Anarchy

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Humans are humans, and our ancestors were kicked out of the garden.[/quote]

Are you speaking literally here? You believe this?

Do you mean to tell me that you waste every ounce of your intellectual capital on the hollow, simplistic boondoggle that is anarcho-capitalism…and then choose to believe that your every move–your every thought–is being watched and judged by a supreme and inescapable celestial authority?

[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.

The scale of conflict changes in the transition from the individual, to the domestic, and then to the systemic level of analysis, not the nature. The concept known as the security dilemma is at the root of the majority of human conflict. It is driven by unresolvable uncertainty, the ambiguous nature of weapons, and fear. Individuals as well as states live under its shadow.

The international political system is constituted by approximately 193 sovereign states. Global politics are underpinned by anarchy, as no overarching authority exists to regulate states behavior among one another. This has been a fact of international life since the creation of ancient Sumerian city-states. Thus, it can be called a self-help system in which might makes right and the use of force is the final argument between nations.

Anarchy applied to the domestic and individual levels of analysis would not result in a pluralistic and pacific confederation of human communities, but would only serve to greatly exacerbate the uncertainty and fear which hold the potential for the outbreak of armed conflict. 193 sovereign states would merely devolve into exponentially more micro states. The number of potential conflict dyads among actors would proportionally increase. Ergo, individual and domestic anarchy would lead to more conflict, not less.

Even if universal material parity was possible to attain, actors would not be satisfied with this. They would seek to maximize their power relative to that of their counterparts, because survival is their preeminent goal. This is true of individuals, clans, nations, and states.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Humans are humans, and our ancestors were kicked out of the garden.[/quote]

Are you speaking literally here? You believe this?

Do you mean to tell me that you waste every ounce of your intellectual capital on the hollow, simplistic boondoggle that is anarcho-capitalism…and then choose to believe that your every move–your every thought–is being watched and judged by a supreme and inescapable celestial authority?[/quote]

I was speaking literally, and I do believe it; however, “Humans are humans…” can stand on its own. Humans are flawed, and I can’t imagine anyone arguing with that point.

Christianity and libertarianism are not at all opposed to one another.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Humans are humans, and our ancestors were kicked out of the garden.[/quote]

Are you speaking literally here? You believe this?

Do you mean to tell me that you waste every ounce of your intellectual capital on the hollow, simplistic boondoggle that is anarcho-capitalism…and then choose to believe that your every move–your every thought–is being watched and judged by a supreme and inescapable celestial authority?[/quote]

I was speaking literally, and I do believe it; however, “Humans are humans…” can stand on its own. Humans are flawed, and I can’t imagine anyone arguing with that point.

Christianity and libertarianism are not at all opposed to one another.[/quote]

Libertarianism is to having a couple of drinks what anarchy is to alcoholism. You have failed to address the meat of any of my posts.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Humans are humans, and our ancestors were kicked out of the garden. A state solves no problems; it only gives one group of people a recognized power to do what it wants to others. Free societies will always be very temporary in nature. The statist believes that the rape victim is best off just trying to enjoy it. The libertarian believes she would be better off fighting back.

That’s what statism is all about-creating compliant victims.[/quote]

States condone sexual assault? Ok.

Address my criticisms of anarchy specifically if you can.

[/quote]

States condone anything that the state does. To say the passive acceptance of state aggression is superior to rebellion against such is the same as saying that a rape victim should just try to enjoy the act.

You have not made any criticisms which are changed by the existence of a state.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Libertarianism is to having a couple of drinks what anarchy is to alcoholism. You have failed to address the meat of any of my posts.
[/quote]

Do explain your first statement, and my response was obviously not to you(that’s why smh’s post was in the quote box).

[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

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Secondly, attritional warfare is overcome by mobility. So an inferiority in armaments can be overcome via tactics and attritional warfare can be overcome via mobility.[/quote]
But at the end of the day, it’s the general that makes these decisions based off of his perceptions

Or whatever guy at whatever rank. Reality be damned. It is his perception

If you actually had an exactly equal number of troops, ammo, intel, skill sets, etc. and you were only able to inflict a 1:1 attrition rate between your team and the enemy, and this was known by both sides before the beginning - do you actually think war would ensue?

and this was known by both sides before the beginning
and this was known by both sides before the beginning
and this was known by both sides before the beginning
and this was known by both sides before the beginning

if this was known by both sides before the beginning then this would only make sense to war if self love was less than the hate for the other

a perfect setup, just for you :slight_smile:

According to the (unrealistic) scenario I have laid out, war would be insane, but not impossible.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I wasn’t talking only armaments, I said [i]everything[/i].

EXACT eye for an eye. [/quote]
Also

MY eye for another mans eye is different from

my MENS eyes for other MENS eyes

Countries cannot analogize for individuals, not accurately. OR, if they can - only in a limited capacity on a specific issue, or in analyzing the effects of a specific variable. I’ll try to make a post more focused on this later

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The scale of conflict changes in the transition from the individual, to the domestic, and then to the systemic level of analysis, not the nature. The concept known as the security dilemma is at the root of the majority of human conflict. It is driven by unresolvable uncertainty, the ambiguous nature of weapons, and fear. Individuals as well as states live under its shadow.
[/quote]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

If you actually had an exactly equal number of troops, ammo, intel, skill sets, etc. and you were only able to inflict a 1:1 attrition rate between your team and the enemy, and this was known by both sides before the beginning - do you actually think war would ensue?

[/quote]

If two chess players had an equal number of pieces and were equally skilled do you think they’d play each other? It’s a nonsense supposition anyway for the reasons I’ve already explained.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

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.

[/quote]

The fact that you’ve never heard of the state of nature reveals that you have never studied basic political philosophy. And whether or not a state of nature is ‘hiding in the shadows’ is a personification - a figure of speech that has absolutely no relevance to the concepts we’re discussing.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

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.

[/quote]

The fact that you’ve never heard of the state of nature reveals that you have never studied basic political philosophy. And whether or not a state of nature is ‘hiding in the shadows’ is a personification - a figure of speech that has absolutely no relevance to the concepts we’re discussing.[/quote]
I’ve never studied philosophy, period. Except for some economics, if that counts, maybe

I have heard of the state of nature, but it’s not a term I am familiar enough with to use to describe my own thoughts on something. Or if someone else says they can’t understand what I typed because it doesn’t fit with there concept of a state of nature - then it is the past learnings of that individual which he allows to block him from understanding - what I wrote makes sense. What I lack in book smarts I can make up for elsewhere

This particular branch of discussion started with my view of anarchy

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]

Lets either hold the state of nature aside for now, or you can explain what the problem was.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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. [/quote]I didn’t actually say this. Can you explain the problem in more detail?

This reminds me of a thing I hear from anarchists and libertarians sometimes which to me just sounds stupid. They say a gov’t is a monopoly on the use of force. Tell that to the kid who punched me in the stomach back when I was in second grade. People hear a cool sounding thing someone said and it sticks in their mind, but I think when the first guy said it, it probably made sense. I wikipedia’ed state of nature as soon as you said it, and many people have said many things on it. I’m better off without even my own limited misunderstandings, you would have to have explained anyways

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

If you actually had an exactly equal number of troops, ammo, intel, skill sets, etc. and you were only able to inflict a 1:1 attrition rate between your team and the enemy, and this was known by both sides before the beginning - do you actually think war would ensue? [/quote]

If two chess players had an equal number of pieces and were equally skilled do you think they’d play each other? It’s a nonsense supposition anyway for the reasons I’ve already explained.[/quote]
They probably would, for fun - but not if they personally felt the intense pain of death for every single pawn

Also, even still, how exact are you being when you say “equally skilled”

If they actually, truly KNOW this to be true. If each and every single one of the past 200,000 games they have played against each other had always ended in a draw. Or 500,000 or 1,000,000 - at some point the fun fades, I think

[quote]It’s a nonsense supposition anyway for the reasons I’ve already explained.[/quote]kamui already did that in the beginning when he mentioned the bow - that’s why I have tried to expand the discussion

Actually, no, nevermind, my temporary mistake. It’s not a nonsense supposition, what exactly do you mean by this? It makes sense. It is comprehensible. It is also unrealistic. And it has potential to shed light on some issues concerning anarchy. I’d like to see you answer your own question and also the one of mine which you quoted. Your answers might shed light on things too

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Christianity and libertarianism are not at all opposed to one another.[/quote]

Not technically: Not in such a way as for profession of the one to render the other philosophically un-profess-able, in a literal sense.

But in another way, they are absolutely opposed to each other.

You spend your time in the lap of the enormous delusion that is anarcho-capitalism, slavishly devoted to a deformed and fanatical conception of freedom. You sacrifice reason to absolutism. Taxation is slavery; STOP signs are slavery; the arrest, trial, and incarceration of a man who spends his nights raping his own daughter: Yep, this is slavery. Your fanaticized freedom consumes your thinking about politics.

…And yet you choose [this being a profoundly important distinction] to think that there’s a great father figure out there, watching you (without ever having asked your consent) while you sleep/shave/shower/drive/work/shop/cook/eat/fuck/sleep again, reading your mail and mind and heart, weighing your every move in order to determine whether or not you’ve been a sufficiently “good” subject thus far (and by “good” I mean “acquiescent to the unalterable rules handed down to your forebears as matters of fact”), ready to punish you for transgressions small and large.

In other words, each time you’ve described yourself as a slave, you’ve been absolutely correct: You really, really are a slave, or you would be if the facts of your worldview were supportable. I don’t see why you fuss over it so much, though, because–if humans really were “kicked out of the garden,” as you’ve claimed–you’re going to die in your shackles (and remain so bound eternally thereafter!) whether you dismantle the IRS or not.

@squating_bear

Forget about the chess analogy. That was just a throw away line.

I have already explained why this parity of everything topic is nonsense. Firstly because it could never happen. Secondly because even if it did happen it wouldn’t lessen the chances of conflict.

RE State of nature: in the simplest sense the state of nature is what existed prior to any form of organised government. As Hobbes said, life was nasty, brutish and short. Plato, Aristotle, Polybius and Cicero correctly identified the first, and most primitive form of government to emerge from the state of nature: absolute monarchy. They all described the different forms of government. None of them ever considered “anarchy” as a form of government. Anarchy, or more specifically an absence of government is synonymous with the state of nature - the nasty, brutish and short existence that mankind was trying to escape via a social contract. A social contract is basically an agreement to give up certain rights in order to safeguard others. ie a trade off of liberty for security. Men submit to the authority of a king, aristocracy or some other form of government in order to safeguard their security and as many of their inalienable rights as possible.

Per Max Weber, a state is any “human community [government]
that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

Squating Bear, I’m having a difficult time understanding what your argument is exactly.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I assert that anarcho-capitalism would resemble the streets of Paris in 1789 then immediately devolve into dictatorship. Furthermore I contend that anyone who advocates it is a loon.[/quote]

We agree. [/quote]

Pretty much…

Man’s will to power is too great to have any real expectation that a “Stateless” of any appreciable size will last a significant amount of time as either stable or “Stateless”.

I put “stateless” in quotes, because it will never happen lol.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Christianity and libertarianism are not at all opposed to one another.[/quote]

Not technically: Not in such a way as for profession of the one to render the other philosophically un-profess-able, in a literal sense.

But in another way, they are absolutely opposed to each other.

You spend your time in the lap of the enormous delusion that is anarcho-capitalism, slavishly devoted to a deformed and fanatical conception of freedom. You sacrifice reason to absolutism. Taxation is slavery; STOP signs are slavery; the arrest, trial, and incarceration of a man who spends his nights raping his own daughter: Yep, this is slavery. Your fanaticized freedom consumes your thinking about politics.

…And yet you choose [this being a profoundly important distinction] to think that there’s a great father figure out there, watching you (without ever having asked your consent) while you sleep/shave/shower/drive/work/shop/cook/eat/fuck/sleep again, reading your mail and mind and heart, weighing your every move in order to determine whether or not you’ve been a sufficiently “good” subject thus far (and by “good” I mean “acquiescent to the unalterable rules handed down to your forebears as matters of fact”), ready to punish you for transgressions small and large.

In other words, each time you’ve described yourself as a slave, you’ve been absolutely correct: You really, really are a slave, or you would be if the facts of your worldview were supportable. I don’t see why you fuss over it so much, though, because–if humans really were “kicked out of the garden,” as you’ve claimed–you’re going to die in your shackles (and remain so bound eternally thereafter!) whether you dismantle the IRS or not.[/quote]

Your idea of God(as well as many of the ideas of various churches and folks who make fortunes on similar beliefs about God) and mine are very different.