Anarchy

NickViar · May 27, 2014, 4:31pm

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@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.[/quote]

Am I mistaken, or have I not frequently seen you post in support of religion(Christianity)? The state(which is nothing more than one individual or group trying to replace God), or at least the desire to become such, is the source of the problems that Hobbes claimed the state arose to solve.

Anarchy is not a form of government, so why would anyone mention it that way?

A “social contract” is simply a ruler allowing you to continue living in exchange for your obedience.

NickViar · May 27, 2014, 5:03pm

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@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.[/quote]

Am I mistaken, or have I not frequently seen you post in support of religion(Christianity)? The state(which is nothing more than one individual or group trying to replace God), or at least the desire to become such, is the source of the problems that Hobbes(using Hobbes, who lived from 1588-1679, as a source of information about life before a state always seems strange) claimed the state arose to solve.

Anarchy is not a form of government, so why would anyone mention it that way?

A “social contract” is simply a ruler allowing you to continue living in exchange for your obedience.

angry_chicken · May 27, 2014, 5:37pm

I think that laws against crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, stealing, etc… are vital to a functional society.

But all the stupid little laws such as vehicle registration, driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time, “expired” government ID, laws governing sexual behavior, etc… In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to tickle women… Yes, there is a law against it. All those stupid, little, death-by-a-thousand-cuts laws that suck the juice of freedom right out of you are the ones I can do without. We didn’t vote for them. The state has forced them upon us with their bloated bureaucracy.

Take the second amendment for example. It’s one fucking sentence. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I mean, how hard is that to understand? Yet they’ve infringed THE FUCK out of us…

But that brings us to the question of why? Because in a free society, you need free thinking people. You need good decision makers and people with honor and conscience. You need CITIZENS with civic responsibilities and and sense of duty. Every government fears a free society. Because the will of the people could threaten their power. So they invent institutions like religion and big government and “free public education” to keep people in line. They require state licensing for the most ridiculous things. To do another person’s fingernails, for example, requires a cosmetology license (requiring 1500 hours of training in MD). It’s all about CONTROL, not FREEDOM. And on top it, they tax the fuck outta you. I keep 62 cents of every dollar I earn after all the bullshit comes out.

HOA’s can fine you for not cutting your lawn for a week put a lien on YOUR HOME and ruin your credit or eventually force a foreclosure. A burglar breaking into your house and hurts himself can sue you. A child skins her knee playing in your pool and the parents can sue you. And if you fail to pay court fines for a misdemeanor, you can be incarcerated (even though debtors prisons were “abolished”).

Speaking of “free societies”, if anarchy is one side of the pendulum and our current state of society is on the other, I believe the ideal “sweet spot” is somewhere in the middle. Cuz right now, in OUR society, it sucks.

anon50325502 · May 27, 2014, 6:27pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think that laws against crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, stealing, etc… are vital to a functional society.

But all the stupid little laws such as vehicle registration, driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time, “expired” government ID, laws governing sexual behavior, etc… In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to tickle women… Yes, there is a law against it. All those stupid, little, death-by-a-thousand-cuts laws that suck the juice of freedom right out of you are the ones I can do without. We didn’t vote for them. The state has forced them upon us with their bloated bureaucracy.

Take the second amendment for example. It’s one fucking sentence. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I mean, how hard is that to understand? Yet they’ve infringed THE FUCK out of us…

But that brings us to the question of why? Because in a free society, you need free thinking people. You need good decision makers and people with honor and conscience. You need CITIZENS with civic responsibilities and and sense of duty. Every government fears a free society. Because the will of the people could threaten their power. So they invent institutions like religion and big government and “free public education” to keep people in line. They require state licensing for the most ridiculous things. To do another person’s fingernails, for example, requires a cosmetology license (requiring 1500 hours of training in MD). It’s all about CONTROL, not FREEDOM. And on top it, they tax the fuck outta you. I keep 62 cents of every dollar I earn after all the bullshit comes out.

HOA’s can fine you for not cutting your lawn for a week put a lien on YOUR HOME and ruin your credit or eventually force a foreclosure. A burglar breaking into your house and hurts himself can sue you. A child skins her knee playing in your pool and the parents can sue you. And if you fail to pay court fines for a misdemeanor, you can be incarcerated (even though debtors prisons were “abolished”).

Speaking of “free societies”, if anarchy is one side of the pendulum and our current state of society is on the other, I believe the ideal “sweet spot” is somewhere in the middle. Cuz right now, in OUR society, it sucks.[/quote]

There are stupid laws and annoying red tape (I’m currently fighting the MD MVA for failure to have a vehicle insured, which is pretty incredible seeing as the vehicle was totaled aka it doesn’t exist anymore…) you’ll get no argument from me on that front. However, to act as if American society today sucks is quite frankly laughable. For example, HOAs are bullshit, so when I bought my house I made 100% sure there was not an HOA. That is freedom of choice. Some people prefer HOAs. “Driving in the wrong lane at the wrong time,” you serious? You list a couple of good examples then throw this garbage in there. Fuck it, let’s just remove stop signs, red lights, lanes, etc… who needs traffic laws anyway right? They’re useless.

I sat on my porch yesterday, with a cup of coffee, and did nothing except enjoy a little peace and quite. Just enjoying Memorial day and all that it means. Can North Koreans do that? Can Iranians? Can Somalis? No.

NickViar · May 27, 2014, 6:48pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And if you fail to pay court fines for a misdemeanor, you can be incarcerated (even though debtors prisons were “abolished”).
[/quote]

This sentence highlights a huge problem-it shows that the United States government has become a ruler, no longer employed by the people. Debtors’ prisons were only abolished in cases with a private victim; the state can declare itself a victim via contempt of court charges and send people to its jails.

SexMachine · May 27, 2014, 8:08pm

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Squating Bear, I’m having a difficult time understanding what your argument is exactly. [/quote]

X2

SexMachine · May 27, 2014, 8:21pm

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Am I mistaken, or have I not frequently seen you post in support of religion(Christianity)?

[/quote]

I am religious yes.

Lol. It depends who and which state. I guess you could argue John Calvin’s Geneva was an attempt at that. I believe in a free society - at least until the restoration of the Davidic dynasty, which I have no reason to expect anytime soon.

Hobbes was an absolute monarchist who believed that kings ruled by divine right.

That’s why I qualified my terms. It is however a political system - or at least it is portrayed as such by its proponents.

Or rulers. Yes I suppose you could put it that way. However it is a trade. The citizen safeguards most of their rights and is granted security.

smh_23 · May 27, 2014, 8:57pm

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I took it from your allusion to the Garden as historical fact that you claim the Christian Bible (I took a leap in assuming that you are not Jewish, but it matters little either way) to be truth. Was I mistaken? If not, the passages relevant to God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and judgment–from which my above extrapolations proceeded–are easily locatable.

squating_bear · May 28, 2014, 11:02am

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@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. [/quote]Yeah I heard you, but I disagree that just because a thing couldn’t happen, that makes it nonsense. Reason can be applied to a false supposition if it is still comprehendible. Also I think it would lessen the [i]chances[/i] of conflict. That is different from saying that it renders conflict impossible

[quote]
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.[/quote]
Because you have set this in opposition to my earlier positions, the natural tendency is to attack. I’ll go with that instinct

I’m not saying everything you said of the state of nature is bullshit. I’m not saying those guys you listed are idiots. Nothing like that. The reason it makes so much sense to you is that it logically flows from a certain set of assumptions which you have accepted. If I can scramble up those assumptions, it would at least give the appearance of strengthening my non-position

[quote]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.[/quote]So anarchy is the default until a gov’t is established by social contract

This social contract, it’s not an actual contract. It may be in some instances, but not always

How about when an area has been overrun by a foreign or domestic “gov’t” which is not operating under a mutually agreeable social contract? People don’t like the concept of anarchy because a person or group of people can gang up on a weaker person or group and do whatever they want. How about when that happens, but this group calls itself “gov’t”? The issue is with the social contract. If you have a legitimate social contract, then you have a legitimate gov’t instead of a state of nature. However if the SUPPOSED social contract is illegitimate, then this is actually a state of nature, even if this group claims otherwise

Have I strayed off point?

squating_bear · May 28, 2014, 11:12am

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Squating Bear, I’m having a difficult time understanding what your argument is exactly. [/quote]
I have not yet formed an opinion on the subject. I think it is more complex than other people seem to think

SexMachine · May 28, 2014, 11:34am

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
How about when an area has been overrun by a foreign or domestic “gov’t” which is not operating under a mutually agreeable social contract? People don’t like the concept of anarchy because a person or group of people can gang up on a weaker person or group and do whatever they want. How about when that happens, but this group calls itself “gov’t”? The issue is with the social contract. If you have a legitimate social contract, then you have a legitimate gov’t instead of a state of nature. However if the SUPPOSED social contract is illegitimate, then this is actually a state of nature, even if this group claims otherwise
[/quote]

This is really just arguing semantics. You could call it a state of nature if you like but it would more correctly be termed despotic government or tyranny. And there is no solution to it really. Governments generally go through a cyclical process called anacyclosis. In simple terms the anacyclosis proceeds as follows:

In a state of nature a leader assumes power and the most primitive form of government emerges: monarchy. Due to human nature the King or his descendants abuse their power in tyrannical fashion. Eventually tiring of the abuse the most powerful citizens overthrow the monarchy and set themselves up as rulers: aristocracy. Just as the descendants of kings abused their power so to will the aristocrats. The aristocracy degenerates into an oligarchy. Eventually tiring of the abuses the people take it upon themselves to overthrow the oligarchy and set themselves up as rulers: democracy. Just as the descendants of kings and aristocrats abused their power so to will the people. Democracy degenerates into ochlocracy(mob rule.) Demagogues emerge amongst the people promising to bring order, bread, circuses and socialised medicine the competing claims of demagogues plunge the state into chaos and a single demagogue emerges victorious bringing the cycle back to monarchy(or dictatorship.)

Bismark · May 28, 2014, 12:00pm

For reference on the State of Nature and it’s consequences: Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/

Again, international relations underpinned by anarchy have not been historically peaceful. Quite the opposite, in fact. Why would the propensity for conflict change if an individual state were to divolve into anarchy?

Bismark · May 28, 2014, 12:20pm

I believe that most can agree that the following Webrian definition of statehood is an adequate one: a state is any “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

It follows that anarchy could be derived from the above as “a collection of human communities cohabitating a giving territory within which no group or confederation of groups (successfully) claim the monopoly of the legitimate use of force.”

Given its fragmenting effects, how does anarchy lead to less and not more conflict?

Bismark · May 28, 2014, 12:20pm

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I believe that most can agree that the following Webrian definition of statehood is an adequate one: a state is any “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

It follows that anarchy could be derived from the above as “a collection of human communities cohabitating a giving territory within which no group or confederation of groups (successfully) claim the monopoly of the legitimate use of force.”

Given its fragmenting effects, how does anarchy lead to less and not more conflict? [/quote]

JR249 · May 28, 2014, 2:00pm

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I believe that most can agree that the following Webrian definition of statehood is an adequate one: a state is any “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

It follows that anarchy could be derived from the above as “a collection of human communities cohabitating a giving territory within which no group or confederation of groups (successfully) claim the monopoly of the legitimate use of force.”

Given its fragmenting effects, how does anarchy lead to less and not more conflict? [/quote]

Those are probably reasonable definitions, though note that Weber wasn’t the only one to develop philosophical theories on the state.

I’d argue that left to its natural state, truly anarchist societies or subcultures would devolve into some sort of quasi-oligarchy, at best.

There’s a reason why some form of political institution* of governance, even if highly simplistic, operates within the confines of societies ranging from those on the traditional end (e.g., hunting and gathering or horticultural) all the way up to complex, post-industrial entities. It’s really one of the many cultural universals of humanity.

*I use the term “political institution” to loosely describe a system of roles and norms that governs the distribution and exercise of power in a society, be it legitimate or otherwise.

kamui · May 28, 2014, 2:47pm

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I believe that most can agree that the following Webrian definition of statehood is an adequate one: a state is any “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

It follows that anarchy could be derived from the above as “a collection of human communities cohabitating a giving territory within which no group or confederation of groups (successfully) claim the monopoly of the legitimate use of force.”

Given its fragmenting effects, how does anarchy lead to less and not more conflict? [/quote]

An hint :

According to the anthropologist Pierre Clastres :

the stateless societies of hunter-gatherers use war (or more accurately constant ritualized vendetta) to prevent the formation of a state.

in other words : anarchy requires constant conflict (between equalized forces) to maintain itself.

angry_chicken · May 28, 2014, 3:49pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote: