[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] squating_bear wrote:
I actually didn’t see the contradictions in that post. Point them out please?
[/quote]
At first you argued that a parity of force would allow anarchism to work. You then appear to back away from that statement. I also read your posts in the other thread and don’t know what to make of it. You claim all systems of government are anarchistic because they arise from a state of nature. That does not make any sense to me. Once a state of nature is overcome organised government is created.[/quote]
I am not very familiar with the term ‘state of nature’, and did not use it
Then what of a revolution? When organized gov’t is destroyed, is it back to this so called ‘state of nature’?
Then if this could ever happen, maybe the ‘state of nature’ was never completely overcome in the first place. Maybe it was just hiding in the shadows, biding it’s time.
People make a gov’t because they perceive the benefits will be bigger than the costs. People destroy gov’ts for the same reasons. This is how people make decisions, with or without gov’ts. Call it ‘the state of nature’ if you want, I call it ‘the decision making process’. Actually, no. Don’t call it ‘the state of nature’. If you want to make sense of it, I would recommend trying again instead thinking of ‘the decision making process’. Operating from a different set of assumptions is the reason the logic didn’t flow.
Or, depending on your perceptions of costs and benefits in trying this, it might not be worth your efforts
[quote]At first you argued that a parity of force would allow anarchism to work. You then appear to back away from that statement.[/quote]That wasn’t actually my argument, but ok. This was my first post
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Anarchy can only works if the means of violence are :
-evenly distributed
-reduced to zero
in any other cases, there will be a (weberian) State.
That’s the theory.
In practice, this means that anarchy became impossible the day someone invented the bow.
[/quote]
I think that the only thing anarchy needs in order to work well is that the people perceive that violence is not worth it
Same under any other system, actually
But in other systems, this perception is enforced by the largest/accepted/most organized force. For anarchy to work, this needs to not be necessary
An even distribution of force would probably accomplish this, I’m not so sure it’s the only way[/quote]
This is the part you quoted before, and we joked at. It is the most important part to me. If you could show this to be false, then that would be checkmate
I think this is the part you are now calling an argument
[quote]An even distribution of force would probably accomplish this, I’m not so sure it’s the only way[/quote]As I’ve hinted I am still in the brainstorming phase, there’s nothing to defend. I don’t think you’ve understood what I was saying about the distributions of force, but it’s more important to keep the right context. It was questions, not answers. I’ll share what I came with below