Debunking statism: so easy a caveman can do it

[hashbaz]

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."

[keyboardlover]

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.

[tjcaustin]

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.

[sth]

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.

[keyboardlover]

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.

[Malphas]

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.

[Malphas]

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.

[tjcaustin]

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"

[keyboardlover]

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]

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?

[keyboardlover]

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.

[hashbaz]

Well it kind of already does though...the most important form of anarchism is the anarchism in your mind.

[keyboardlover]

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!

[hashbaz]

I figure I earn one troll for every three pages of legit discussion.

[keyboardlover]

Fair enough

I can voluntarily agree to that

[jdcarpe]

Does owning a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook count?

Trolololol

[keyboardlover]

Does owning a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook count?

Trolololol

Lol!

[tufty]

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.

[keyboardlover]

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.

[iri]

I'm taking you off my best debater list

i'm sure tuffy will cry when he finds out.

[tufty]

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.

[keyboardlover]

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.

[Malphas]

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.

[keyboardlover]

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".

[Malphas]

Your "worst debaters" thing is just a childish, butthurt list of people who hurt your feelings/called you out on your BS though.

[keyboardlover]

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...

[Malphas]

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.

[keyboardlover]

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!

[sth]

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=35467.msg788287#msg788287

thread over. quit acting like an ******* dude.

[keyboardlover]

Certainly proved my point though, didn't I?

And I didn't even need to resort to violence. IMPOSSIBRU!!!

[keyboardlover]

Worth at least one watch.