "guaranteed" or not. It's "self-evident" as jdcarpe mentioned. I am alive, therefore I have the right to be alive. "Rights" are just a concept...they don't have to be provided by someone or guarantee anything.
Well what happens if somebody infringes upon that right? What if they kill you? How are you going to retaliate against their infringement of your rights? It's clear that you think the state should not. Should anyone else step in to do so? Who gives them that authority? You sure can't if you are dead.
I'm getting rhetorical here, but the point I'm trying to make is that even in a system of voluntary associations, a 'right' is a concept that requires force to either defend or infringe. Outside of that context it's just a euphemistic and unenforceable way to tell people what to do/what not to do.
-
Well what happens if somebody infringes upon that right? What if they kill you? How are you going to retaliate against their infringement of your rights? It's clear that you think the state should not. Should anyone else step in to do so? Who gives them that authority? You sure can't if you are dead.
I'm getting rhetorical here, but the point I'm trying to make is that even in a system of voluntary associations, a 'right' is a concept that requires force to either defend or infringe. Outside of that context it's just a euphemistic and unenforceable way to tell people what to do/what not to do.
I said earlier that I believe in the non-aggression principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
I believe that initiation of force, by anyone (including myself) is illegitimate, and that everyone should have the right to defend themselves (their lives and those of their family) as well as their property. And if I'm killed then I personally don't believe anyone should retaliate. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. So I think we're actually on the same page about that.
Now, I suspect you're familiar with the more anarcho-socialist view of property which is that everything should be collectively divided up equally. And I personally think that type of association is fine as long as it's voluntary...one issue I've found is that it's not easy to make that kind of association voluntary though. What I mentioned about the definition of poverty in that case is important since anarcho-socialists tend to be pro-class war and I am not. I am comfortable with the fact that there is inequality in the world. I don't necessarily believe that everyone wants to have more. Many folks are quite comfortable with what they have. Regardless, I don't think it is up to me or you or anyone to determine what anyone should have.
-
Just because you believe that does not make it a universal truth. But now we're getting a little too philosophical :)) For what it's worth I agree that you should defend yourself if you feel you should but I would not consider that a right at that point, because if it is that means there needs to be an outside arbiter to determine the legitimacy of your action.
-
Well I did mention before that I like both the concepts of independent insurance and dispute resolution organizations to help people manage risk and resolve conflicts. Though I don't think anyone should be forced to depend on anything like that. But you're still using a statist concept of a right though...I believe that the right to defend my life, family and property is self-evident. And if you're going to ask me if I think everyone has that right self-evidently, yes, I do.
-
Rights are inherently a statist concept. Without that context it just becomes a meaningless word, regardless of whether you believe they're self-evident or not. Although saying it's "self-evident" is a BS argument if you ask me, there's no logic or reasoning for it other than just saying "I think this is the case, therefore it is".
If we lived in a society without any sort of hierarchical power structure, then you claiming you have the right to life, and me claiming I have the right to kill you would be just as valid without a statist-esque consensus and framework to determine which of us was correct and the use of force to administer it.
-
The belief that rights are inherently a statist concept comes from the statist concept of rights...it's completely false!
Do you not innately have the right to your life??? Why do I need to legitimize a monopoly on violence in order to know that I have a right to my life? All I need to know is that I AM alive! Why on earth do you need someone else to determine whether violating such a right is wrong? We're both human beings!
Dude, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't need ANYONE else to determine, for me, whether someone violating another person's right to life is wrong or not. You think that you need to legitimize a monopoly on violence and arbitration in order to justify the right of another person's life - I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
-
Crazy pills are also a statist concept. Why would you legitimize monopolized violence by referencing them?
-
reading this thread drunk i feel urgent need to stab certain persons in the eye.
-
I hope it's not me, I don't want to sort through $20,000 in keycaps with one eye.
-
Lol, trolling is only ok when a moderator does it.
Doesn't that make moderation a monopoly on trolling?
-
Do you not innately have the right to your life???
no.
-
Ok, so then please explain the need for a human monopoly on violence to legitimize your right to your life.
Now, at this point, it should be clear how the belief in statism is a complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of human life.
-
Lol, trolling is only ok when a moderator does it.
Doesn't that make moderation a monopoly on trolling?
You need to drop that moderatist mindset.
Trolling is subtle and designed to trick people into responding as if it was serious. What I did was a good-natured jab at how repetitive your posts in this thread are. :P
-
Right, and I responded with a good-natured jab at how we need moderators to troll to stop us from trolling ;)
Hey did you guys know that dancing is a crime?
-
reading this thread drunk i feel urgent need to stab certain persons in the eye.
I don't think it's to do with the alcohol. I'm sober and it makes me want to show what non-state-sponsored violence can look like.
-
Do you not innately have the right to your life???
Well, no. I don't have some innate right to life any more than any other sentient being on the planet does. Do gazelle have a right to life that's being violated by lions eating them? The only reason humans have the man-made notion of rights is because we've developed a framework to create and enforce them, without that it's back to law of the jungle.
Morals are also an artificial concept based on the general consensus of what most people consider desirable and undesirable behaviour and it tends to shift between cultures and generations. There's no such thing as innate right or wrong.
-
Quoth the Bard:
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
That's what separates us from the animals. Cognitive reasoning.
-
Perhaps you'd be less inclined to misuse quotes in the apparent mistaken belief they support your view if you actually understood their context and meaning. In any case no amount of reasoning can ever make something intrinsically "bad"; morals are subjective by their very nature.
-
I think my point has been proven here. The belief in statism is a complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of human life. Malphas has even admitted that his belief makes him feel that way. And he has even said that he doesn't believe in right or wrong, unless there is legitimization of a monopoly on violence and arbitration in order to decide for him. Wow...just wow. I'm actually kind of speechless at this point.
But once a virtuous person realizes these truths, they cannot go back to their old, prescribed and indoctrinated way of thinking.
-
Will you ever quit with the incessant strawmans?
The fact you consistently argue in a completely dishonest manner (along with labelling anyone who disagrees as a "troll") just highlights how weak any semblance of an argument you might have really is, and how poorly you're able to justify it.
-
The funny thing is, I've actually done neither of those things.
-
Also, you see utterly unable to comprehend this topic in anything other than black and white, labelling anyone who doesn't go along with your extremist view as some brainwashed statist, without actually having any insight into what that person's views actually are.
For instance, I don't hold government in any lofty position as you seem to think. Fact is, unlike yourself I'm a realist, and enjoy the comforts that - regardless of what you think - are a fairly direct result of living in a first-world state; e.g. things like not living in a constant state of fear of violence from individuals and small groups running wild (you'll probably interject some line here about how I live in fear of the government instead, but again this is just your delusional mindset and almost entirely irrelevant to first-world nations - this isn't North Korea), reasonably well maintained infrastructure (tarred roads without criminal checkpoints extorting money, power and telephone lines that work most of the time rather than daily blackouts, etc.) whilst on the other hand I completely disregard the aspects of government control I don't care for - e.g. speed limits, recreational drug laws, and such.
I get the impression you've led a sheltered life and most of your current philosophy is some phase you're going though, judging by your obsessiveness over it, and derived mostly from stuff you've read rather than experienced.
-
The funny thing is, I've actually done neither of those things.
Well y'know except the post above where you did exactly that for starters. I never actually said any of the things you claim above, but of course, that doesn't fit in with your oversimplified black/white worldview. I don't believe in right and wrong as absolutes because they simply don't exist as such, morals are relative and changing. A "legitimization of a monopoly on violence and arbitration in order to decide for him" has nothing to do with that, governments set laws, not morals, the two are only loosely related, with many laws having nothing to do with morality and without claiming to do so either. Personally what the law dictates has extremely little impact on my behaviour, mostly I just inadvertently follow laws such as not murdering or stealing because I have no compulsion to do those things and they contradict my personal set of morals (I said right and wrong don't exist as absolutes, not that they don't exist as personal and subjective moral frameworks - a point that was probably lost on you and your simple mindset), whilst with other laws like I just mentioned I completely ignore.
-
Like I said before, I think my point has been proven here.
-
Like I said before, I think my point has been proven.
i.e. You're intellectually lazy and your arguments start to fall apart when confronted with practicalities and grey areas rather than academic extremes.
-
i.e. You're intellectually lazy and your arguments start to fall apart when confronted with practicalities and grey areas rather than academic extremes.
Malphas, let me make something crystal clear to you: hardly anyone else in this thread I consider to be a troll and that includes people who don't agree with me. YOU are a troll. And it isn't because you disagree with me, it's because you cannot effectively debate me and ALWAYS resort to name-calling instead. I've said it before and will say it again: the writing is on the wall regarding who is a troll or not.
You've already proven my point by showing that you don't believe in the innate right a person has to their life. You don't believe in the sanctity of human life. You think it's all a big "gray area" that should be decided based entirely on arbitrary rules enforced entirely at the whim of a monopoly on violent force. You have PROVEN my point! And if you don't understand that, then I really have nothing else to say to you.
-
You've already proven my point by showing that you don't believe in the innate right a person has to their life. You don't believe in the sanctity of human life. You think it's all a big "gray area" that should be decided based entirely on arbitrary rules enforced entirely at the whim of a monopoly on violent force. You have PROVEN my point! And if you don't understand that, then I really have nothing else to say to you.
I can't tell if you're being deliberately dishonest or if its your failure to understand that makes you keep spouting these strawman arguments. I've already said morality and law are seperate things. Governments don't set morals, they set laws, so clearly I couldn't possibly be saying that the sanctity of human life (which I never expressed my personal opinion of) could be set by a "monopoly of violent force" could I?
I don't believe a person has an innate right to life, because there's simply no such thing. That has no bearing on my personal views, it's just an unavoidable reality that no rights exist outside of the ones that are able to be enforced and protected by a structured authority with the power to do so. As much as you might wish to believe otherwise it will never make it the case. Outside of a statist system you have no more right to life than any other organism on the planet does.
Edit: I'm not the only one who's explained this to you either, sth has already expressed the same thing, but you failed to understand it from him as well. You can't just claim "it exists because I say/think it does" and expect to be taken seriously, let alone try to then hypocritically accuse others of failing to effectively debate.
-
Gotta love how, when someone doesn't get the reaction from you that they had desired, they always resort to the argument that you either don't know how to read; or if you can and did read, you don't have the ability to understand the concept. Or that with your refusal to accept what they "know" to be correct, that you are simply purposely being contrarian by not accepting their views as fact.
-
Malphas I'm just curious: do you think that human life is precious or expendable? Or that it doesn't matter at all?
I personally believe that it is precious.
-
Gotta love how, when someone doesn't get the reaction from you that they had desired, they always resort to the argument that you either don't know how to read; or if you can and did read, you don't have the ability to understand the concept. Or that with your refusal to accept what they "know" to be correct, that you are simply purposely being contrarian by not accepting their views as fact.
Actually jdcarpe, that was only one potential scenario I proposed for the reason KBL keeps insisting on claiming I said things that I clearly didn't, the other being that he's simply debating dishonestly.
Malphas I'm just curious: do you think that human life is precious or expendable? Or that it doesn't matter at all?
I personally believe that it is precious.
You and my opinions on the value of human life have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an innate right to life exists. You can't just wish something into existence. If you can demonstrate how a right to life exists outside the framework of an authority that tries to protect it (e.g. through laws, a police and judicial system) then by all means go ahead. Protip: "self-evident" is not a valid argument.
-
Is not answering direct questions part of your debate strategy?
Talk about "dishonest" debating! :D
-
It was an irrelevant question, intended to sidetrack the issue. So yes, talk about dishonest debating indeed.
-
I think this guy puts it very well in his opening statement.
-
Gotta love how, when someone doesn't get the reaction from you that they had desired, they always resort to the argument that you either don't know how to read; or if you can and did read, you don't have the ability to understand the concept. Or that with your refusal to accept what they "know" to be correct, that you are simply purposely being contrarian by not accepting their views as fact.
Or you call them a troll.
-
Or you call them a troll.
When people can effectively argue, they attack ideas, not people. The latter are trolls.
-
When people can effectively argue, they attack ideas, not people. The latter are trolls.
That sounds more or less reasonable. However, it seems to me that the majority of namecalling has come from one side, starting with the first post in the thread. I'll grant you that Malphas did say that you were intellectually lazy and that your arguments don't stand up. I concur, in fact, and would probably go further. But then I'm probably a troll too, eh?
-
Looking back over the entire thread I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you sir. But, if you feel so strongly, why don't you quote every time I or someone else attacked ideas over people, or the latter, and we can tally it all up so it is absolutely crystal clear to everyone the outcome of what you're proposing.
-
I'm not a "sir", to you or anyone else, and I'm not "proposing" anything.
-
Sorry maam, I meant no disrespect.
Anyway, if you have an argument, let's hear it.
-
KBL, I still cannot accept your statement from earlier -- I feel like it just isn't rational.
Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun, RPG, tank, nuclear weapon, etc. if they so choose to. Because, not only does that happen now, but because it's legitimized by government, those who end up owning such things are inevitably 90% more likely to be the most dangerous people who could be in control of them.
It's really the very first sentence that I take issue with -- but I added the second sentence because I felt like it needed context. My earlier point had been that although we both agree that human beings have innate rights, it seems that you believe that these rights (or at least the right to own a firearm, or the right to self-defense) is limitless. They would be limitless if all men were individuals, living in anarchy. Classical thought tells us that when men enter into a social contract, they allow for the restriction of some of these rights in order to secure greater security. So yes, limiting a person's ability to defend themselves does infringe upon their rights, but since it makes society safer in general it is allowed. Again, that doesn't mean men should be completely disarmed, but only that some sensible restrictions be made. Restrictions such as registering the weapon, licensing to ensure that the weapon owner is familiar enough with its use as to be less likely to harm themselves or other accidentally.
But again, you replied:
Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun, RPG, tank, nuclear weapon, etc. if they so choose to.
Then you backed off (somewhat) on the statement stating that you didn't think it was likely or economically feasible for men (all men) to own a nuclear weapon. The point of the question of whether all men should be allowed to own a nuke is to test the theory of whether self-defense rights should be subject to any sort of limitation. You made a statement that the mere owning of a weapon does not infringe upon another person's rights, and so therefore it should be allowed.
I could take this argument done piece by piece, KBL, but it would a pointless exercise, I think. A very common test of any ethical precept is to ask: "If everyone followed this rule, if everyone did what this rule or precept dictates, would the common good be served?" In the case of a simple handgun, or an assault weapon, if every individual owned one complete chaos would not ensue. People would be very polite to one another, sure, but what violence ensued would be controllable. Now, if everyone owned a nuke, that would not be good for people in general. They're simply too dangerous.
What's the difference between a state controlling a nuke and an individual? An individual has a bad day and can go crazy -- a large body of people are more likely to act slowly, deliberately and without passion. Also, it's a question of degree -- a nuke is far more than is necessary for deterring personal violence against an individual. Nukes are used as a deterrent by governments acting on the behalf of the large groups of people -- the people who elected them. So in a sense, every citizen of the U.S. 'owns' a nuke -- but we don't all have our fingers on the triggers.
No right is absolute, nor should it be.
Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun, RPG, tank, nuclear weapon, etc. if they so choose to.
I just had to post it one last time. This statement (not necessarily you personally) is crazy. Some weapons go far beyond what is reasonable, and the mere act of owning them is so potentially dangerous to so large a number of people that their ownership should be restricted. Why leave it at nukes, KBL? How about ricin? It's a bioweapon that is so incredibly potent just a small amount could kill tens of thousands of people. Should private citizens be allowed to make and store ricin at their whim? If you say 'yes' -- then that's a crazy statement. Crazy. So please don't endorse the idea that Second Amendment rights are absolute -- they are not, and should not be.
Please reconsider your position, KBL. Please, and then I can focus on the collectivists, who ask, "How can anyone 'own' anything?"
-
Tldr
-
Krogenar, I think I made a point earlier (which you didn't bring up here) which is that an individual's property ownership in no way infringes upon your rights, it is only an action which does so. As such, I strongly believe that people should be free to protect themselves in the way that they see fit. Why do you trust a giant group of insane individuals in control of these weapons over one insane individual who would need a gigantic amount of resources to own one? The ability of an individual person to obtain a nuclear weapon is important here, because it requires an absurd amount of resources for an individual to obtain one. You mentioned me jumping a bit here but to be fair, you've argued two sides of this yourself - the property ownership side as well as the risk-based "possibility of widespread danger" side, which I would still argue is inherently much more dangerous in statism because of many factors. One being the need for huge resources to obtain one, another being the nature of the market itself, and third being the nature itself of a voluntary society (for which the necessity to own such weapons is arguable).
Your assumption that the state in control of the nuke is fair because it represents the interests of the majority assumes a democracy - but our present political system is purely oligarchical! So, that can't be true. And are you saying it's better that this maniacal and insane monopoly on violence has it's finger on the trigger rather than a peaceful person who would simply own such property with no intention to use it at all? The point is that ownership doesn't imply intent; it can only imply an ability to infringe upon another's right to life in a certain way. But ownership of property in and of itself does not infringe upon others' rights. It's the same way with firearms.
Now Krogenar, you're starting to worry me here...you're attacking me and not my ideas. You're calling me crazy, because I think that there shouldn't be laws against the type of property that people can own. How do you justify the opposite when the simple fact of property ownership it, in and of itself, does not infringe on another person's rights?
Attack my ideas, Krog. Don't attack me.
Oh and speaking of the second amendment, I thought I already made a point about the Constitution (and about all laws really) but I'll make it here now. They are all meaningless. That are literally worth about as much as a piece of paper with writing on it. If I write on a piece of paper that I can steal from you, does that make it true? No? Well, then how does the Constitution's right of taxation make it so? Or it's inherent ability to own slaves? Or it's inherent racism or sexism? Or the ability for precious metals to be used as legal tender? The point is that all laws are always at the discretion of those in the monopoly of violence. The Constitution itself HAS no inherent authority or obligation, which is why it's simply used by the state for whatever is in the best interests of the state. That's why it's violated ALL THE TIME. As Spooner rightly said in "No Treason" (which I highly recommend reading especially if you consider yourself libertarian), The Constitution either authorized the government we have today or was powerless to stop it.
Statism must be questioned at all levels. You need to ask yourself questions like, what is truly stopping people from obtaining the weapons you don't want them to have now? If they already have them, how would you want them to be taken away? If they aren't being used for nefarious purposes, why would you want them to be taken away? Why are your rights to property ownership more legitimate than theirs?
And here's another thing to ponder: if you don't wish to live in my world, the beauty is that you are free to go. But I am forced to live in yours. Do you believe people should have the right to be left alone? I do.
-
You're being wilfully ignorant of the practicalities of reality here though, Keyboardlover. Yes, ownership doesn't indicate intent, but really, who is more likely to use a devastating nuclear weapon - a) someone who owns said weapon, or b) someone who doesn't? That's why the vast majority of people are quite happy to have ownership of nuclear weapons (and other things) restricted. Most people don't see this as an invasive restriction of liberties under threat of violence they way you seem to, they see it as something that makes them, their families and the world safer (which it does).
And here's another thing to ponder: if you don't wish to live in my world, the beauty is that you are free to go. But I am forced to live in yours. Do you believe people should have the right to be left alone? I do.
I agree there should be an opt-out option here for folks like yourself, where you can stop paying taxes (the only thing I can really think of that a first world government is compelling you to do) and in return you relinquish everything the state provides - i.e. the protection of the police and judicial system, the use of public roads, fiat currency, etc.
-
Krogenar, I think I made a point earlier (which you didn't bring up here) which is that an individual's property ownership in no way infringes upon your rights, it is only an action which does so.
I'm saddened now because this is evidence that even the OP isn't actually reading the replies. I will be honest and say, I did not read all of them either, because some of them were just TL;DR replies, or flaming, etc. -- but I always read yours KBL -- and I read them carefully, because you deserved that. Just one post above, I stated:
Then you backed off (somewhat) on the statement stating that you didn't think it was likely or economically feasible for men (all men) to own a nuclear weapon. The point of the question of whether all men should be allowed to own a nuke is to test the theory of whether self-defense rights should be subject to any sort of limitation. You made a statement that the mere owning of a weapon does not infringe upon another person's rights, and so therefore it should be allowed.
I try very hard to be a serious, careful thinker. I wouldn't misrepresent your beliefs -- that's dirty pool.
As such, I strongly believe that people should be free to protect themselves in the way that they see fit. Why do you trust a giant group of insane individuals in control of these weapons over one insane individual who would need a gigantic amount of resources to own one? The ability of an individual person to obtain a nuclear weapon is important here, because it requires an absurd amount of resources for an individual to obtain one.
I don't think of the government as a giant collection of insane people, as you do. I think of them as an overlarge collection of flawed (but normal) humans inefficiently organized. My question about whether a private individual should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon (or ricin, or some other weapon capable of widespread destruction) is designed to test whether the Second Amendment right to self-protection is limitless. I believe it is a right, but not a limitless right.
When you argued that a private individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon you are essentially saying that there is no limit to the right of an individual to protect himself. But then you go and claim that this is acceptable because not many people could afford it anyway. But that's beside the point, KBL -- don't you see that? Should Steve Jobs, a billionaire, and potentially capable of financing a nuke been allowed by the law to build one? Ignore the political theorizing for the moment, and apply the 'smell test', and it fails even there.
I'm taking the gloves off now, KBL, because you've accused me (wrongly) of calling you crazy. Again, had you actually read the post you would see that I went to great pains to not call you crazy, just that one statement. And I gave you lots of opportunities to modify the statement or back away from it, because that's only fair. But instead, you lumped me in with a bunch of namecallers because I challenged one of your ideas. And then you maligned the U.S. Constitution, so no more deference for you.
So now let's imagine ricin, which (horrifyingly) does not require a lot of money to make. Should someone who feels so completely threatened by the world around them be allowed to make ricin, KBL? According to you, only using ricin would be wrong, not owning it. But the world is a complicated place. Let's say our hypothetical owner just purchased the ricing from someone. It still implies a market for ricin! Someone is making it somewhere, and the making of something that horrible is dangerous, not acceptable to the larger good of protecting people from harm. Ownership is an action. Individual ownership of a handgun does impose some risk to society, but it is a risk that society must accept. But it does not have to accept an individual owning a weapon capable of harming thousands of people -- that goes too far.
Is any of this making sense to you, KBL?
Your assumption that the state in control of the nuke is fair because it represents the interests of the majority assumes a democracy - but our present political system is purely oligarchical! So, that can't be true. And are you saying it's better that this maniacal and insane monopoly on violence has it's finger on the trigger rather than a peaceful person who would simply own such property with no intention to use it at all? The point is that ownership doesn't imply intent; it can only imply an ability to infringe upon another's right to life in a certain way. But ownership of property in and of itself does not infringe upon others' rights.
Yes, I believe a weapon of potential widespread destruction should only rest in the hands of a body of people whose task is the defense of a large number of people. Those kinds of weapons are for defending nations, not single individuals. A large body of people have the necessary skills for that weapons safe manufacture, storage; a single individual likely does not have the skills and knowledge necessary to make the ownership of that weapon safe for others.
It's the same way with firearms.
That's a foolish statement. Ricin, nukes -- they're not the same as firearms. They're not the same as a handgun, KBL. If this simple fact is not evident to you then I'm a fool for continuing this debate. Are you crazy? I have no idea, I don't know you. But I know your arguments, and some of your arguments, ideas, beliefs are certifiable. Does this reflect poorly on you? Sure. But that's unavoidable on my part. Earlier in this discussion (page one) I stated that I was in support of child safety laws on the grounds that children cannot advocate for themselves; they can't say, "Hey Mom, Dad, get me a child safety seat!" But you pointed out that parents should make those decisions, not governments, as governments don't own children. I modified my position on the strength of your argument.
But this is something you cannot do yourself. Not even on something as transparently obvious as whether a private individual should own a weapon of mass destruction.
Now Krogenar, you're starting to worry me here...you're attacking me and not my ideas. You're calling me crazy, because I think that there shouldn't be laws against the type of property that people can own. How do you justify the opposite when the simple fact of property ownership it, in and of itself, does not infringe on another person's rights?
I'm worrying you? Well, the feeling is mutual.
Attack my ideas, Krog. Don't attack me.
I haven't attacked you, personally, KBL -- just your batpoop-crazy idea that the individual right to self-protection is limitless, therefore extending to individuals the right to own ricin, nukes, and other weapons of mass destruction.
Oh and speaking of the second amendment, I thought I already made a point about the Constitution (and about all laws really) but I'll make it here now. They are all meaningless. That are literally worth about as much as a piece of paper with writing on it. If I write on a piece of paper that I can steal from you, does that make it true? No? Well, then how does the Constitution's right of taxation make it so? Or it's inherent ability to own slaves? Or it's inherent racism or sexism? Or the ability for precious metals to be used as legal tender? The point is that all laws are always at the discretion of those in the monopoly of violence. The Constitution itself HAS no inherent authority or obligation, which is why it's simply used by the state for whatever is in the best interests of the state. That's why it's violated ALL THE TIME. As Spooner rightly said in "No Treason" (which I highly recommend reading especially if you consider yourself libertarian), The Constitution either authorized the government we have today or was powerless to stop it.
You clearly don't like laws, KBL, that's fine, but they're not all meaningless. jdcapre quote the Declaration of Independence earlier, which states that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Framers acknowledged that all the documents generated by them would be merely scraps of paper that enshrined the natural order, natural laws -- that it is wrong to take by force, etc. Documents that reflect these natural laws concerning the rights of humans are not meaningless, in my view. This is key: the rights of people do not come from a piece of paper, they do not come from the government. This is important because if rights are given by the government, by a scrap of paper, then that government or the scrap of paper can decide to take them away. But when these rights are imbued into us by our Creator (that could be a deity, a spaghetti-monster, or nature, etc. -- doesn't matter) then no one can take them away completely. Even as the Framers wrote on paper, their words were designed to transcend that paper.
So. Give the Framers their due, KBL --- The Constitution is a beautiful document, unlike any other, and worthy of protection.
Statism must be questioned at all levels. You need to ask yourself questions like, what is truly stopping people from obtaining the weapons you don't want them to have now?
I don't want private individuals to make or own ricin, or nuclear weapons. Homeland Security, and various other national agencies (representatives of much larger groups of people) are actively trying to stop people from owning those WMDs, and I hope they are successful.
If they already have them, how would you want them to be taken away?
If a private individual already has ricin, a nuke or some other WMD, I want it to be taken away from them ... carefully. Which supports my argument as to why they shouldn't have them in the first place. I'm not a member of a SWAT team, but my guess is that taking firearms (handguns) away from an individual is a lot easier than taking a WMD away from them. Ideally, private individuals would not obtain WMDs at all. Ever. I'm feeling pretty confident that this is a sensible position. But since I'm a troll anyway, who has just attacked you and not your ideas, please don't feel the need to respond with an argument.
Heads up -- I am about to lampoon your idea, not you -- it might hurt your feelings, so don't stand too close to those ideas for the next few lines of text, ok?
If they aren't being used for nefarious purposes, why would you want [ricin, nukes, sarin, other WMDs] to be taken away?
(Krog being dragged off by police)
Krog: "That ricin was for peaceful purposes! And the dirty nuke was for ... for my personal protection! I have the right to irradiate a large area of land in order to protect myself!"
Police: "Yeah, ok."
Krog: "I have rights! I had no intention of ever using these weapons! None!"
(A battalion of men in bright yellow biohazard suits runs into Krog's house)
Police: "I feel a lot safer now that you said that, sir."
Krog: "What kind of tyrannical statist government would prohibit me from exercising my right to own ricin! This is an outrage!"
"Why are your rights to property ownership more legitimate than [their right to own a WMD]?
Because WMDs are capable of a level of destruction that would impact a huge number of other people's rights, KBL. Can a handgun or assault weapon cause widespread harm? Yes, but nowhere near the levels that some weapons can achieve, and hence, it is rational and wise to limit their ownership to organizations that are tasked with protecting large groups of people. The answer is scale. I believe that the reasons for why you should not own ricin are now self-evident.
And here's another thing to ponder: if you don't wish to live in my world, the beauty is that you are free to go. But I am forced to live in yours. Do you believe people should have the right to be left alone? I do.
I agree that we live in wildly different worlds, KBL, but you are wrong again! I am NOT FREE to leave your world, KBL. And you cannot leave mine. We're forced to live in it together, which is why we have politics in the first place, to try to make the living arrangements more pleasant for everyone. I am sorry you feel trapped in a world you don't like. I will leave you alone. But the question is: Can you manage to be left alone without owning ricin, KBL? Or is this too great an imposition by me and all the other people like me who are really opposed to any single person owning ricin on the grounds that, well, we could all end up dead, otherwise? Maybe I'm completely off-base here, but you sound angry. I am opposed to peace-loving hippies owning ricin, but I am even more opposed to angry people owning ricin. Not because I'm a statist, or a tyrant, but because I want to continue living. I respect and acknowledge your right to self-protection; your right to own a firearm in the defense of that right -- but there's a limit. Ricin, and other WMDs fall within that proscribed limit of what you are allowed to own. Sorry.
All I was hoping was that you could admit that the right to self-protection is not unlimited; not absolute. What I didn't count on was that doing so would prove that a state is necessary, which would cause your philosophy of voluntaryism to come crashing down all around you.
Anyway, this discussion is over for me. I think I've made my point as objectively as I know how and in the process I've been wrongly accused of trolling and misrepresenting KBL's position.
-
You're being wilfully ignorant of the practicalities of reality here though, Keyboardlover. Yes, ownership doesn't indicate intent, but really, who is more likely to use a devastating nuclear weapon - a) someone who owns said weapon, or b) someone who doesn't? That's why the vast majority of people are quite happy to have ownership of nuclear weapons (and other things) restricted. Most people don't see this as an invasive restriction of liberties under threat of violence they way you seem to, they see it as something that makes them, their families and the world safer (which it does).
I think you're ignorant of the practicalities of reality here Malphas: HOW are you going to keep someone from owning a nuclear weapon? What is it about the system now that is stopping them? The illegality? Does that stop anyone from obtaining anything? Last I checked people use illegal drugs ALL the time, people buy illegal firearms ALL the time, etc. If someone wants to get a nuke, they're going to be able to get it and that goes for anything really. The only thing that may get in their way are things like, the NATURE ITSELF of what they are trying to acquire, or the nature of its market.
And Krog...
I'm saddened now because this is evidence that even the OP isn't actually reading the replies. I will be honest and say, I did not read all of them either, because some of them were just TL;DR replies, or flaming, etc. -- but I always read yours KBL -- and I read them carefully, because you deserved that.
@Krog, I apologize for misrepresenting something you said; but I think that was important and missed in your argument. I haven't quite seen you truly attack that part of my argument yet...
I don't think of the government as a giant collection of insane people, as you do. I think of them as an overlarge collection of flawed (but normal) humans inefficiently organized. My question about whether a private individual should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon (or ricin, or some other weapon capable of widespread destruction) is designed to test whether the Second Amendment right to self-protection is limitless. I believe it is a right, but not a limitless right.
I never argued in favor or support of the second amendment at all. Don't forget that I completely and utterly debunked the constitution earlier. It's a worthless document. It's a piece of paper with writing on it that HAS no inherent authority or obligation. I HIGHLY recommend, as I mentioned, that you read No Treason by Lysander Spooner. From a legal perspective ITSELF according to U.S. LAW, the Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. If it is to be enforced contractually, it's not contractually binding because none of us ever signed it and all the people who signed it are now dead! As such, the Constitution only ever fully applied to those signed it, for the time that they were alive (if it is to be assumed to be contractual). If you believe that it HAS some other authority, besides the complete and utter discretion of those in the monopoly of violence, who are controlled by corporatism, then please state what that authority is exactly.
When you argued that a private individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon you are essentially saying that there is no limit to the right of an individual to protect himself. But then you go and claim that this is acceptable because not many people could afford it anyway. But that's beside the point, KBL -- don't you see that? Should Steve Jobs, a billionaire, and potentially capable of financing a nuke been allowed by the law to build one? Ignore the political theorizing for the moment, and apply the 'smell test', and it fails even there.
Why is it such a difficult point to accept for you that I really don't CARE what an individual owns, so long as they don't infring upon my rights dude? You and I already live in a world of risk and for all reasons I prefer my world. What would I do about nukes in a world without government? I wouldn't put them in the hands of insane people. Oh you know - the people who believe killing 500,000+ kids in order to bring "Democracy" to the middle east is "worth it". If that's not insane Krog, then what is? What would I do about the mentally ill in a world without government? That's easy: I wouldn't give them a government!
So now let's imagine ricin, which (horrifyingly) does not require a lot of money to make. Should someone who feels so completely threatened by the world around them be allowed to make ricin, KBL? According to you, only using ricin would be wrong, not owning it. But the world is a complicated place. Let's say our hypothetical owner just purchased the ricing from someone. It still implies a market for ricin! Someone is making it somewhere, and the making of something that horrible is dangerous, not acceptable to the larger good of protecting people from harm. Ownership is an action. Individual ownership of a handgun does impose some risk to society, but it is a risk that society must accept. But it does not have to accept an individual owning a weapon capable of harming thousands of people -- that goes too far.
The point is that there's nothing stopping them now (certainly laws don't stop criminals) and in order to stop them you need violence.
Is any of this making sense to you, KBL?
Nope.
Yes, I believe a weapon of potential widespread destruction should only rest in the hands of a body of people whose task is the defense of a large number of people. Those kinds of weapons are for defending nations, not single individuals. A large body of people have the necessary skills for that weapons safe manufacture, storage; a single individual likely does not have the skills and knowledge necessary to make the ownership of that weapon safe for others.
If we need them for defense, why are they out spreading American Imperialism in foreign lands effectively making us less safe? Because they follow orders from corporate-controlled puppet politicians. Which is why people are starting to quit the Air Force (and other military) now more than ever, because a virtuous person can't abide being ordered to drone bomb innocent men women and children from a freaking computer far away. We live in a world of risk buddy, and creating a government takes that risk to a whole new dangerous level. And you even admitted yourself that history shows the danger of government is incredible. But I don't think you've been able to effectively prove why lack of government would necessarily be more dangerous.
That's a foolish statement. Ricin, nukes -- they're not the same as firearms. They're not the same as a handgun, KBL. If this simple fact is not evident to you then I'm a fool for continuing this debate. Are you crazy? I have no idea, I don't know you. But I know your arguments, and some of your arguments, ideas, beliefs are certifiable. Does this reflect poorly on you? Sure. But that's unavoidable on my part. Earlier in this discussion (page one) I stated that I was in support of child safety laws on the grounds that children cannot advocate for themselves; they can't say, "Hey Mom, Dad, get me a child safety seat!" But you pointed out that parents should make those decisions, not governments, as governments don't own children. I modified my position on the strength of your argument.
When did I say those weapons were the same? I didn't...that was never my point at all. My point is that laws right now don't stop anyone from getting anything.
Not even on something as transparently obvious as whether a private individual should own a weapon of mass destruction.
Oh dear...using a George Bush word are we? Why don't you be so good as to define it then? "Weapon of mass destruction"? Napalm is a weapon of mass destruction that anyone can make in their garage. McVeigh built the bombs he used by himself using items you can order from any. The point is, LAWS don't stop people from getting their hands on anything...if people want to get it, they will get it and that's a risk in life you're going to have to accept. Not only that, laws make certain things more enticing because the psychological fact that often times people are enticed or excited by the thought of owning what they can't have. In areas around the world where there is no drinking age, for example, there is hardly any binge drinking at all. These folks don't care so much about being able to own alcohol because it isn't illegal. And hey I certainly don't believe that people should be able to use "weapons of mass destruction" against peaceful people - so why do you want to legitimize the people who are doing it now? Hundreds of thousands of kids DEAD in the middle east, for what MANIACS believe is a "worthy cause", and this hasn't stopped yet! If that's not crazy, then what is? Point being: the most dangerous weapons in the world are ALREADY in the hands of the most dangerous people they could be in, and are being fired upon innocent people ALL THE TIME. People are dying all around the world, and my argument is to make this stop, and yours is to empower the war machine. If you look up the history of the word "libertarian", there was never such a thing as a pro-government or pro-military libertarian originally. The modern American libertarian, for the most part, is not a real libertarian in the most true sense of that word. They were always anarchical in nature (and actually more socialist historically). Point is, I would highly recommend reading more about Libertarianism itself, and I can provide a plethora of great reading material if you are interested. For instance, ever read "Civil Disobediance" by Thoreau, the book that had profound influences on Gandhi and MLK Jr.? These folks espouse the same beliefs as I. Don't believe me? Then read and prove me wrong.
The Framers acknowledged that all the documents generated by them would be merely scraps of paper that enshrined the natural order, natural laws -- that it is wrong to take by force, etc. Documents that reflect these natural laws concerning the rights of humans are not meaningless, in my view. This is key: the rights of people do not come from a piece of paper, they do not come from the government. This is important because if rights are given by the government, by a scrap of paper, then that government or the scrap of paper can decide to take them away. But when these rights are imbued into us by our Creator (that could be a deity, a spaghetti-monster, or nature, etc. -- doesn't matter) then no one can take them away completely. Even as the Framers wrote on paper, their words were designed to transcend that paper.
So. Give the Framers their due, KBL --- The Constitution is a beautiful document, unlike any other, and worthy of protection.
No offense dude but I won't give the Framers jack s***. In fact, f*** the framers. They represented nothing more than a racist, sexist, bureaucratic oligarchy, very few of whom truly cared about individual freedom, and those who did were willing to give in to the others who wanted nothing more than the ability to control other people. Natural order? What like the fact that all the benefits only applied to "free men", which left out black people and women? Is sexism or racism "natural order"? Or how about the power it gave the government over marriage, a social and religious construct? Good thing for that; gay people in droves supported Obama because they believed they were actually getting something of value in the last couple elections. In fact, they were only getting a small fraction back of something they never had in the first place: Freedom.
I don't want private individuals to make or own ricin, or nuclear weapons. Homeland Security, and various other national agencies (representatives of much larger groups of people) are actively trying to stop people from owning those WMDs, and I hope they are successful.
How can you support the DHS and call yourself a libertarian? You're legitimizing an organization which is FAR more dangerous than any individual could ever be. It's nothing more than one of many armed government militias, again, taking orders from politicians controlled by corporatism. That's the way the system works. A virtuous person simply cannot legitimize such. The DHS is responsible for more organized violence than I can even care to think about right now.
If a private individual already has ricin, a nuke or some other WMD, I want it to be taken away from them ... carefully. Which supports my argument as to why they shouldn't have them in the first place. I'm not a member of a SWAT team, but my guess is that taking firearms (handguns) away from an individual is a lot easier than taking a WMD away from them. Ideally, private individuals would not obtain WMDs at all. Ever. I'm feeling pretty confident that this is a sensible position. But since I'm a troll anyway, who has just attacked you and not your ideas, please don't feel the need to respond with an argument.
Dude, I never called you a troll...don't put words in my mouth. Actually I think you've been one of the best debaters in this thread thus far, and I am quite happy to debate you. But simply put, that response does not answer my question. The point is, in order to take someone's property away from them, you're going to need to legitimize violence. This will never happen with guns because they would need to literally go door-to-door and if they do that, there is going to be blood and after a little while, the police are going to start refusing to do it. Your idealism will never happen because laws don't stop anyone from obtaining anything now.
Because WMDs are capable of a level of destruction that would impact a huge number of other people's rights, KBL. Can a handgun or assault weapon cause widespread harm? Yes, but nowhere near the levels that some weapons can achieve, and hence, it is rational and wise to limit their ownership to organizations that are tasked with protecting large groups of people. The answer is scale. I believe that the reasons for why you should not own ricin are now self-evident.
Your reasons for not owning ricin do not negate my point that property ownership, in and of itself, does not infringe upon another person's rights and that you will need to legitimize infringing that person's rights (using violence i.e. the gun of government, the most dangerous one of all) in order to take their property away from them. I really don't care if someone owns ricin or nukes or C4 or DRONES or whatever. I care if they are using them to harm innocent people, and that's why I want to disarm government, because that's exactly what is happening now, and what your arguments legitimize.
I agree that we live in wildly different worlds, KBL, but you are wrong again! I am NOT FREE to leave your world, KBL. And you cannot leave mine. We're forced to live in it together, which is why we have politics in the first place, to try to make the living arrangements more pleasant for everyone. I am sorry you feel trapped in a world you don't like. I will leave you alone. But the question is: Can you manage to be left alone without owning ricin, KBL? Or is this too great an imposition by me and all the other people like me who are really opposed to any single person owning ricin on the grounds that, well, we could all end up dead, otherwise? Maybe I'm completely off-base here, but you sound angry. I am opposed to peace-loving hippies owning ricin, but I am even more opposed to angry people owning ricin. Not because I'm a statist, or a tyrant, but because I want to continue living. I respect and acknowledge your right to self-protection; your right to own a firearm in the defense of that right -- but there's a limit. Ricin, and other WMDs fall within that proscribed limit of what you are allowed to own. Sorry.
You said that you'll leave me alone but your arguments show otherwise - you don't actually believe people should have the right to be left alone. You believe that force should be used on peaceful people because you don't agree with the type of property they own. I don't. If you were really opposed to angry or crazy or insane people using dangerous weapons on innocent people, then you would be on my side. Because that is what is currently happening EVERY DAY, and I want it to end! This is why statism should be abolished, because the most dangerous people are already in control of the most dangerous weapons, because people like yourself believe that it's "necessary", and thousands of innocent people (including children), every year, are being killed as a result. "Necessary?!" F*** necessary. If the alternative is being concerned about some random dude owning ricin or C4, I much prefer legitimizing the option where people have the right to left alone. Simply put, that is the ONLY virtuous option. And I have accepted the fact that life is filled with risk and that laws do not stop anyone from obtaining anything now, and they never will.
All I was hoping was that you could admit that the right to self-protection is not unlimited; not absolute. What I didn't count on was that doing so would prove that a state is necessary, which would cause your philosophy of voluntaryism to come crashing down all around you.
If that's what you really think, I am not sure you comprehended my arguments well. I believe that my point has already been proven numerous times, that a state is inherently dangerous and unnecessary. If you believe that it's necessary, then you believe that legitimizing a monopoly on violence is necessary. You believe that evil is necessary. I do not.
-
I think you're ignorant of the practicalities of reality here Malphas: HOW are you going to keep someone from owning a nuclear weapon? What is it about the system now that is stopping them? The illegality? Does that stop anyone from obtaining anything? Last I checked people use illegal drugs ALL the time, people buy illegal firearms ALL the time, etc. If someone wants to get a nuke, their going to be able to get it and that goes for anything really. The only thing that may get in their way are things like, the NATURE ITSELF of what they are trying to acquire, or the nature of its market.
Right, and making it not-illegal to own a nuclear weapon alleviates that how exactly? The drug and firearm situations aren't comparable, they aren't even comparable to each other, but we already know from the firearm thread that you're oblivious to the fact that most illegally-owned firearms began life as legally owned ones that fell into the wrong hands (please don't start trying to debate this, it's an actual fact), but let's not to go down that road again.
-
Right, and making it not-illegal to own a nuclear weapon alleviates that how exactly? The drug and firearm situations aren't comparable, they aren't even comparable to each other, but we already know from the firearm thread that you're oblivious to the fact that most illegally-owned firearms began life as legally owned ones that fell into the wrong hands (please don't start trying to debate this, it's an actual fact), but let's not to go down that road again.
I don't remember ever having a discussion with you about what illegal firearms are, but I don't really disagree about that. My point is though, that laws don't stop anyone from obtaining anything and they never will. What worse is that psychologically illegality of property often has a psychological effect on humans causing them to want to obtain it more than if it were not illegal. What's worst is the belief in government legitimizes these weapons to be used by the war machine against peaceful people all. the. time. But yea I totally agree that the weapons are different. Unlike you guys, I don't believe that weapons of mass destruction should be fired upon peaceful people. I want to peacefully abolish the most dangerous weapoon of mass destruction which has ever existed or will ever exist: government.
I mean, do you guys actually believe that an individual or a small group of individuals should be able to own a GOVERNMENT???
-
Unlike you guys, I don't believe that weapons of mass destruction should be fired upon peaceful people.
Yet more strawman arguments... You're completely unable to debate this without hyperbole and histrionic behaviour.
To answer your loaded question, firstly, I reject your assertion that government is a weapon, and no I do not think an individual or small group of individuals should be able to own a government. I believe that representative democracy and Peelian principles are so far the most fair and stable system to have been used yet overall. Obviously I'm fully aware that corruption exists, but rather than jump to the ridiculous conclusion that because of that all government is bad, I'm simply anti-corruption, not anti-Statism.
-
That which is corruptible is corrupt by nature. A limited government therefore is a contradiction in terms as Robert LeFevre said.
-
That which is corruptible is corrupt by nature.
No. You can't just say arbitrary things and pretend they're true (which accounts for 90% of your arguments) and expect to be taken seriously.
-
No.
Oh really? Let's see: you need human beings to create a corruptible system, and so long as you have human beings, it will be corrupted.
(which accounts for 90% of your arguments)
And that is why I call you a troll. Completely untrue; my logic and reasoning is sound and you've thus far been unsuccessful in proving otherwise, as usual.
-
Oh really? Let's see: you need human beings to create a corruptible system, and so long as you have human beings, it will be corrupted.
See, I don't see how you can make a statement like this without realising how fundamentally wrong you are. What you essentially just said is:
"you need eggs to make an omelet, therefore as long as you have eggs, you will have an omelet"
Do I really need to explain how even a four year-old could see the error in your logic here?
And that is why I call you a troll. Completely untrue; my logic and reasoning is sound and you've thus far been unsuccessful in proving otherwise, as usual.
What I just said above is just one example of many of how your logic and reasoning are far, far from sound. Pointing out your delusions does not make me a troll.
-
My logic isn't sound? You just compared a human being to an egg and a government to an omelette. LOL!
-
That's called an allegory, KBL... It's a fairly standard device for explaining concepts to people who otherwise have difficulty understanding them, as you appear to.
-
Well I've dis-proven all your arguments and the writing is on the wall. So, it is what it is.
-
If by dis-proven you mean ignored, failed to address, changed subject, made baseless claims, and called me a troll, then yes I suppose you have.
-
But I did none of things so...you're wrong.
-
If by dis-proven you mean ignored, failed to address, changed subject, made baseless claims, and called me a troll, then yes I suppose you have.
But I did none of things so...you're wrong.
YOU are a troll.
I could go ahead and pick out the examples of where you did everything else as well, but basically everyone besides yourself is already aware of them and presumably your reality-distortion field would still shield your brain from the facts. So I'll point out the most hilarious incriminating example of how you just blatantly lied to make my point.
-
Sorry maam, I meant no disrespect.
Nor am I a "maam", and you owe me no respect.
I do have arguments, but I'll let you dig your hole a little deeper first.
-
I could go ahead and pick out the examples of where you did everything else as well, but basically everyone besides yourself is already aware of them and presumably your reality-distortion field would still shield your brain from the facts. So I'll point out the most hilarious incriminating example of how you just blatantly lied to make my point.
Aww sorry you are correct. I did point out what you are: a troll. My bad, and I apologize for making one mistake. Because I always will admit to a mistake when someone calls me out on it.
Nor am I a "maam", and you owe me no respect.
I do have arguments, but I'll let you dig your hole a little deeper first.
Ok, sorry then gender-unknown squirrel. I haven't dug any hole though...my point has already been proven. If you have arguments then raise them.
-
Who exactly has your point been proven to, when basically everyone is arguing against you and no-one is buying your argument?
-
Even on the first page of this thread you can see people backing me up. But they probably left because of all the trolling unfortunately. Although, the fact that you are now trying to argue I'm wrong because of some assumed "strength in numbers" completely backs up your "might makes right" view of society.
Whether anyone buys my argument or not is of no matter or consequence to me. Whether they can refute it is what counts, and no one has been able to effectively do so. Certainly not you, Malphas.
-
Why are you so bitter and angry anyway, KBL?
-
Who said I'm bitter and angry? I'm actually a very happy and positive guy IRL. I just have strong opinions and no tolerance for legitimization of violence. Why are you making up and assuming incorrect things about my character?
-
Who said I'm bitter and angry?
You certainly come across that way.
Why are you making up and assuming incorrect things about my character?
Ahem, coming from the guy who made statements like:
The belief in statism is a complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of human life. Malphas has even admitted that his belief makes him feel that way. And he has even said that he doesn't believe in right or wrong, unless there is legitimization of a monopoly on violence and arbitration in order to decide for him.
-
That's true though; you did say that. If that's not true then why don't you clarify right now?
You certainly come across that way.
Well people who like to control others tend to make assumptions about them in order to make themselves feel better, so I'm not surprised that I come off that way to you.
-
My question about justice in an anarchic system remains unanswered as far as I'm concerned, KL. Simply asserting that our current system is corrupt or ineffective is not sufficient.
For example, without a centralized authority how do you collect evidence effectively? How do you hold trials if no one is obligated to follow the rules? I'm thinking of things like search warrants which compel people to allow their property to be searched, or face penalties and get searched anyway. That is an application of coercive force by the government that you probably hate, but which I value.
-
That's true though; you did say that. If that's not true then why don't you clarify right now?
I already did, either you ignored it or didn't understand it though.
Here:
I can't tell if you're being deliberately dishonest or if its your failure to understand that makes you keep spouting these strawman arguments. I've already said morality and law are seperate things. Governments don't set morals, they set laws, so clearly I couldn't possibly be saying that the sanctity of human life (which I never expressed my personal opinion of) could be set by a "monopoly of violent force" could I?
I don't believe a person has an innate right to life, because there's simply no such thing. That has no bearing on my personal views, it's just an unavoidable reality that no rights exist outside of the ones that are able to be enforced and protected by a structured authority with the power to do so. As much as you might wish to believe otherwise it will never make it the case. Outside of a statist system you have no more right to life than any other organism on the planet does.
Edit: I'm not the only one who's explained this to you either, sth has already expressed the same thing, but you failed to understand it from him as well. You can't just claim "it exists because I say/think it does" and expect to be taken seriously, let alone try to then hypocritically accuse others of failing to effectively debate.
-
For example, without a centralized authority how do you collect evidence effectively? How do you hold trials if no one is obligated to follow the rules? I'm thinking of things like search warrants which compel people to allow their property to be searched, or face penalties and get searched anyway. That is an application of coercive force by the government that you probably hate, but which I value.
I believe that I twice provided examples including independent insurance and dispute-resolution organizations, in order to help people manage risk. You are correct that injustice will occur, but the problem is that I, nor you, nor anyone knows enough about any one situation that you are not involved in to be able to decide what the appropriate course of justice or action is, in regards to all people who are involved. And assuming so provides a much greater risk that injustice will be done, since everyone has a different view of what justice is. The Patriot Act paved the way for illegal search and seizure and the NDAA paved the way for indefinite detention...of course I hate those things. I think that people should have the right to be left alone.
I can't tell if you're being deliberately dishonest or if its your failure to understand that makes you keep spouting these strawman arguments. I've already said morality and law are seperate things. Governments don't set morals, they set laws, so clearly I couldn't possibly be saying that the sanctity of human life (which I never expressed my personal opinion of) could be set by a "monopoly of violent force" could I?
I don't believe a person has an innate right to life, because there's simply no such thing. That has no bearing on my personal views, it's just an unavoidable reality that no rights exist outside of the ones that are able to be enforced and protected by a structured authority with the power to do so. As much as you might wish to believe otherwise it will never make it the case. Outside of a statist system you have no more right to life than any other organism on the planet does.
Right, you've said that you don't believe in an innate human right to life. Ok, I will grant that it's your belief. It's what it means that I don't agree with...it means you believe that a monopoly on violence and arbitration is necessary to decide who does or does not have a right to their life. And as a result of your very belief, hundreds of thousands of innocent people die EVERY YEAR. Statism is literally, not figuratively, the most dangerous religion in the world. I believe that everyone has an innate right to their life, simply because they are alive, and that I have no more right to infringe upon their right to life than they do of mine. This is, by all matters, a difference of opinion of course. But yours legitimizes a monopoly on violence and mine does not, and that is the clear difference, and I already made that point.
-
The thing is, keyboardlover. If you're a law-abiding citizen then you are left alone, and even if you're not, the odds are you'll still be left alone as you're under the radar. Admittedly some of the laws are unjust (like drug prohibition) but the simplest solution to that is to argue the law should be changed, not that the entire idea of Statism is inherently evil (your repeated assertion of this is probably the most damning argument against your entire position because to a normal person it sounds utterly hyperbolic and ridiculous).
-
I didn't reference the Patriot Act at all. I'm talking about vanilla search warrants that must be sanity-checked by a judge prior to being executed. So what if the party I suspect of having wronged me refuses to submit to arbitration?
-
The thing is, keyboardlover. If you're a law-abiding citizen then you are left alone, and even if you're not, the odds are you'll still be left alone as you're under the radar. Admittedly some of the laws are unjust (like drug prohibition) but the simplest solution to that is to argue the law should be changed, not that the entire idea of Statism is inherently evil (your repeated assertion of this is probably the most damning argument against your entire position because to a normal person it sounds utterly hyperbolic and ridiculous).
Oh really? I'm forced to use a currency controlled by a government monopoly on finance. I'm forced to cooperate in a corporatist system because without a bank account I can't get an apartment or a mortgage and without a job I can't eat. Because it's become illegal for anyone to be self-sustaining anymore. If you think that anyone has the right to be left alone in society, you're delusional, because as I've discussed laws are just pieces of paper with writing on them. Criminals don't follow them (including government) and whether or not someone commits one is always at the discretion of those in the monopoly of violence who are controlled by corporatism.
I didn't reference the Patriot Act at all. I'm talking about vanilla search warrants that must be sanity-checked by a judge prior to being executed. So what if the party I suspect of having wronged me refuses to submit to arbitration?
Well in a voluntary world you can choose to willingly submit to arbitration at the rule of an independent authority (not a monopolized one controlled by corporatism). The idea being that, if people do what's best for their wallet anyway, an independent one not corrupted by government has a greater chance of being virtuous in nature. Not that it necessarily would be, but the monopolized one, as I'm sure you'd agree, is utterly corrupt at the very core.
-
Right, you've said that you don't believe in an innate human right to life. Ok, I will grant that it's your belief. It's what it means that I don't agree with...it means you believe that a monopoly on violence and arbitration is necessary to decide who does or does not have a right to their life.
No it doesn't.
And as a result of your very belief, hundreds of thousands of innocent people die EVERY YEAR. Statism is literally, not figuratively, the most dangerous religion in the world. I believe that everyone has an innate right to their life, simply because they are alive, and that I have no more right to infringe upon their right to life than they do of mine. This is, by all matters, a difference of opinion of course. But yours legitimizes a monopoly on violence and mine does not, and that is the clear difference, and I already made that point.
Stop using the same cliche statements over and over and explain how believing the right to life exists would suddenly stop people from being killed. It wouldn't, people would still be killed because there is no "right to life", you can't just believe it into existence and wake up to a world where no-one gets killed anymore.
Oh really? I'm forced to use a currency controlled by a government monopoly on finance. I'm forced to cooperate in a corporatist system because without a bank account I can't get an apartment or a mortgage and without a job I can't eat. Because it's become illegal for anyone to be self-sustaining anymore. If you think that anyone has the right to be left alone in society, you're delusional, because as I've discussed laws are just pieces of paper with writing on them. Criminals don't follow them (including government) and whether or not someone commits one is always at the discretion of those in the monopoly of violence who are controlled by corporatism.
No-one is really forcing you to do any of those things though. You're quite free to try and negotiate to be paid and barter in whatever physical goods you like instead of a fiat currency, you're free to not have a bank account and go live in the woods and forage/hunt for foods.
The issue isn't the government forcing you to be part of this system, it's society that compels you to be a part of it, because the rest of society doesn't want to change to accommodate the fact you don't want to play along. This isn't the fault of Statism or the government - it's your problem, not everyone else's. This is why you sound so bitter and resentful.
-
No it doesn't.
Then prove it, because you've yet to do so.
Stop using the same cliche statements over and over and explain how believing the right to life exists would suddenly stop people from being killed. It wouldn't, people would still be killed because there is no "right to life", you can't just believe it into existence and wake up to a world where no-one gets killed anymore.
It's not a "cliche", it's the truth which you're obviously not willing to admit because if you did, you'd have to admit that you believe murder can be justified (which you actually already have admitted, whether you know it or not). I never said no one would get killed in a world without government, I already said that I've accepted that life is filled with risk! All these points you're arguing now I've already proven earlier in the thread. Bro...do you even read??
No-one is really forcing you to do any of those things though. You're quite free to try and negotiate to be paid and barter in whatever physical goods you like instead of a fiat currency, you're free to not have a bank account and go live in the woods and forage/hunt for foods.
The issue isn't the government forcing you to be part of this system, it's society that compels you to be a part of it, because the rest of society doesn't want to change to accommodate the fact you don't want to play along. This isn't the fault of Statism or the government - it's your problem, not everyone else's. This is why you sound so bitter and resentful.
Dude, barter and other forms of currency are illegal in the USA! They have been ruled to not be "legal tender". And no, you're not free to go live in the woods and hunt because no one is free from taxation, and in order to pay taxes you need to involve yourself in corporatism. Statism is an inherent part of society which I already proved - it's simply a belief in a monopoly of force. If you stop believing in government it literally goes away and all that's left is a whole bunch of bad guys who you've armed with guns. I guess I sound bitter to you because you haven't faced the facts; that you are a slave to a system from which you have no way to free yourself. That you have legitimized a huge group of people with guns who want to take your stuff and they do it all the time in order to maintain their system.
Do you actually think you're free to leave? Go ahead and try...let me know how far you make it.
-
I can't explain it any more simply to you, I don't believe in a "right to life" because there is no such thing. It has no bearing on my personal views about the value of life, or if murder can be justified, it simply means it doesn't exist. The burden is on you to prove such a right innately exists, not on me to disprove it. Similarly the onus is on you to try and justify why my refusal to believe in this non-existent, intangible right automatically equates to me believing "that a monopoly on violence and arbitration is necessary to decide who does or does not have a right to their life."
-
I can't explain it any more simply to you, I don't believe in a "right to life" because there is no such thing. It has no bearing on my personal views about the value of life, or if murder can be justified, it simply means it doesn't exist. The burden is on you to prove such a right innately exists, not on me to disprove it.
I already did; I am alive. Therefore I have a right to my life. In other words, you nor anyone else have a right to infringe upon my right to my life. Same goes for every other human being. I don't need a government to justify that.
Similarly the onus is on you to try and justify why my refusal to believe in this non-existent, intangible right automatically equates to me believing "that a monopoly on violence and arbitration is necessary to decide who does or does not have a right to their life."
You believe that government is necessary to provide people with a right to their life. Government is nothing more than a monopoly on violence and arbitration.
-
I didn't reference the Patriot Act at all. I'm talking about vanilla search warrants that must be sanity-checked by a judge prior to being executed. So what if the party I suspect of having wronged me refuses to submit to arbitration?
I feel like this got lost in the back and forth with Malphas.
I already did; I am alive. Therefore I have a right to my life. In other words, you nor anyone else have a right to infringe upon my right to my life. Same goes for every other human being. I don't need a government to justify that.
Can you define "right" for me?
-
Can you define "right" for me?
Sure.
Legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory
See, rights are not statist principles by nature. They can be based on theory or social convention, including voluntary association/agreements.
I feel like this got lost in the back and forth with Malphas.
Actually I did address that - see above.
And just to clarify something here: I don't believe that statists are by nature dangerous people. I believe that their beliefs are inherently dangerous and that's the point I'm making in this thread. I think that the vast majority of people are not aware of how dangerous these beliefs are so I'm trying to spread awareness based on what I've learned. I wish not to attack anyone here or anything like that; just their beliefs. And I totally understand why these beliefs are held, because the vast majority of people are indoctrinated to believe these very things.
-
Dude, barter and other forms of currency are illegal in the USA! They have been ruled to not be "legal tender".
I think you misunderstand the concept of legal tender. Legal tender is something that the government will accept as payment, which is where fiat currency derives its value. You're still free to pay all other individuals, businesses and organisations with whatever they're willing to accept; and unlike some nations there's not law that states people have to accept legal tender in the USA, if they don't want to.
And no, you're not free to go live in the woods and hunt because no one is free from taxation
If you don't have any income in fiat currency, there's nothing to tax. Not only that, but look at the actual reality of the situation - you think if you go disappear into the wilderness somewhere the government is going be like "hey! this guy isn't paying his taxes!" and send out the black helicopters to come get you?
and in order to pay taxes you need to involve yourself in corporatism.
Most people are quite glad to engage in corporatism and the massive benefits it provides compared to the meagre subsistence existence, that human society was like prior to it.
Statism is an inherent part of society which I already proved - it's simply a belief in a monopoly of force. If you stop believing in government it literally goes away and all that's left is a whole bunch of bad guys who you've armed with guns.
Bad guys who are do things like ensure my protection against actual violence and harm (as opposed to your definition of it which is having to pay taxes and use a fiat currency, apparently); will try and sentence anyone who does manage do me harm; maintains the various transport, electric, telecommunication infrastructure that I rely on it every day; sends firefighters to my home if it ever catches fire; sends an ambulance and paramedics to me if I'm ever struck down by an accident or medical condition, regulates the businesses and organisations I interact with to prevent my exploitation or harm as much as is possible (e.g. regulations against anticompetitive practices, food industry standards, etc.). Oh yeah, but I have to pay a percentage of my earnings (in the relatively stable government-provided currency, no less) in exchange. Yeah, what bad guys.
I guess I sound bitter to you because you haven't faced the facts; that you are a slave to a system from which you have no way to free yourself. That you have legitimized a huge group of people with guns who want to take your stuff and they do it all the time in order to maintain their system.
Actually, it's you that is unable to face the facts. That people are fully aware of the same things you are, but simply don't have a problem with it and don't see your ideas as anything remotely resembling a credible alternative, that not everyone shares your bitter, juvenile beliefs.
Do you actually think you're free to leave? Go ahead and try...let me know how far you make it.
Everything I've mentioned above should be pretty indicative that I have no desire to. But I still say that you genuinely should if you find the current system so awful. Go ahead and see how great the alternative is without a state.
-
I already did; I am alive. Therefore I have a right to my life. In other words, you nor anyone else have a right to infringe upon my right to my life. Same goes for every other human being. I don't need a government to justify that.
This is just as meaningless as trying to claim a gazelle has a right to its life that's being infringed upon by a lion, as I said earlier. You claiming you have a right to life is going to have absolutely no tangible effect on anything whatsoever, therefore how does it even exist? It's just you saying words.
You believe that government is necessary to provide people with a right to their life. Government is nothing more than a monopoly on violence and arbitration.
Actually what I'm saying is that's the only way the concept of a "right" has any meaning. If a government or some other power representative of the population at large mandates that a every human has a right to life and it will do whatever is in its power to ensure that right is adhered to then that "right" can actually be said to exist in some sort of tangible form. Unlike in your non-state scenario where it means absolutely nothing other than something you want to pretend exists.
-
I think you misunderstand the concept of legal tender. Legal tender is something that the government will accept as payment, which is where fiat currency derives its value. You're still free to pay all other individuals, businesses and organisations with whatever they're willing to accept; and unlike some nations there's not law that states people have to accept legal tender in the USA, if they don't want to.
Right, but they're essentially forced to only accept FIAT currency, because that's what they have to pay the government. I can't pay my taxes with silver or gold and neither can they, so why would they accept it?
If you don't have any income in fiat currency, there's nothing to tax. Not only that, but look at the actual reality of the situation - you think if you go disappear into the wilderness somewhere the government is going be like "hey! this guy isn't paying his taxes!" and send out the black helicopters to come get you?
Where can I go? What land? Which property isn't owned by someone else? If I want to buy some, how will I go about doing that?
Bad guys who are do things like ensure my protection against actual violence and harm (as opposed to your definition of it which is having to pay taxes and use a fiat currency, apparently); will try and sentence anyone who does manage do me harm; maintains the various transport, electric, telecommunication infrastructure that I rely on it every day; sends firefighters to my home if it ever catches fire; sends an ambulance and paramedics to me if I'm ever struck down by an accident or medical condition, regulates the businesses and organisations I interact with to prevent my exploitation or harm as much as is possible (e.g. regulations against anticompetitive practices, food industry standards, etc.). Oh yeah, but I have to pay a percentage of my earnings (in the relatively stable government-provided currency, no less) in exchange. Yeah, what bad guys.
If taxation isn't violent forced collectivism, then why do people get thrown in cages at gun point for not paying them and shot if they try to escape. Government does NOT maintain "the various transport, electric, telecommunication infrastructure" that you rely on every day. Those are nearly always provided by private organizations (and at least provided better as such, and would arguably be provided best without corporatism). The government doesn't "send firefighters" - you simply rely on an organization that protects you regardless of government's hand in it. Same goes for medical care and everything else - these are all services for which no government is needed. How does government protect you from being exploited - by exploiting you? If you're not a slave then why is your income considered by the government to be "100% taxable". Food industry standards? Oh those are so great - I'm glad all our food has GMOs and when they finally put all the farmers out of business we'll be completely dependent on a government-controlled food supply based solely on importation (as is happening around the world right now). Yea, those bad guys.
Everything I've mentioned above should be pretty indicative that I have no desire to. But I still say that you genuinely should if you find the current system so awful. Go ahead and see how great the alternative is without a state.
I've already described it (at least in part).
This is just as meaningless as trying to claim a gazelle has a right to its life that's being infringed upon by a lion, as I said earlier. You claiming you have a right to life is going to have absolutely no tangible effect on anything whatsoever, therefore how does it even exist? It's just you saying words.
So you don't think there is something that makes humans different from animals? You already compared humans to eggs and governments to omelettes but come ON!
Actually what I'm saying is that's the only way the concept of a "right" has any meaning. If a government or some other power representative of the population at large mandates that a every human has a right to life and it will do whatever is in its power to ensure that right is adhered to then that "right" can actually be said to exist in some sort of tangible form. Unlike in your non-state scenario where it means absolutely nothing other than something you want to pretend exists.
Right - that's the only way it has any meaning to YOU because you believe in statism. I already mentioned that I believe in a voluntary society based on the principle of non-aggression. Whether a right exists in my world is based on people voluntarily agreeing to it, but whether it exists in your world is based on shoving it down somebody's throat using a monopoly on violence.
-
Legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory
So it sounds like you agree with Malphas that rights do not innately exist in the same way that a rock exists. They exist only in the sense that some group of people (including states and voluntary associations) agree that they should be respected.
Actually I did address that - see above.
You said that arbitration is the answer, then I responded by asking what you would do if the person you believed to have wronged you refused to submit to arbitration. Or, what if someone accused you of a crime you didn't commit -- why would you choose to submit to the hassle and expense of arbitration?
-
Right, but they're essentially forced to only accept FIAT currency, because that's what they have to pay the government. I can't pay my taxes with silver or gold.
You really thing that's why businesses won't accept you paying them in silver or gold, or pork bellies or whatever? No, it's because fiat currency has massive advantages over bartering commodities and it far less hassle.
If taxation isn't violent forced collectivism, then why do people get thrown in cages at gun point for not paying them and shot if they try to escape.
If you're using a fiat currency then part of the deal is you pay taxes on your earnings. Don't like it? Good luck getting paid in something else. Imprisonment is the last consequence in a long chain of things before it gets to that point. If you stubbornly and foolishly refuse to pay taxes while still taking advantage of the system provided to you by tax income then that's really your own fault.
Government does NOT maintain "the various transport, electric, telecommunication infrastructure" that you rely on every day. Those are nearly always provided by private organizations (and at least provided better as such, and would arguably be provided best without corporatism). The government doesn't "send firefighters" - you simply rely on an organization that protects you regardless of government's hand in it. Same goes for medical care and everything else. How does government protect you from being exploited - by exploiting you? Food industry standards? Oh those are so great - I'm glad all our food has GMOs and when they finally put all the farmers out of business we'll be completely dependent on a government-controlled food supply based solely on importation (like is happening around the world right now). Yea, those bad guys.
Oh stop being deliberately obtuse. The fact is that it's taxpayer money that funds those things, which is the crux of it. If you weren't being taxed you'd have to pay for those things yourself, or go without - both scenarios would work leave the majority of people worse off, except the very wealthy. That's what's meant by government-provided.
Have you ever actually been outside the US, keyboardlover? If you'd ever been somewhere like Nigeria or the Ivory Coast where government regulation is much weaker, I think you'd realise how massively advantageous it is to have a government that does regulate industry.
Right - that's the only way it has any meaning to YOU because you believe in statism. I already mentioned that I believe in a voluntary society based on the principle of non-aggression. Whether a right exists in my world is based on people voluntarily agreeing to it, but whether it exists in your world is based on shoving it down somebody's throat using a monopoly on violence.
So you'd prefer a system where people voluntarily agree you have the right to life, but are free to choose to not believe you have that right? Whilst in the evil old Statist society your right to life is "shoved down somebody's throat using a monopoly on violence" - which in reality would be the police trying to prevent/arrest your murderer and the judicial system trying and sentencing him. What would the alternative to that be in your non-"monopoly on violence" society be that's so much better? Vigilantes and lynch mobs?
-
So it sounds like you agree with Malphas that rights do not innately exist in the same way that a rock exists. They exist only in the sense that some group of people (including states and voluntary associations) agree that they should be respected.
In the sense of a "right to life" no, I think that the right of a human to their life is an innate one based on the nature of human beings. We are animals, I agree, but there is a big difference in that we can choose whether or not to infringe upon another's life whereas animals are driven by instinct and need to do so in order to survive. It's different with humans. The belief that it's innate is a belief of course, and I understand that not everyone agrees with it, but I think it's sound in principle.
You said that arbitration is the answer, then I responded by asking what you would do if the person you believed to have wronged you refused to submit to arbitration. Or, what if someone accused you of a crime you didn't commit -- why would you choose to submit to the hassle and expense of arbitration?
Well that's kind of my point - if you've voluntarily agreed to something like that then you're bound by it and force can be used at that point. It's like a contractual obligation. If someone accused me of a crime I didn't commit...well that depends completely on the situation. If we were both bound by a voluntary contract then I would have to submit to the hassle of arbitration but not necessarily the expense. Dispute resolutions organizations in a voluntary could be funded in much the same way as insurance.
-
In the sense of a "right to life" no, I think that the right of a human to their life is an innate one based on the nature of human beings. We are animals, I agree, but there is a big difference in that we can choose whether or not to infringe upon another's life whereas animals are driven by instinct and need to do so in order to survive. It's different with humans. The belief that it's innate is a belief of course, and I understand that not everyone agrees with it, but I think it's sound in principle.
You're saying it's innate, but it's also a belief. What objective evidence is there that it is innate?
Well that's kind of my point - if you've voluntarily agreed to something like that then you're bound by it and force can be used at that point. It's like a contractual obligation. If someone accused me of a crime I didn't commit...well that depends completely on the situation. If we were both bound by a voluntary contract then I would have to submit to the hassle of arbitration but not necessarily the expense. Dispute resolutions organizations in a voluntary could be funded in much the same way as insurance.
Presumably I can leave a voluntary anarchic community at any time? If I choose to leave rather than submit to arbitration, where does that leave the person who was defrauded?
-
You really thing that's why businesses won't accept you paying them in silver or gold, or pork bellies or whatever? No, it's because fiat currency has massive advantages over bartering commodities and it far less hassle.
Less hassle yes, because it's a forced currency. What are the advantages though? I'm not aware of any. Is the ability to easily print more money, devalue currency, control interest rates, etc. really an advantage to you?
If you're using a fiat currency then part of the deal is you pay taxes on your earnings. Don't like it? Good luck getting paid in something else. Imprisonment is the last consequence in a long chain of things before it gets to that point. If you stubbornly and foolishly refuse to pay taxes while still taking advantage of the system provided to you by tax income then that's really your own fault.
Yea but isn't that the point - I don't have a choice. In any of those things.
Oh stop being deliberately obtuse. The fact is that it's taxpayer money that funds those things, which is the crux of it. If you weren't being taxed you'd have to pay for those things yourself, or go without - both scenarios would work leave the majority of people worse off, except the very wealthy. That's what's meant by government-provided.
How is what I've said obtuse? How is the ability of an individual to voluntarily fund and benefit from what makes sense for them worse off for everyone except the very wealthy? In a non-corporatist free market world, there is a market for everyone, no matter their wealth (and the concept of wealth is arbitrary anyway, because currency isn't forced and therefore comes about naturally). Since markets aren't controlled or corrupted, win/win exchanges are more likely occur i.e. I have $1 (or whatever currency), you have a pen, I would prefer to have the pen and you prefer to have the dollar. Win/win.
Have you ever actually been outside the US, keyboardlover? If you'd ever been somewhere like Nigeria or the Ivory Coast where government regulation is much weaker, I think you'd realise how massively advantageous it is to have a government that does regulate industry.
I've traveled to 4 continents and 7 countries outside the USA, so yes. I haven't been to Africa but two of my cousins have and a couple other friends too. I know quite a bit about Africa. An unfortunate continent which has been raped by statism for natural resources for decades. And filled with LOTS of government. I understand all too well how corruption works.
So you'd prefer a system where people voluntarily agree you have the right to life, but are free to choose to not believe you have that right? Whilst in the evil old Statist society your right to life is "shoved down somebody's throat using a monopoly on violence" - which in reality would be the police trying to prevent/arrest your murderer and the judicial system trying and sentencing him. What would the alternative to that be in your non-"monopoly on violence" society be that's so much better? Vigilantes and lynch mobs?
Isn't that the whole point though - only in statism can an actual belief be forced upon another person. I don't need my right to life to be forced on any one else, because I know I have the right to protect it. Vigilantes and lynch mobs are pretty much the way the corrupt system works now. Would people be able to arm themselves in my world and protect themselves as they see fit? Certainly, but there is no monopolized system of violence forcing a "might makes right" mentality on everyone. People would continue to self-organize and deal with each other as they saw fit/made sense for them.
You're saying it's innate, but it's also a belief. What objective evidence is there that it is innate?
The fact that I'm alive.
Presumably I can leave a voluntary anarchic community at any time? If I choose to leave rather than submit to arbitration, where does that leave the person who was defrauded?
Well you'd still be bound by your original obligation wouldn't you? The idea isn't that everyone can do whatever they want; they just self-organize voluntarily.
-
Ok, sorry then gender-unknown squirrel. I haven't dug any hole though...my point has already been proven. If you have arguments then raise them.
That would be gender-irrelevant, really, but it's labouring the point.
As for /your/ point, I fail to see what it is, let alone any proof of it's correctness. All I see is assertions that your worldview is correct, and labelling those who attempt to argue any one of those assertions as trolls. I'm feeling relatively indulgent, though, so I'll assume you're merely young and idealistic (I've been there myself, as, I suspect, has Malphas) as opposed to any of the other obvious reasons.
As an aside, you brought up Orwell's "1984" in passing earlier; it's probably worth reading "Homage to Catalonia" to understand *why* he wrote it (and "Animal Farm", amongst other works). It's also worth reading in order to understand the likely outcome of a truly anarchist state.
Anyway. Let's have a look at your argument, as I see it. Please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood.
- The machinery of state, in any form, is inherently corrupt and based on the forcible and violent subjugation of the citizenry.
So, let's look at the machinery of state.
Fiscal policy and state-controlled currencies. Looking at things with the bitter and jaded eye of a 40+ year old radical left-winger, I see fiscal policy outside of the US, being more or less controlled by "the markets", the effectively unregulated (at least at an individual state level) embodiment of of the capitalist zero-sum-game. Try asking a Greek or a Spaniard how much control their government has on fiscal policy, for example. And the Euro itself is controlled t an extra-state level; it's not the only one. Even without that outlook, I see no realistic "other option" to a state-controlled fiscal policy, a baseline to relative value. As for currencies, you are perfectly free to use one, multiple, or none at all. Bartering still works admirably at a low level, although you may find it hard to barter for a new SUV with eggs laid by your chickens; commerces /will/ insist on using those pesky baselines. That said, you're free to live outside the system, although doing so may require certain sacrifices.
State-supplied healthcare funded by taxes extorted from the masses at gunpoint. I assume your "other option" is "Pay or don't get treated". Ignoring the irony that doing so would involve using the hated state-controlled currency, I fail to see that "If you're poor you die" is in any way humane. You /were/ arguing that the state is inhumane, right?
System of law, and means of policing it, again, funded by taxes ... Again, as a radical left-winger (some way to the left of the Communist party, if truth be told), I've had a certain amount of "contact" with the sharp end of the legal systems of the UK and several other European states. I somehow managed not to get bothered by the US police. Oddly enough, I managed not to be tortured, wrongfully imprisoned (or, at least, not for long), or executed. The courts showed themselves to be decent institutions based on upholding the law, and not on petty political point-scoring. I didn't even get guns waved at me. However, when I've needed them, the police (at least in the UK, France and the US) have shown themselves to be at least helpful, and in certain cases effective and even, in one case (although probably by accident) efficient. Admittedly, my "white" status has meant that I don't have to deal with the levels of police racism my asian friend did, but even that sorry incident had a happy outcome (2 rather unpleasant louts kicked off the 'force). Even putting aside the questions of how to police it, any society requires a consistent and globally applicable system of law, and I can't see any way of having that without somehow codifying the rules and putting in place some system for applying those rules. I can't see how such a system, even at some hypothetical "village assizes" level isn't going to end up looking like a piece of state machinery, to be honest. At some point it's going to end up /punishing/ people, after all.
There's more, obviously, but your eyes are probably glazing over at this point.
Yes, there are unjust and / or outdated laws. Yes, there are unjust taxes levied, and most tax systems are "porous" such that it's the poor that pay the most. Yes, there are , have been, and will be states which are utterly despicable. None of this, however, leads /even me/ to believe that this somehow means that the concept of "state' is universally wrong.
As for a "right to live", no, you don't have one. You're merely one insignificant cell in what amounts to a cancer on the planet. You weren't "born into slavery" either.
-
As an aside, you brought up Orwell's "1984" in passing earlier; it's probably worth reading "Homage to Catalonia" to understand *why* he wrote it (and "Animal Farm", amongst other works). It's also worth reading in order to understand the likely outcome of a truly anarchist state.
Actually I've read both and Homage to Catalonia is on my nightshelf as we speak. I'm very familiar with the anarchy in post-revolutionary Spain and in general Orwell spoke fondly of it. 1984 is a book about totalitarianism - I don't see any connection with Homage to Catalonia there...
Inb4 "pics or it didn't happen" ;) :P
(http://i.imgur.com/lAwIhhg.jpg)
Btw the other books here are good too.
Fiscal policy and state-controlled currencies. Looking at things with the bitter and jaded eye of a 40+ year old radical left-winger, I see fiscal policy outside of the US, being more or less controlled by "the markets", the effectively unregulated (at least at an individual state level) embodiment of of the capitalist zero-sum-game. Try asking a Greek or a Spaniard how much control their government has on fiscal policy, for example. And the Euro itself is controlled t an extra-state level; it's not the only one. Even without that outlook, I see no realistic "other option" to a state-controlled fiscal policy, a baseline to relative value. As for currencies, you are perfectly free to use one, multiple, or none at all. Bartering still works admirably at a low level, although you may find it hard to barter for a new SUV with eggs laid by your chickens; commerces /will/ insist on using those pesky baselines. That said, you're free to live outside the system, although doing so may require certain sacrifices.
The issues you raise about capitalism are really issues of corporatism; your corporatist/collectivist governments in Europe (just like my own) cannot exist without stealing from other people all the time. Just look at how Germany corrupted Greece; Siemens obtained nearly their entire infrastructure through bribery and now Germany is sucking the very life out of them. How am I free to live outside the system - where? On what land, and how can I claim it as mine?
State-supplied healthcare funded by taxes extorted from the masses at gunpoint. I assume your "other option" is "Pay or don't get treated". Ignoring the irony that doing so would involve using the hated state-controlled currency, I fail to see that "If you're poor you die" is in any way humane. You /were/ arguing that the state is inhumane, right?
My other option is don't force people to do anything, period. Will people die? Yes, death is part of life. I don't wish to legitimize it though, nor do I wish to legitimize force on anyone. I'm sure you'd agree that bad things happen with or without a state. I have accepted that life is filled with risk. But poverty and war are creations of statism; both are good for business and that's all a collectivist/corporatist government is ever concerned about: what is good for business. So of course people are kept poor by the current system but I'd like to actually give people a chance to be free to decide how best to take care of themselves because I don't know enough about anyone's individual situations in life, nor do you, to be able to make intelligent decisions about what changes should be made to them. I also don't agree with the belief that everyone wants to be rich, nor that no one wants to be poor. Poverty, by definition, is simply having less than another person, and some people are perfectly fine with that. As I'm sure you're aware, anarcho-socialism or syndicalism or communism all require force to keep people at the same level. I certainly don't believe that's the right way to treat people necessarily; at least when it's forced, it's what I call oppression of everyone. But if it's voluntary, I think it at least has the possibility of being a virtuous association. Same for anarcho-capitalism (or laissez-faire, or however you want to describe free market capitalism).
Even putting aside the questions of how to police it, any society requires a consistent and globally applicable system of law, and I can't see any way of having that without somehow codifying the rules and putting in place some system for applying those rules. I can't see how such a system, even at some hypothetical "village assizes" level isn't going to end up looking like a piece of state machinery, to be honest. At some point it's going to end up /punishing/ people, after all.
Yea but my point is that the choice to be involved should be a voluntary one; it shouldn't be forced. For instance, an anarcho-syndicalist factory can exist within voluntaryism, but not the other way around.
There's more, obviously, but your eyes are probably glazing over at this point.
Nope, I'm quite happy to debate with someone who is also well-versed in political theory.
Yes, there are unjust and / or outdated laws. Yes, there are unjust taxes levied, and most tax systems are "porous" such that it's the poor that pay the most. Yes, there are , have been, and will be states which are utterly despicable. None of this, however, leads /even me/ to believe that this somehow means that the concept of "state' is universally wrong.
Well, how do you define statism then? Perhaps we have different definitions.
-
The fact that I'm alive.
Yes, I agree. It doesn't follow however that your life should be protected. Can you justify it to me in objective terms?
Well you'd still be bound by your original obligation wouldn't you? The idea isn't that everyone can do whatever they want; they just self-organize voluntarily.
Bound by whom? I've left the community and I no longer agree to its rules. What if I flee to a community which refuses to allow me to be taken by whatever force your community musters? What if I am wronged by someone who is not part of a community?
-
The idea being that, if people do what's best for their wallet anyway, an independent one not corrupted by government has a greater chance of being virtuous in nature.
just droppin' in to say lol @ capitalism in an anarchist context
-
just droppin' in to say lol @ capitalism in an anarchist context
Well to that I'd say lol @ legitimization on a monopoly of force in an anarchist context - because that's what's required in leftist forms of anarchism in order to maintain it as such.
-
just droppin' in to say lol @ capitalism in an anarchist context
Well to that I'd say lol @ legitimization on a monopoly of force in an anarchist context - because that's what's required in leftist forms of anarchism in order to maintain it as such.
yeah that's capitalism bro
-
Yes, I agree. It doesn't follow however that your life should be protected. Can you justify it to me in objective terms?
I'm a human and human beings have the ability to make conscience decisions whether or not to violate another person's life. Therefore, if a human has the ability to choose whether or not to violate another human's right to life, that other human has a right to defend their life from that other human's conscious choice.
Bound by whom? I've left the community and I no longer agree to its rules. What if I flee to a community which refuses to allow me to be taken by whatever force your community musters? What if I am wronged by someone who is not part of a community?
Well in a voluntary association you'd still have to stay and fulfill your obligation...if you flee I don't see how that's different from if someone does that now. If you're wronged by someone who's not part of the community then it's up to you to figure out how to resolve that...I certainly don't know enough about your individual situation to be able to decide for you. But people DO resolve conflict on their own - and using outside help - voluntarily all the time in life anyway.
yeah that's capitalism bro
I don't think it means what you think it means. How is the concept of free-market capitalism a monopoly on force when there is the ability to have a market for anyone and anything? It's the complete opposite!
I like the way this kid puts it:
-
I'm a human and human beings have the ability to make conscience decisions whether or not to violate another person's life. Therefore, if a human has the ability to choose whether or not to violate another human's right to life, that other human has a right to defend their life from that other human's conscious choice.
This is still just an assertion. Can you explain how conscious decision making implies rights?
Well in a voluntary association you'd still have to stay and fulfill your obligation...if you flee I don't see how that's different from if someone does that now. If you're wronged by someone who's not part of the community then it's up to you to figure out how to resolve that...I certainly don't know enough about your individual situation to be able to decide for you. But people DO resolve conflict on their own - and using outside help - voluntarily all the time in life anyway.
So if my brother is murdered by someone who does not submit to my community, I have no recourse other than to hunt him down and ... kill him, I guess? And I have no means to discover and prove that he is in fact the murderer, or protection from his family's retribution?
-
Even putting aside the questions of how to police it, any society requires a consistent and globally applicable system of law, and I can't see any way of having that without somehow codifying the rules and putting in place some system for applying those rules. I can't see how such a system, even at some hypothetical "village assizes" level isn't going to end up looking like a piece of state machinery, to be honest. At some point it's going to end up /punishing/ people, after all.
Yea but my point is that the choice to be involved should be a voluntary one; it shouldn't be forced.
That's not going to work, though, is it?
After all, what's to stop me popping round to your place, killing you, and making off with your goods (or, indeed, claiming the place as my own)? Your neighbours might moan about it, but all I have to do is say "but I choose not to be involved in your rules" and be well-enough armed to hold them at bay.
Yes, there are unjust and / or outdated laws. Yes, there are unjust taxes levied, and most tax systems are "porous" such that it's the poor that pay the most. Yes, there are , have been, and will be states which are utterly despicable. None of this, however, leads /even me/ to believe that this somehow means that the concept of "state' is universally wrong.
Well, how do you define statism then? Perhaps we have different definitions.
No, I don't think we have different definitions. I just think your feelings on it are completely and unreconcilably at odds with reality.
I'll try again, without leaving you any wiggle room.
Yes, there are unjust and / or outdated laws. They are in the minority. Not all laws are unjust and / or outdated. On the whole, the system of law where I live is just.
Yes, there are unjust taxes levied. Again, they are in the minority, and overall the concept and implementation of taxation is more or less just.
Yes, the "golden rule" applies (he who has the gold, makes the rules) at least to taxation and in other areas as well. This is most certainly not just, but it is extra-state anyway, and would apply in your system as well. It's hard to apply rules at a state level to entities which exist at a level larger than the state itself, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do so.
Oh, yeah.
Poverty, by definition, is simply having less than another person
Bullhockey.
-
This is still just an assertion. Can you explain how conscious decision making implies rights?
Well rights can be based on voluntary belief or assertion, and that is my belief/assertion.
So if my brother is murdered by someone who does not submit to my community, I have no recourse other than to hunt him down and ... kill him, I guess? And I have no means to discover and prove that he is in fact the murderer, or protection from his family's retribution?
The NAP, IIRC, says that every individual has the right to protect their lives, the lives of their family, and property. The reality is that I don't know what your sense of justice is, nor anyone else, so I don't see how it is right for me or anyone else to assume what the correct course of justice/action should be in your circumstance. That's really up to you. But if you want my personal opinion, I think that's a horrible thing that happened,but I don't believe that two wrongs make a right.
-
I don't think it means what you think it means. How is the concept of free-market capitalism a monopoly on force when there is the ability to have a market for anyone and anything? It's the complete opposite!
I like the way this kid puts it:
'free market capitalism' get on my level dude, what are you even talking about?
that kid sounds like a smug jackass. 'teacher'?! blaming the government entirely for the financial crisis? i can't even handle this dude, talking about bigger pictures when he goes down to heckle anticapitalists after getting off work. keep on keeping on your system of force and telling yourself that capitalism is compatible with anarchism. you might as well have just posted a ron paul campaign video.
@hashbaz who says you have to retaliate?
-
That's not going to work, though, is it?
Sure it is.
After all, what's to stop me popping round to your place, killing you, and making off with your goods (or, indeed, claiming the place as my own)? Your neighbours might moan about it, but all I have to do is say "but I choose not to be involved in your rules" and be well-enough armed to hold them at bay.
Nothing, other than me at my home protecting myself. If you think police stop that from happening now...you oughta visit the city 30 min. from my home sometime. I believe a murder occurs every day there, and they employ a LOT of police. Drive around and you can see them all standing around outside, or getting coffee, doing absolutely nothing to stop crime.
Yes, there are unjust and / or outdated laws. They are in the minority. Not all laws are unjust and / or outdated. On the whole, the system of law where I live is just.
Yes, there are unjust taxes levied. Again, they are in the minority, and overall the concept and implementation of taxation is more or less just.
Yes, the "golden rule" applies (he who has the gold, makes the rules) at least to taxation and in other areas as well. This is most certainly not just, but it is extra-state anyway, and would apply in your system as well. It's hard to apply rules at a state level to entities which exist at a level larger than the state itself, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do so.
How is that an argument that leave me with no wiggle room? It's just your opinion on effectiveness of the state based on your life, your outlook and where you live. It's not objective at all! How would a person with a certain amount of wealth make the rules in my society, when my society doesn't even determine what wealth IS? Like I said, in voluntaryism, currency comes about naturally.
Bullhockey.
Check it yourself!
Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.
Do you have a different definition?
'free market capitalism' get on my level dude, what are you even talking about?
More info here, for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
You should learn the difference between capitalism and corporatism if you wish to make objective criticisms of either.
keep on keeping on your system of force and telling yourself that capitalism is compatible with anarchism. you might as well have just posted a ron paul campaign video.
But my belief doesn't legitimize force...if you're assuming it does, the burden of proof is now on you to prove as such. As I've said (and as the kid in the video correctly said too) all leftist forms of anarchism violate the NAP because they all require initiation of force in order to maintain society in a certain way.
-
Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.
Do you have a different definition?
A different one to the one provided by that arbiter of all things "truthyful", Wikipedia?
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/poverty
the state of being extremely poor
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/poverty
the state of being extremely poor
the state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount
Yes, I, and close to the entirety of the rest of the world, have a different definition of poverty to you. The line of what is poverty and what isn't varies, but most people tend to agree that it starts somewhere around the point where you can no longer provide essential things in life.
-
hahahaha arguing the definition of poverty with someone who steadfastly refuses to believe that capitalism can be practiced without the use of force on a societal scale?
this combination of points is hilarious
-
Ok, so then define "extremely poor". I agree with the definition "the state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount" - ok then, inferior to what? Insufficient to what? Is it not relative? Who determines so?
Yes, I, and close to the entirety of the rest of the world, have a different definition of poverty to you. The line of what is poverty and what isn't varies, but most people tend to agree that it starts somewhere around the point where you can no longer provide essential things in life.
Ok, so now you're redefining it. Ok, that's fine; we can go with that one. I agree that such a state is huge problem...that's why I want to end the belief in government which creates said problem.
hahahaha arguing the definition of poverty with someone who steadfastly refuses to believe that capitalism can be practiced without the use of force on a societal scale?
Prove how if you believe so.
-
Prove how if you believe so.
all of history forever
-
Prove how if you believe so.
all of history forever
...is not an argument.
-
all leftist forms of anarchism violate the NAP because they all require initiation of force in order to maintain society in a certain way.
I'd disagree with that, but even assuming it's true, free market capitalism requires the initiation of financial force, which can be every bit as unpleasant to be on the receiving end of as, if not more so than, physical force.
-
Prove how if you believe so.
all of history forever
...is not an argument.
can you find me a realistic example of capitalism not requiring the use of force outside of a hypothetical context?
-
I'd disagree with that, but even assuming it's true, free market capitalism requires the initiation of financial force, which can be every bit as unpleasant to be on the receiving end of as, if not more so than, physical force.
You're going to have to explain that one - what initiation of "financial" force? I don't think free markets work the way you think free markets work. They come about naturally...there is no initiation of force involved.
can you find me a realistic example of capitalism not requiring the use of force outside of a hypothetical context?
Answering a question with a question? Dude...
You argued that free market capitalism requires a monopoly on violence, now it's up to you to prove as such.
-
can you find me a realistic example of capitalism not requiring the use of force outside of a hypothetical context?
Answering a question with a question? Dude...
quit hiding behind the inadequacies of my debate technique and prove me wrong, dude.
-
quit hiding behind your superior logic and prove me wrong, dude.
So you want me to explain to you how free market capitalism works because you're too lazy to read up on something you're trying to argue against but know nothing about?
-
quit hiding behind your superior logic and prove me wrong, dude.
So you want me to explain to you how free market capitalism works because you're too lazy to read up on something you're trying to argue against but know nothing about?
no, i want you to convince me that free market capitalism can work, period, because i've read plenty about it and it's bull****.
-
no, i want you to convince me that free market capitalism can work, period, because i've read plenty about it and it's bull****.
If you're so well-versed then, please explain to me how a monopoly on force is required in free-market capitalism. You've already asserted it so I don't think I'm asking too much for you to prove your point. If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so, don't ask some other question or talk about something else beside the point to derail it.
-
Well rights can be based on voluntary belief or assertion, and that is my belief/assertion.
If they are voluntary, and assertions, then they are not objectively real or universal; they are useful conventions. So you agree with Malphas.
The NAP, IIRC, says that every individual has the right to protect their lives, the lives of their family, and property. The reality is that I don't know what your sense of justice is, nor anyone else, so I don't see how it is right for me or anyone else to assume what the correct course of justice/action should be in your circumstance. That's really up to you. But if you want my personal opinion, I think that's a horrible thing that happened,but I don't believe that two wrongs make a right.
I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, and that killing the (supposed) murderer of my brother won't make my family whole. Putting the revenge aspect aside, if there is no recourse for murder and theft, then murder and theft will increase. If there are no legitimate means to punish criminals that are not part of my voluntary community, then retaliatory violence and theft will also increase. War and chaos and social instability seem likely in a scenario like this.
@hashbaz who says you have to retaliate?
I don't -- but see my response to KL above.
-
no, i want you to convince me that free market capitalism can work, period, because i've read plenty about it and it's bull****.
If you're so well-versed then, please explain to me how a monopoly on force is required in free-market capitalism. You've already asserted it so I don't think I'm asking too much for you to prove your point. If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so, don't ask some other question or talk about something else beside the point to derail it.
i am not talking about how a monopoly on force is required in free-market capitalism. you can say that all you want. it's like saying lemonade is required in candyland. when i asked you to find me an example, i wanted to know if you actually knew of any 'truly' free-market systems that ever had any lasting success.
the point is the concept of a fully free market capitalist system is fallacious and incapable of sustaining a society of any meaningful size without corruption. that's how it always has been and if you stay stuck within a capitalist framework of economic theory, that's how it always will be.
-
If they are voluntary, and assertions, then they are not objectively real or universal; they are useful conventions. So you agree with Malphas.
Well no, Malphas asserted that they must be granted by a governing body.
I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, and that killing the (supposed) murderer of my brother won't make my family whole. Putting the revenge aspect aside, if there is no recourse for murder and theft, then murder and theft will increase. If there are no legitimate means to punish criminals that are not part of my voluntary community, then retaliatory violence and theft from the outside will also increase. War and chaos and social instability seem likely in a scenario like this.
There isn't "no recourse"; appropriate recourse is at the discretion of the individual. But in a voluntaryist world you can't assume that these evils will just naturally "multiply"...don't forget that things like education and force please a huge part in how we're raised and grow up and what we believe as adults. Most voluntaryists are proponents of things like peaceful leadership by example, peaceful education and peaceful parenting. Things like that have the power to completely change a society one association at a time.
-
You realise how utterly naive and fallacious that sort of utopian thinking is? All the proponents of every extremist system in history have used that argument, that everything would magically work out. Look at Soviet Communism and how that turned out for the most obvious example.
-
You realise how utterly naive and fallacious that sort of utopian thinking is? All the proponents of every extremist system in history have used that argument, that everything would magically work out. Look at Soviet Communism and how that turned out for the most obvious example.
yeah but the state, malphas. the state.
-
You realise how utterly naive and fallacious that sort of utopian thinking is? All the proponents of every extremist system in history have used that argument, that everything would magically work out. Look at Soviet Communism and how that turned out for the most obvious example.
Yea and look how the beliefs Gandhi and MLK Jr. taught (much of which learned from peaceful works written including Civil Disobediance by Thoreau) completely changed the way people thought about nonviolent protest, and literally changed history. Utopian? Not even close. Naive or fallacious? History proves otherwise. I'm not making some assumption like the world is going to turn into a paradise overnight and I never asserted such. Just that positive change comes from positive individual leadership by example, education, etc. Which...is...true!
-
Well no, Malphas asserted that they must be granted by a governing body.
Malphas said that they currently happen to be protected by the world's governing bodies, and that is why they "exist". Substitute voluntary anarchic community for state and you agree with him. The point is they only exist because we agree that they do. They are not innate.
There isn't "no recourse"; appropriate recourse is at the discretion of the individual.
I said no legitimate recourse, as in recourse to a system of justice as defined by my voluntary community. Going outside that system will lead to inconsistency and lawlessness and endless cycles of retaliation. Curbing those bad outcomes is exactly why systems of justice are created.
But in a voluntaryist world you can't assume that these evils will just naturally "multiply"...don't forget that things like education and force please a huge part in how we're raised and grow up and what we believe as adults. Most voluntaryists are proponents of things like peaceful leadership by example, peaceful education and peaceful parenting. Things like that have the power to completely change a society one association at a time.
...you assume, along with every other utopian dreamer. And how do you bootstrap that kind of thing starting from where we are?
-
yeah but the state, malphas. the state.
Sig-worthy ^^
-
Malphas said that they currently happen to be protected by the world's governing bodies, and that is why they "exist". Substitute voluntary anarchic community for state and you agree with him. The point is they only exist because we agree that they do. They are not innate.
Sure they are. Innate means "originating in the mind".
I said no legitimate recourse, as in recourse to a system of justice as defined by my voluntary community. Going outside that system will lead to inconsistency and lawlessness and endless cycles of retaliation. Curbing those bad outcomes is exactly why systems of justice are created.
Yea, but so what? I didn't say there's no justice in my world; only those which are voluntarily agreed to. If you don't agree to it and you do bad things, fine, but everyone else has the right to protect themselves and choose how to interact with you so it will be self-defeating for you anyway.
...you assume, along with every other utopian dreamer. And how do you bootstrap that kind of thing starting from where we are?
I've addressed the "utopian" and "dreamer" part of your assumption in my post above where I correctly link these beliefs to historical proof. How do you bootstrap it? Now we're getting somewhere. Change has to start with the individual. There are lots of awesome movements and education happening right now. For instance things like the Free State Project in New Hampshire or the Blue Ridge Project in NC are really cool. As Gandhi said, you have to be the change you wish to see in the world.
-
Sure they are. Innate means "originating in the mind".
in·nate
/iˈnāt/
Adjective
1Inborn; natural.
2Originating in the mind.
innate CAN mean that.
-
Ok, so if we don't agree with one definition let's pick one we can agree on.
This is called "voluntaryism in action" :D
As is this thread, as is Geekhack itself!
-
Sure they are. Innate means "originating in the mind".
Don't be pedantic. I've asked you to provide evidence that they exist objectively, and you fell back on "it's my belief". I take that as an admission that you agree that they only exist in the sense that we agree to respect them.
Yea, but so what? I didn't say there's no justice in my world; only those which are voluntarily agreed to. If you don't agree to it and you do bad things, fine, but everyone else has the right to protect themselves and choose how to interact with you so it will be self-defeating for you anyway.
I'm just trying to understand your position and point out ways in which centralized authority makes sense. I've said why it seems to me that war and chaos seem more likely under an anarchic system than the current one.
Feel free to jump in with your thoughts on this, sth.
I've addressed the "utopian" and "dreamer" part of your assumption in my post above where I correctly link these beliefs to historical proof. How do you bootstrap it? Now we're getting somewhere. Change has to start with the individual. There are lots of awesome movements and education happening right now. For instance things like the Free State Project in New Hampshire or the Blue Ridge Project in NC are really cool. As Gandhi said, you have to be the change you wish to see in the world.
Referencing Gandhi and MLK does not qualify as historical proof that your position is correct.
-
Don't be pedantic. I've asked you to provide evidence that they exist objectively, and you fell back on "it's my belief". I take that as an admission that you agree that they only exist in the sense that we agree to respect them.
Well you didn't seem to like my logic about the nature of human life itself so...that's what I "believe" so it can arguably be "innate" in either way.
I'm just trying to understand your position and point out ways in which centralized authority makes sense. I've said why it seems to me that war and chaos seem more likely under an anarchic system than the current one.
I get that and appreciate that, but...you're wrong :)
Anarchy isn't chaos and it doesn't mean there are no rules - simply no rulers.
Feel free to jump in with your thoughts on this, sth.
Why? I'm still waiting for sth to explain how he feels either a monopoly of or initiation of force are necessary in free market capitalism. "YOU explain how it works" or "Because it is" are not arguments.
Referencing Gandhi and MLK does not qualify as historical proof that your position is correct.
So, do you not agree that positive education and leadership by example bring positive change? What exactly don't you agree with?
-
Well you didn't seem to like my logic about the nature of human life itself so...that's what I "believe" so it can arguably be "innate" in either way.
That was not logic, it was assertion and non-sequitur. All ideas originate in the mind, so using "innate" in that sense is a no-op. I asked you to provide evidence of the objective or absolute existence of the right to life, and you came back with "I live!". I pressed you further and you said "people agree on it". That is exactly what Malphas and I have been saying.
I get that and appreciate that, but...you're wrong :)
Anarchy isn't chaos and it doesn't mean there are no rules - simply no rulers.
Yes I get that. I'm saying that without a central, multi-community system of justice, war and chaos will result from vendettas and retaliation among individuals. I'm saying that the rulerless rules that you have described seem inadequate to me. Can you explain why I'm wrong?
So, do you not agree that positive education and leadership by example bring positive change? What exactly don't you agree with?
I disagree that positive education and leadership by example will cure all ills and solve the problem of crime and retaliatory escalation, as you implied it would when you brought it up. Education can and does bring positive change, sure, but it's not magic. Lots of people have tried setting up utopian experiments. Are you aware of any that have succeeded?
-
That was not logic, it was assertion and non-sequitur. All ideas originate in the mind, so using "innate" in that sense is a no-op. I asked you to provide evidence of the objective or absolute existence of the right to life, and you came back with "I live!". I pressed you further and you said "people agree on it". That is exactly what Malphas and I have been saying.
Yea but I also said that the nature of human beings is that they have the choice whether or not to violate another's right to life. Do you agree with that or not? If you do I theorize that, based on this, other humans have a right to protect their right to live. Do you agree with that or not?
Yes I get that. I'm saying that without a central, multi-community system of justice, war and chaos will result from vendettas and retaliation among individuals. I'm saying that the rulerless rules that you have described seem inadequate to me. Can you explain why I'm wrong?
Well yea; what you just described is actually the current state of affairs. What we have NOW is war and chaos everywhere at all times resulting not only from vendettas and retaliation but from a struggle for global power, caused by statism. Individuals don't wage war...governments do. I agree that Voluntaryism is not a cure for evil and never asserted such; only that statism is a belief in the legitimization as such. However if you'd like a real-life example, post-revolutionary Spain was a very peaceful and egalitarian anarchist society for nearly 3 years before being destroyed by force.
I disagree that positive education and leadership by example will cure all ills and solve the problem of crime and retaliatory escalation, as you implied it would when you brought it up. Education can and does bring positive change, sure, but it's not magic. Lots of people have tried setting up utopian experiments. Are you aware of any that have succeeded?
When did I say it would "cure all ills"? In fact I said the opposite; I said that it would not. The only thing I assert (and I believe correctly) is that it's a step in the right direction and has the ability to bring about positive change. Who said anything about magic? And who said anything about a "UTOPIA"? That's the whole point of voluntaryism; one man's utopia is another man's hell. One person's utopia is filled with cocaine and hookers, another's is a quiet spot on a beach with a library of old books. The entire concept of utopia is entirely subject to that of any individual.
-
Why? I'm still waiting for sth to explain how he feels either a monopoly of or initiation of force are necessary in free market capitalism. "YOU explain how it works" or "Because it is" are not arguments.
okay, you're either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding my rhetoric here.
how can i make myself clearer? what i am saying is that there is no historical or other non-hypothetical case in which a capitalist free market can exist, let alone without the use of force, because capitalism is an economic system predicated entirely on force and coercion.
i think you are jumping to the conclusion that good will and 'voting with your dollar' are enough to prevent corruption on any scale, let alone a capitalist system large enough to provide goods/services for a large population. what i am saying is that that has never been proven to be the case, and cannot be because of the 'inherent' nature of capitalism.
i reconcile this the same way i reconcile the lack of anarchism in the world today; it's a personal philosophy for me that informs the decisions i make, not a system of beliefs that i think everybody must follow. otherwise i would be using the same rationale for coercion that states use -- 'it's good enough for almost everybody, and if it's not good enough for you then tough, dems da breaks'.
-
Yea but I also said that the nature of human beings is that they have the choice whether or not to violate another's right to life. Do you agree with that or not? If you do I theorize that, based on this, other humans have a right to protect their right to live. Do you agree with that or not?
Humans can choose whether or not to kill another human, yes. Humans can also choose to protect themselves. Animals can do both of these things too. It does not follow that you have a "right" to protect yourself, i.e., that you will be held blameless for killing another rather than being killed yourself. That is a judgment external to the reality of people harming each other. I agree that it is a useful judgment, but it is not implied naturally. In an anarchic system you could imagine that not everyone would agree with it and thus, not be bound by it.
Well yea; what you just described is actually the current state of affairs. What we have NOW is war and chaos everywhere at all times resulting not only from vendettas and retaliation but from a struggle for global power, caused by statism. Individuals don't wage war...governments do. I agree that Voluntaryism is not a cure for evil and never asserted such; only that statism is a belief in the legitimization as such.
This is a dodge. I asked you to explain why crime and vendetta escalation would not increase when crimes committed by out-of-community individuals are essentially unpunishable except by tracking down the supposed perpetrators myself.
However if you'd like a real-life example, post-revolutionary Spain was a very peaceful and egalitarian anarchist society for nearly 3 years before being destroyed by force.
I will look it up.
When did I say it would "cure all ills"? In fact I said the opposite; I said that it would not. The only thing I assert (and I believe correctly) is that it's a step in the right direction and has the ability to bring about positive change. Who said anything about magic? And who said anything about a "UTOPIA"? That's the whole point of voluntaryism; one man's utopia is another man's hell. One person's utopia is filled with cocaine and hookers, another's is a quiet spot on a beach with a library of old books. The entire concept of utopia is entirely subject to that of any individual.
I asked you about retaliation escalation and you responded with "it won't be an issue due to education and leadership". Sounds magical and utopian to me. Context:
Putting the revenge aspect aside, if there is no recourse for murder and theft, then murder and theft will increase. If there are no legitimate means to punish criminals that are not part of my voluntary community, then retaliatory violence and theft from the outside will also increase. War and chaos and social instability seem likely in a scenario like this.
There isn't "no recourse"; appropriate recourse is at the discretion of the individual. But in a voluntaryist world you can't assume that these evils will just naturally "multiply"...don't forget that things like education and force please a huge part in how we're raised and grow up and what we believe as adults. Most voluntaryists are proponents of things like peaceful leadership by example, peaceful education and peaceful parenting. Things like that have the power to completely change a society one association at a time.
-
To me, a lot of this thread seems to boil down to belief and idealism vs reality. That makes it feel like this never-ending spiral that has no answer.
-
Humans can choose whether or not to kill another human, yes. Humans can also choose to protect themselves. Animals can do both of these things too. It does not follow that you have a "right" to protect yourself, i.e., that you will be held blameless for killing another rather than being killed yourself. That is a judgment external to the reality of people harming each other. I agree that it is a useful judgment, but it is not implied naturally. In an anarchic system you could imagine that not everyone would agree with it and thus, not be bound by it.
I don't agree that animals can choose either - their lives are driven by instinct. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between human beings and other animals which is the cognitive ability to reason. We are not driven by instinct in the same way they are. The whole point of voluntaryism is that everyone need not be bound by any prescribed method of governance; they are free to associate in the ways that make sense for them.
This is a dodge. I asked you to explain why crime and vendetta escalation would not increase when crimes committed by out-of-community individuals are essentially unpunishable except by tracking down the supposed perpetrators myself.
Agreed :)
I would have provided a more thorough answer but it was dinner time...sorry about that :P
So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen because everyone at that point is truly their first line of defense; no one is depending on an ineffective system of policing to protect them. "Call 9-11 and Die" is a good book about how police, in reality, are entirely ineffective at protecting people from crimes and stopping them from happening. It is much easier to agress upon and coerce an individual which doesn't have a good voluntary way of protecting themself, than one who has.
I will look it up.
Thanks; I found it super interesting. Here's some other good info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
I asked you about retaliation escalation and you responded with "it won't be an issue due to education and leadership". Sounds magical and utopian to me.
I didn't say it wouldn't be an issue; rather that positive education are a step in the right direction. And, they are among many tools which can be instrumental in creating social change. For proof of this, simply look at how many people believe that anarchy is chaos, and that government is order. That is what most people are raised to believe.
-
However if you'd like a real-life example, post-revolutionary Spain was a very peaceful and egalitarian anarchist society for nearly 3 years before being destroyed by force.
I will look it up.
And you'll probably discover when you look at it objectively that it wasn't all as rosy as keyboardlover tries to make out it is. To claim that there wasn't coercion, force and the threat of violence as well as actual violence in the anarchist state following the Spanish Revolution is to outright lie. People that didn't co-operate with collectivisation were lined up and shot. I suspect keyboardlover has been reading more biased Anarchist literature on the topic rather than history books though.
-
Hey man, that's not fair. Earlier in the thread I said very specifically that all forms of leftist anarchism violate the NAP because they depend on force and Spain was no different. I never said it was "rosy", but it IS true that the society created was very egalitarian in nature...fair enough about the "peaceful" part though. But then, I never said violence would be non-existant without government...
And anyway, the argument can be made that the violence is inherently less BECAUSE there is no war like that which is waged by government all the time.
-
I don't agree that animals can choose either - they're lives are driven by instinct. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between human beings and other animals which is the cognitive ability to reason. We are not driven by instinct in the same way they are. The whole point of voluntaryism is that everyone need not be bound by any prescribed method of governance; they are free to associate in the ways that make sense for them.
This is a side point. I'll give you that animals have no ability to choose in any matter. It still doesn't follow that human choice implies rights.
I didn't say it wouldn't be an issue;
So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen
Utopia.
-
Utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
-
I'm glad we agree.
-
So in what way did I describe or advocate for utopia? I've acknowledged many times at this point that there is nothing perfect about voluntaryism or about human interaction at all - that's the whole point of voluntaryism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of a utopia.
-
I asked you about crime and escalation of vendettas. Your utopian response is that it won't be an issue. I call bull****.
-
Dude, please quote where I said it wouldn't be an issue. My response was not utopian in nature at all.
How is saying something is less likely to happen and providing evidence for such a "utopian" response?
So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen because everyone at that point is truly their first line of defense; no one is depending on an ineffective system of policing to protect them. "Call 9-11 and Die" is a good book about how police, in reality, are entirely ineffective at protecting people from crimes and stopping them from happening. It is much easier to agress upon and coerce an individual which doesn't have a good voluntary way of protecting themself, than one who has.
-
So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen
-
Right, and then I explained why. How is that "Utopian"?
So, I would argue that the nature of a voluntary society is that what you're talking about isn't likely to happen because everyone at that point is truly their first line of defense; no one is depending on an ineffective system of policing to protect them. "Call 9-11 and Die" is a good book about how police, in reality, are entirely ineffective at protecting people from crimes and stopping them from happening. It is much easier to agress upon and coerce an individual which doesn't have a good voluntary way of protecting themself, than one who has.
-
Right, and then I explained why. How is that "Utopian"?
Utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
You're imagining away a set of real problems that every society in the history of human civilization has had to deal with.
Edit: to elaborate, your explanation is that everyone will be their own defense. That is a premise of my argument. Please explain why my conclusion is incorrect.
-
You're imagining away a set of real problems that every society in the history of human civilization has had to deal with.
Oh no no, I never "imagined" them away. I believe very much that a voluntary society will be imperfect and have violence, simply because humans participate in it. In fact MY idea of a Utopia wouldn't even have humans in it, since humans are imperfect by their very nature. The point is that the nature of a voluntary society itself is one which, for very real and tangible reasons, would have nowhere near the scale of violence as a statist society, because such violence isn't legitimized and everyone is truly their first line of defense and has the ability to voluntarily protect themselves in the way they see fit. There is nothing "utopian" - there are very real arguments. I never imagined anything away.
Edit: to elaborate, your explanation is that everyone will be their own defense. That is a premise of my argument. Please explain why my conclusion is incorrect.
Because people are less likely to agress or coerce upon an individual or group of individuals who can adequately protect themselves. I thought I made that point earlier.
-
Deterrence will only get you so far. The fact that everyone is armed will not stop crime, as you yourself say. When something bad happens, the reaction will be to seek revenge. Then revenge will be sought in turn by the original perpetrators (or those perceived by the victims to be the perpetrators), and so on.
A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.
-
A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.
the realistic possibility of that happening is... debatable at best :))
-
The point is that the nature of a voluntary society itself is one which, for very real and tangible reasons, would have nowhere near the scale of violence as a statist society, because such violence isn't legitimized and everyone is truly their first line of defense and has the ability to voluntarily protect themselves in the way they see fit. T
That's just wishful thinking and distorting reality to suit your agenda though. There's no reason to believe that would be the case other than the reasoning in your own head. There's no actual evidence of that being the case whilst every example e.g. pre-statist society, and current stateless nations would indicate it's actually much more violence in that scenario. Of course you repeatedly like to dismiss the violence in other parts of the world as being the result of Imperialism/Statism when they're clearly not, so no doubt you'll just repeat yourself here again rather than analyse your argument.
-
Deterrence will only get you so far. The fact that everyone is armed will not stop crime, as you yourself say. When something bad happens, the reaction will be to seek revenge. Then revenge will be sought in turn by the original perpetrators (or those perceived by the victims to be the perpetrators), and so on.
A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.
...based on a a very incorrect assumption that everyone has the same sense of justice. So I would really disagree with that...how does a monopoly on arbitration short-circuit a cycle of revenge in a way that a voluntary society with individual protection and independent dispute-resolution would not? As soon as gang-bangers get out of jail their looking over their shoulder (and sometimes they don't even make it home or get killed in jail). I agree with you that revenge is an unfortunate part of society but I don't see how it would be more rampant in my world. Especially when putting people in cages isn't effective at stopping that. Nor do I wish to legitimize such aggression anyway...
That's just wishful thinking and distorting reality to suit your agenda though. There's no reason to believe that would be the case other than the reasoning in your own head. There's no actual evidence of that being the case whilst every example e.g. pre-statist society, and current stateless nations would indicate it's actually much more violence in that scenario. Of course you repeatedly like to dismiss the violence in other parts of the world as being the result of Imperialism/Statism when they're clearly not, so no doubt you'll just repeat yourself here again rather than analyse your argument.
Lol what? Tell me that more people were aggressed upon in say, Native American society or post-revolutionary Spain than in the Middle East due to statism in the past 3-8 years...
If you're going by body count bro it's not even going to be CLOSE.
Or how about all the innocent people our government and many others put in cages? How about our prison population? It's one of the largest in the world.
-
A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.
the realistic possibility of that happening is... debatable at best :))
Well then let's debate it. My view is that, apart from the effectiveness (or not) of a justice system, its mere existence deters vendettas, within reason. That is the core of my question to KL. If there's no system, then the _only_ recourse is revenge. That seems much more likely to escalate into vendetta.
-
Well then let's debate it. My view is that, apart from the effectiveness (or not) of a justice system, its mere existence deters vendettas, within reason. That is the core of my question to KL. If there's no system, then the _only_ recourse is revenge. That seems much more likely to escalate into vendetta.
Well if it worked, it would work. As it is, criminals don't seem to let laws or the system itself stop them from committing crime. I live about 30 min. away from a city in which a murder occurs nearly every day and the police and courts are doing absolutely nothing to stop or prevent crime. In fact, it's been getting worse every year. Actually, often times these folks are too afraid - either for their own lives or careers - to even get involved.
-
Lol what? Tell me that more people were aggressed upon in say, Native American society or post-revolutionary Spain than in the Middle East due to statism in the past 3-8 years...
If you're going by body count bro it's not even going to be CLOSE.
How about instead of cherry picking examples to suit your agenda (again) you compare the overall level of violence in society in Statist nations compared to examples where government influence is negligible. If you did that it's fairly obvious that lack of government and rule of law equates to more violence. Like I said, innocent people were lined up and shot in post-revolutionary Spain on flimsy pretences, Native American society obviously had war between tribes, etc. etc.
-
I'm not saying those things aren't bad, but how is that worse than, say, murdering 500,000 Iraqi children upon invading Iraq?
I mean how was an organization able to do that without recourse ANYWAY?
Because it was legitimized.
-
...based on a a very incorrect assumption that everyone has the same sense of justice. So I would really disagree with that...how does a monopoly on arbitration short-circuit a cycle of revenge in a way that a voluntary society with individual protection and independent dispute-resolution would not?
Because the monopoly holds the biggest stick in the room. Independent dispute resolution only works if both parties are willing to submit to its jurisdiction. The use of coercive force is required. And I don't see that being viable in a system of lots of independent voluntary communities.
As soon as gang-bangers get out of jail their looking over their shoulder (and sometimes they don't even make it home or get killed in jail). I agree with you that revenge is an unfortunate part of society but I don't see how it would be more rampant in my world. Especially when putting people in cages isn't effective at stopping that. Nor do I wish to legitimize such aggression anyway...
This is a fair point. No one is claiming that the current system is perfect. What I'm trying to get at is that if my only recourse is DIY justice, that will promote feuds in more cases than where we are forced to go through a third party. I remain unconvinced that independent conflict resolution organizations would be effective in cases of violent crime and outright theft (as opposed to disputes about things like neighborhood ordinances and petty cash disputes).
-
A central system of justice short-circuits this cycle as it gives consistent, impartial (if imperfect) recourse for those wronged.
the realistic possibility of that happening is... debatable at best :))
Well then let's debate it. My view is that, apart from the effectiveness (or not) of a justice system, its mere existence deters vendettas, within reason. That is the core of my question to KL. If there's no system, then the _only_ recourse is revenge. That seems much more likely to escalate into vendetta.
i was unclear; i bolded 'impartial' because i don't believe that to be a realistic possibility for any centralized justice system... simply because a centralized system means ignoring aspects outside of the 'center' (in the US that means white and middle class). case in point: our judicial system is absolutely classist (bank CEO? you're off scot-free! B&E and stole someone's Xbox? busted!) and racist (compare the sentences for powder cocaine and crack --until recently i believe-- , and then look at the usage demographics of those two substances).
-
Well if it worked, it would work. As it is, criminals don't seem to let laws or the system itself stop them from committing crime. I live about 30 min. away from a city in which a murder occurs nearly every day and the police and courts are doing absolutely nothing to stop or prevent crime. In fact, it's been getting worse every year. Actually, often times these folks are too afraid - either for their own lives or careers - to even get involved.
Again, your logic fails though. You can't use the fact crime still exists as evidence that the justice system isn't deterring crime because you're not able to count all the crimes not being committed as a result of it, only the ones that are committed regardless. There's also nothing that links this fact with the assertion that crime will be less in a system without a state judicial system. There's also real-world examples of where increased state police/judicial activity has had a measured effect on reducing crime, like New York from the 90's onwards.
-
i was unclear; i bolded 'impartial' because i don't believe that to be a realistic possibility for any centralized justice system... simply because a centralized system means ignoring aspects outside of the 'center' (in the US that means white and middle class). case in point: our judicial system is absolutely classist (bank CEO? you're off scot-free! B&E and stole someone's Xbox? busted!) and racist (compare the sentences for powder cocaine and crack --until recently i believe-- , and then look at the usage demographics of those two substances).
That's not correct - it has nothing to do with class; rather money. It goes back to my whole point that politicians always make decisions which benefit their wallets; they are controlled by corporatism. Simply ask yourself if the decisions being made are "good for business" and you will better understand how the system works.
Again, your logic fails though. You can't use the fact crime still exists as evidence that the justice system isn't deterring crime because you're not able to count all the crimes not being committed as a result of it, only the ones that are committed regardless. There's also nothing that links this fact with the assertion that crime will be less in a system without a state judicial system.
I didn't - I used the very obvious ineffectiveness of the system itself to prove my point. If it worked, it would work!
-
I'm not saying those things aren't bad, but how is that worse than, say, murdering 500,000 Iraqi children upon invading Iraq?
I mean how was an organization able to do that without recourse ANYWAY?
Because it was legitimized.
Right. You keep using wars as evidence of how statism is inherently evil. Yet you're conveniently neglecting to acknowledge the countries that aren't engaging in any wars, which indicates that it's not the system at fault at all, but individual governments. There's over a dozen nations that don't even have any sort of armed forces, let alone engaging in wars.
-
Right. You keep using wars as evidence of how statism is inherently evil. Yet you're conveniently neglecting to acknowledge the countries that aren't engaging in any wars, which indicates that it's not the system at fault at all, but individual governments. There's over a dozen nations that don't even have any sort of armed forces, let alone engaging in wars.
Ok, let's name them and if you like we can go one by one and describe in all the ways they are all nothing but violent monopolies of aggression.
Because the monopoly holds the biggest stick in the room. Independent dispute resolution only works if both parties are willing to submit to its jurisdiction. The use of coercive force is required. And I don't see that being viable in a system of lots of independent voluntary communities.
well yea, they're the biggest bully on the block; that's why they can essentially operate how they want. Enforcement of laws and arbitration are therefore subject to the discretion of the monopoly. That's an inherent form of oppression. It's, as I said, a monopoly on violence.
This is a fair point. No one is claiming that the current system is perfect. What I'm trying to get at is that if my only recourse is DIY justice, that will promote feuds in more cases than where we are forced to go through a third party. I remain unconvinced that independent conflict resolution organizations would be effective in cases of violent crime and outright theft (as opposed to disputes about things like neighborhood ordinances and petty cash disputes).
Well my point is that I have no idea what you're idea of justice is, nor anyone else, so I have no right to enforce any such idea upon you or another person.
-
i was unclear; i bolded 'impartial' because i don't believe that to be a realistic possibility for any centralized justice system... simply because a centralized system means ignoring aspects outside of the 'center' (in the US that means white and middle class). case in point: our judicial system is absolutely classist (bank CEO? you're off scot-free! B&E and stole someone's Xbox? busted!) and racist (compare the sentences for powder cocaine and crack --until recently i believe-- , and then look at the usage demographics of those two substances).
That's not correct - it has nothing to do with class; rather money. It goes back to my whole point that politicians always make decisions which benefit their wallets; they are controlled by corporatism. Simply ask yourself if the decisions being made are "good for business" and you will better understand how the system works.
oh my god dude do i really need to say 'economic class' instead of just 'class'
this is why nothing new ever comes out of these discussions
-
I didn't - I used the very obvious ineffectiveness of the system itself to prove my point. If it worked, it would work!
But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.
-
But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.
500,000 children dead in Iraq is one among MANY state crimes I'm comparing against. Where should I start dude - the Roman Empire? Syria? Lebanon? Iraq? Afghanistan? Palestine? Mexico? Hitler? Stalin? Mao?
These are all HUGE scale conflicts of full-on WAR caused by statism. Compared to individual disputes in the context of society (and especially a voluntary one) it doesn't even compare and to me that's quite obvious. Because it's a question of whether or not a monopoly on violence is being legitimized, which could only inherently be more dangerous than a lack thereof.
-
But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.
500,000 children dead in Iraq is one among MANY state crimes I'm comparing against. Where should I start dude - the Roman Empire? Syria? Lebanon? Iraq? Afghanistan? Palestine? Mexico? Hitler? Stalin? Mao?
These are all HUGE scale conflicts of full-on WAR caused by statism. Compared to individual disputes in the context of society (and especially a voluntary one) it doesn't even compare and to me that's quite obvious. Because it's a question of whether or not a monopoly on violence is being legitimized, which could only inherently be more dangerous than a lack thereof.
See, now you've changed subject - another dishonest tactic I accused you of and you denied. We were discussing the effectiveness of a state police and judiciary system on crime, which clearly means we're referring to individual, domestic crime and until this point that's the examples you were using (murder rate and such). And now that you're in a corner after being confronted with actual facts rather than your baseless assertions you've suddenly widened the topic to include wars and "state crimes" which are clearly a separate topic, even if you do want to classify them as crime (which is basically broadening the definition of the word crime to simply mean "bad stuff" rather than its proper definition).
-
See, now you've changed subject - another dishonest tactic I accused you of and you denied. We were discussing the effectiveness of a state police and judiciary system on crime, which clearly means we're referring to individual, domestic crime and until this point that's the examples you were using (murder rate and such). And now that you're in a corner after being confronted with actual facts rather than your baseless assertions you've suddenly widened the topic to include wars and "state crimes" which are clearly a separate topic, even if you do want to classify them as crime (which is basically broadening the definition of the word crime to simply mean "bad stuff" rather than its proper definition).
Dude, I'm not in a corner at all. At this point I'm completely confused as to what YOUR argument here even is at this point; I've addressed hashbaz's. But yea, of course what I've mentioned earlier is crime. So anyway, since I've admitted I'm confused at what your actual argument is, I would ask you to please clarify it in your next post and I will address it.
And what's truly dishonest debating is the kind of sidetracking, name-calling, and intimidation you've been doing throughout this entire thread and why I called you a troll in the first place. Claiming I'm "backed into a corner?" B**** please. You're one of the least effective debaters in this thread thus far, as far as I'm concerned.
-
well yea, they're the biggest bully on the block; that's why they can essentially operate how they want. Enforcement of laws and arbitration are therefore subject to the discretion of the monopoly. That's an inherent form of oppression. It's, as I said, a monopoly on violence.
All this is beside the point that I was trying to make.
Well my point is that I have no idea what you're idea of justice is, nor anyone else, so I have no right to enforce any such idea upon you or another person.
Sigh. More utopian thinking.
-
Sigh. More utopian thinking.
You agreed with me that a Utopia is a "perfect world" - so how is that Utopian thinking? I already told you that my idea of Utopia wouldn't have humans in it, since they're imperfect by nature. Recognizing the fact that everyone has a different sense of justice isn't "utopian"; it's a recognition of the reality of human society. It's a recognition of reality!
-
But you've failed to prove any obvious ineffectiveness. What are you measuring against? What level of crime statistics would you consider to indicate that it's effective? Zero? You can't give proper answers to these rudimentary questions because you actually can't prove anything and are working backwards and coming up with your conclusion first (that state control is ineffective at tackling crime) then framing the facts to suit that. You're failing to recognise the fact I just mentioned that state activity was responsible for reducing crime in New York from the 90's onwards. I called you out on ignoring and failing to address arguments before, which you flatly denied, yet here we are again with you doing it for the upteenth time.
500,000 children dead in Iraq is one among MANY state crimes I'm comparing against. Where should I start dude - the Roman Empire? Syria? Lebanon? Iraq? Afghanistan? Palestine? Mexico? Hitler? Stalin? Mao?
These are all HUGE scale conflicts of full-on WAR caused by statism. Compared to individual disputes in the context of society (and especially a voluntary one) it doesn't even compare and to me that's quite obvious. Because it's a question of whether or not a monopoly on violence is being legitimized, which could only inherently be more dangerous than a lack thereof.
Just because I'm curious, and looked it up, where are you getting that number from? Because seriously, where did you get that number from?
-
Just because I'm curious, and looked it up, where are you getting that number from? Because seriously, where did you get that number from?
It's pretty well-known. He's one source:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html
And the psychopath Madeleine Albright infamously said it was "worth it."
Of course when Ron Paul mentioned this in a Republican debate he was booed. Such a dangerous religion statism is...
-
You agreed with me that a Utopia is a "perfect world" - so how is that Utopian thinking? I already told you that my idea of Utopia wouldn't have humans in it, since they're imperfect by nature. Recognizing the fact that everyone has a different sense of justice isn't "utopian"; it's a recognition of the reality of human society. It's a recognition of reality!
Utopian in the sense that it's disconnected from the details of reality. "Sounds great in theory, but will never work."
-
Utopian in the sense that it's disconnected from the details of reality. "Sounds great in theory, but will never work."
According to the very definition of "Utopia" that doesn't fit but, regardless, I've provided examples of how these ideas can work.
-
Just because I'm curious, and looked it up, where are you getting that number from? Because seriously, where did you get that number from?
It's pretty well-known. He's one source:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html
And the psychopath Madeleine Albright infamously said it was "worth it."
Ahha, talking about a different state. Buuut that article also says phrases like "may have" and based it off a small study in a small portion of one city about malnutrition.
Also, a 23 second shock clip from a program that's been proven to embellish and edit to sensationalize? I expect better from you.
-
Utopian in the sense that it's disconnected from the details of reality. "Sounds great in theory, but will never work."
According to the very definition of "Utopia" that doesn't fit but, regardless, I've provided examples of how these ideas can work.
you have a pretty contentious track record of using accurate or commonly accepted definitions in this thread, many of which i and others have noted. just saying... that seems to be a huge issue when it comes to making your points to people who refer to those more commonly-accepted definitions of words.
-
Sth, you're literally the worst debater in this thread so far so don't get me started. You never answered my direct question as to why force is necessary in free-market capitalism. Think I forgot about that? I haven't.
Ahha, talking about a different state. Buuut that article also says phrases like "may have" and based it off a small study in a small portion of one city about malnutrition.
Also, a 23 second shock clip from a program that's been proven to embellish and edit to sensationalize? I expect better from you.
Sorry about that; I wasn't able to watch the video because I'm in a room with a bunch of people. Pick whichever one you prefer:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=madeleine+albright+deaths+of+500000+children&oq=madeleine+albright+deaths+of+500000+children&gs_l=youtube.3...425.4480.0.4701.26.26.0.0.0.0.107.1768.22j3.25.0...0.0...1ac.1.v2SBMRKEqtw
But that IS a direct quote from her and she definitely said it, regardless of source.
-
Dude, I'm not in a corner at all. At this point I'm completely confused as to what YOUR argument here even is at this point; I've addressed hashbaz's. But yea, of course what I've mentioned earlier is crime. So anyway, since I've admitted I'm confused at what your actual argument is, I would ask you to please clarify it in your next post and I will address it.
It's not difficult, keyboardlover. We were debating the effectiveness of state action on crime, we were clearly talking about the traditional definition of crime, that is groups and individuals violating the agreed upon principles of that society, codified into law. You used examples of the murder rate in a city near you and the fact crimes still occur as examples of how state action doesn't work, as well as implying crime would occur less in an anarchist society. I pointed out that fails to take account of the crimes not being committed as a result of state action that are impossible to calculate, as well as the example of New York's crime rate, which was severely decreased as a result of intensified state action. Faced with that argument, rather than continue that debate, you switched tact to include wars and civilian casualties of war, which while we can probably agree on being bad, are quite obviously outside the definition of crime for the purpose of that argument. If you deny that, then you're being even more dishonest. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
You're one of the least effective debaters in this thread thus far, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, but we all know "as far as [you're] concerned" is about as distanced from reality as you can possibly get, so that doesn't mean much.
-
Utopian in the sense that it's disconnected from the details of reality. "Sounds great in theory, but will never work."
According to the very definition of "Utopia" that doesn't fit but, regardless, I've provided examples of how these ideas can work.
No, it does fit in the sense that everyone else on the planet besides you uses that word.
-
Sth, you're literally the worst debater in this thread so far so don't get me started. You never answered my direct question as to why force is necessary in free-market capitalism. Think I forgot about that? I haven't.
Ahha, talking about a different state. Buuut that article also says phrases like "may have" and based it off a small study in a small portion of one city about malnutrition.
Also, a 23 second shock clip from a program that's been proven to embellish and edit to sensationalize? I expect better from you.
Sorry about that; I wasn't able to watch the video because I'm in a room with a bunch of people. Pick whichever one you prefer:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=madeleine+albright+deaths+of+500000+children&oq=madeleine+albright+deaths+of+500000+children&gs_l=youtube.3...425.4480.0.4701.26.26.0.0.0.0.107.1768.22j3.25.0...0.0...1ac.1.v2SBMRKEqtw
But that IS a direct quote from her and she definitely said it, regardless of source.
All that is is the same clip over and over. If she said it, fine she said it (insert psychopath and other angry words), but perhaps an entire interview? Or maybe unedited footage, as again, 60 min has cut/pastaed interviews to go with the bias they want to show for a specific segment.
Utopian in the sense that it's disconnected from the details of reality. "Sounds great in theory, but will never work."
According to the very definition of "Utopia" that doesn't fit but, regardless, I've provided examples of how these ideas can work.
No, it does fit in the sense that everyone else on the planet besides you uses that word.
I agree with the broad strokes of what KL wants (but can see why it hasn't/can't work long term on a large scale), but note that he also uses the word "can" not "does".
It's kinda like asking
"Can something work like this?"
"Sure"
"Does it?"
"No"
-
It's not difficult, keyboardlover. We were debating the effectiveness of state action on crime, we were clearly talking about the traditional definition of crime, that is groups and individuals violating the agreed upon principles of that society, codified into law. You used examples of the murder rate in a city near you and the fact crimes still occur as examples of how state action doesn't work, as well as implying crime would occur less in an anarchist society. I pointed out that fails to take account of the crimes not being committed as a result of state action that are impossible to calculate, as well as the example of New York's crime rate, which was severely decreased as a result of intensified state action. Faced with that argument, rather than continue that debate, you switched tact to include wars and civilian casualties of war, which while we can probably agree on being bad, are quite obviously outside the definition of crime for the purpose of that argument. If you deny that, then you're being even more dishonest. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Don't be "pedantic" Malphas. I already clearly expressed with state action on crime is ineffective. In regards to whether or not War is another type of crime - I think it's very much to the point. War is one of many examples of legitimized violence, much like that which is used in the police/arbitration system which you're defending. Which is entirely incompetent and ineffective at reducing or stopping actual crime for several reasons which I have already mentioned but will illustrate them again for you here:
1. Police take orders from politicians which are controlled by corporatism
2. Laws are always at the discretion of those in the monopoly on violence
3. Violence is rampant in society, and I gave an example of a major metropolitan city which I live near, which I have firsthand experience with (including police, courts, etc.)
Yes, but we all know "as far as [you're] concerned" is about as distanced from reality as you can possibly get, so that doesn't mean much.
On the contrary, refusing to back-up an assertion is a pretty bad way to debate but if you don't agree, it shows why you're in the "worst debaters" group with him and amphibian. Hashbaz, on the other hand, has this far been a very good debater IMO.
-
Sth, you're literally the worst debater in this thread so far so don't get me started. You never answered my direct question as to why force is necessary in free-market capitalism. Think I forgot about that? I haven't.
don't get you started on what? meet me at the finish line already. i can rephrase this all day, dude.
are you trying to insult me? take your debate skills and extract from my posts the points i continue to reiterate. i will not play your change-the-definitions game. recognize that not everybody uses the same rhetorical style and that one rhetorical style is not better than another, and that making those distinctions is a serious side-step when it comes to addressing the topics of discussion. it's not like i'm being unclear. quit getting meta and tell me why you think coercion is extricable from capitalism, and show me some examples to prove me wrong. it's not an issue of necessity, it's an issue of historical application. humans have been manipulating economies for thousands of years; we have a lot of anecdotal proof that capitalist societies are coercive and corrupt (just like every form of society), and pretty much no proof to the contrary. things can change but that is a dangerous idealism and 'should' logic is a weak way out.
you're no longer responding the content of my posts, attacking my 'debate skills' and then calling malphas pedantic. what can I even do at this point?
-
I agree with the broad strokes of what KL wants (but can see why it hasn't/can't work long term on a large scale), but note that he also uses the word "can" not "does".
It's kinda like asking
"Can something work like this?"
"Sure"
"Does it?"
"No"
Well it kind of already does though...the most important form of anarchism is the anarchism in your mind. You just need to know in your mind that the state doesn't exist to live that way. If you don't believe that you need to be governed then you need to live like you don't need to be governed. Treat people as you want to be treated. All the voluntaryists I know share this opinion, and all the statists I know seem to have some fascination with coercion and force that they believe it's the only way people can act with each other in life. But that's false and we know because we participate in perfectly peaceful voluntary associations NOW all the time. Like with our jobs, churches, private schools, restaurants, the INTERNET, etc. Why is a monopoly on violence necessary for these voluntary associations to function? I think that's what statists need to prove.
you're no longer responding the content of my posts, attacking my 'debate skills' and then calling malphas pedantic. what can I even do at this point?
You could start by putting your money where your mouth is providing me with a decent argument/explanation for WHY force is necessary in free market capitalism, which was your original argument which you never backed up. That's why I've been ignoring you. All the typical leftist arguments against capitalism (and I'm assuming yours as well) are really arguments against corporatism and I'm willing to bet that you have no idea what the difference is, like most leftists.
-
Well it kind of already does though...the most important form of anarchism is the anarchism in your mind.
(http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/mind-blown.gif)
-
Hashbaz, I giggled at that, but I hope you're not going to resort to trolling. Then I'll have to take you off my "best debater" list!
-
I figure I earn one troll for every three pages of legit discussion.
-
Fair enough :D
I can voluntarily agree to that ;)
-
Does owning a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook count?
Trolololol :D
-
Does owning a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook count?
Trolololol :D
Lol!
-
you're no longer responding the content of my posts, attacking my 'debate skills' and then calling malphas pedantic. what can I even do at this point?
You can't do anything. Pretty much any time a serious question has been raised, kl has either ignored it, evaded it, changed or expanded the subject, stated that it's self evident, claimed his "point has already been proven", or called the questioner a troll. It's like fighting cat farts.
Here's my opinion, just for the record. Keyboardlover's position is naïve at best, mere regurgitation of a mishmash of poorly thought out arse-dribble at worst. It's totally at odds with any objective reality.
I'm out.
-
You can't do anything. Pretty much any time a serious question has been raised, kl has either ignored it, evaded it, changed or expanded the subject, stated that it's self evident, claimed his "point has already been proven", or called the questioner a troll. It's like fighting cat farts.
None of that's true and for that I'm taking you off my best debater list. I responded to all your arguments very succinctly and you obviously can't argue your points better, so you're ragequitting. And you simply insult me on your way out...that's pathetic. I bet neither you nor sth have any idea of the real differences between capitalism and corporatism...it's very easy and lazy to use "capitalism" as your whipping boy since Karl Marx famously made it a dirty word. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you know anything about it.
Here's my opinion, just for the record. Keyboardlover's position is naïve at best, mere regurgitation of a mishmash of poorly thought out arse-dribble at worst. It's totally at odds with any objective reality.
I think if that were actually true, you'd be able to prove it rather than just say it. That's not debating; that's just lame.
-
I'm taking you off my best debater list
i'm sure tuffy will cry when he finds out.
-
Oh well. Just one more, then. I promised myself I wouldn't, and I know I shouldn't, but hey, what the hell.
i'm sure tuffy will cry when he finds out.
Tufty, as in the road safety squirrel, not tuffy. It's a long story.
I responded to all your arguments very succinctly
Yes, you responded to my comments, but you might as well have said "banana banana toothbrush" for all the relevance most of it had to the actual question raised. Part of the pattern of ignore / evade / redirect you've carried out through the thread.
you obviously can't argue your points better, so you're ragequitting.
No, I can't be bothered to beat my head against a wall. It's a pointless exercise that benefits neither the wall nor myself.
it's very easy and lazy to use "capitalism" as your whipping boy since Karl Marx famously made it a dirty word. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you know anything about it.
No, I know /nothing at all/ about it. After all, I only spent 25 years working in the financial sector; the London Stock Exchange, LIFFE (now NYSE Euronext), JP Morgan, HSBC / James Capel, a bunch of small companies specialising in swaps and derivatives trading software, so on and so forth. My speciality is pricing and detection of trading fraud in complex derivatives, but I've done a bunch of stuff to do with risk management and a fair amount of (mainly currency) arbitrage support work. If I could be arsed, I could give you something close to chapter and verse on on how absolutely wrong the concept of "free market" capitalism is, where the carefully-pasted-over flaws are. But I can't be arsed.
Here's my opinion, just for the record. Keyboardlover's position is naïve at best, mere regurgitation of a mishmash of poorly thought out arse-dribble at worst. It's totally at odds with any objective reality.
I think if that were actually true, you'd be able to prove it rather than just say it. That's not debating; that's just lame.
You're confusing opinion with statements of fact. The only one here qualified to comment on my /opinion/ is me. Stating "my opinion is x" is, if you believe me to be telling the truth, indeed proof that my opinion is x. It's not proof that x is true, although I personally believe it to be so.
Anyway, I'm off to weep over my striking-off from your best debater list.
-
All I see is more whining and no arguments.
Lol.
I think it's funny how you claim financial sector experience equates to knowledge of free market capitalism; yet it's really just knowledge of corporatism. I have a good friend who has a very similar background as you and is a staunch advocate of voluntaryism.
-
you're no longer responding the content of my posts, attacking my 'debate skills' and then calling malphas pedantic. what can I even do at this point?
You can't do anything. Pretty much any time a serious question has been raised, kl has either ignored it, evaded it, changed or expanded the subject, stated that it's self evident, claimed his "point has already been proven", or called the questioner a troll.
This is the Reader's Digest version for anyone just joining the thread and tl;dr.
-
According to the people unable or unwilling to properly debate me anyway. Lol.
And the official "tl;dr" for anyone interested is already updated in the OP.
I'm just guessing that all you folks are annoyed that my point was proven even in your arguments: that you believe violence and evil are necessary.
I have an idea for a movie about statism and leftist anarchism. It will be called "Violence: A Love Story".
-
Your "worst debaters" thing is just a childish, butthurt list of people who hurt your feelings/called you out on your BS though.
-
Not according to the last time I read through this thread, but we'll let the readers decide that wont we.
Hey, has anyone realized that GH is a voluntary association yet? And that all market transactions that take place on here are peaceful, nonviolent ones? It's SO WEIRD because it seems to defy all statist and leftist anarchist logic about violence being necessary for people to interact...
-
Except there are rules which apply to everyone, regardless of whether they agree or not (besides the checkbox when you join, which no-one reads and is mandatory to have membership), as well as administrators and moderators to enforce said rules. So it's actually much more similar to a Statist system.
-
No it isn't; I already said that voluntary associations have rules.
The only difference is whether the association is mandatory or not. Sure isn't mandatory on GH, lol!
You simply cannot HAVE a mandatory association without violence. With a voluntary association you don't need violence!
Hey what happens if someone screws me over on GH? Wat if I cannot get the justice I want???
Oops. Better quit Geekhack if you can't accept the fact that life is filled with risk!
-
http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=35467.msg788287#msg788287 (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=35467.msg788287#msg788287)
thread over. quit acting like an ******* dude.
-
Certainly proved my point though, didn't I?
And I didn't even need to resort to violence. IMPOSSIBRU!!!
-
Worth at least one watch.