Your vapid responses aren’t addressing my main arguments. Is the international system not anarchic? Is it not inherently violent? Why wouldn’t an anarchic domestic environment resemble its international counterpart, in which force is the final argument and the law is less law than it is loose norms of behavior? If you can refute my claims, we can then go onto anarchy applied to the domestic realm. Why there is no debate that human nature is human nature, what constitutes such is certainly up for debate.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Your Valois responses aren’t addressing my main arguments. Is the international system not anarchic? Is it not inherently violent? Why wouldn’t an anarchic domestic environment resemble its international counterpart, in which force is the final argument and the law is less law than it is loose norms of behavior? If you can refute my claims, we can then go onto anarchy applied to the domestic realm. Why there is no debate that human nature is human nature, what constitutes such is certainly up for debate.[/quote]
I would say Earth is more or less anarchic. Earth is not inherently violent, but humans are. I certainly don’t believe that the average American, Russian, Chinese, or Kenyan faces more danger from another individual than he does from the state that claims him. Man’s law is never anything other than loose norms of behavior; that’s why I prefer to refer to them as rules. What claims are there to refute? I can’t argue against, “It is what it is.” However, I can’t understand the appeal of talking about politics to someone who offers nothing more than that.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I would say Earth is more or less anarchic. Earth is not inherently violent, but humans are. I certainly don’t believe that the average American, Russian, Chinese, or Kenyan faces more danger from another individual than he does from the state that claims him. Man’s law is never anything other than loose norms of behavior; that’s why I prefer to refer to them as rules. What claims are there to refute? I can’t argue against, “It is what it is.” However, I can’t understand the appeal of talking about politics to someone who offers nothing more than that.[/quote]
Observe nature and tell me Earth isn’t inherently violent. I’m making the assertion that the international political system is anarchic and consequently violent, and challenged you to demonstrate why international violence would not find a new foothold among the many micro-states that would inevitably be created if states themselves devolved into anarchy. You have yet to even attempt to do so.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Observe nature and tell me Earth isn’t inherently violent. I’m making the assertion that the international political system is anarchic and consequently violent, and challenged you to demonstrate why international violence would not find a new foothold among the many micro-states that would inevitably be created if states themselves devolved into anarchy. You have yet to even attempt to do so.
[/quote]
Why would I argue against a claim with which I agree?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Observe nature and tell me Earth isn’t inherently violent. I’m making the assertion that the international political system is anarchic and consequently violent, and challenged you to demonstrate why international violence would not find a new foothold among the many micro-states that would inevitably be created if states themselves devolved into anarchy. You have yet to even attempt to do so.
[/quote]
Why would I argue against a claim with which I agree? [/quote]
Dude, read what I wrote. You and I agree that world politics is anarchic and violent. You disagree that it would be violent if states themselves devolved into anarco-capitalism. That’s what I’m asking you to argue for.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Dude, read what I wrote. You and I agree that world politics is anarchic and violent. You disagree that it would be violent if states themselves devolved into anarco-capitalism. That’s what I’m asking you to argue for.
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with your claim.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Dude, read what I wrote. You and I agree that world politics is anarchic and violent. You disagree that it would be violent if states themselves devolved into anarco-capitalism. That’s what I’m asking you to argue for.
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with your claim.[/quote]
So it’s violence you’re pining for.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So it’s violence you’re pining for.[/quote]
If people realize what they are, defensive violence will be necessary on their part.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So it’s violence you’re pining for.[/quote]
If people realize what they are, defensive violence will be necessary on their part.[/quote]
What are they? This is non-sensical. Every incident of defensive violence would entail a counterpart incident of offensive violence.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What are they? This is non-sensical. Every incident of defensive violence would entail a counterpart incident of offensive violence.[/quote]
Slaves-we work/pay for property over which we have little to no control. The offensive violence is always behind the curtains. People know it will show itself if they refuse to pay tribute to or obey the rules their hall monitor-esque rulers pass. If a CVS cashier hands over the money in the register to a man who asks for it while holding one hand in his pocket and alluding to the pistol in it, she has been robbed; she is not guilty of embezzlement, even though the man didn’t actually use physical force. That would still be considered a violent crime.
@Bismarck - I’m just curious; do you feel that Nick even attempted to answer any of your questions?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Slaves-we work/pay for property over which we have little to no control. The offensive violence is always behind the curtains. People know it will show itself if they refuse to pay tribute to or obey the rules their hall monitor-esque rulers pass. If a CVS cashier hands over the money in the register to a man who asks for it while holding one hand in his pocket and alluding to the pistol in it, she has been robbed; she is not guilty of embezzlement, even though the man didn’t actually use physical force. That would still be considered a violent crime. [/quote]
As SMH wrote earlier in this thread, your anarchism is not logically compatible with your belief in the Abrahamic God. You worship a celestial authority that monitors your actions in public and private, and even your thoughts. Failure to follow its mandated moral laws will not result in a fine or a prison sentence, but eternal damnation. You are a slave of the Deus, voluntarily or otherwise. Being a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, respectively, is to embrace hierarchy.
Matthew, Chapter 22
17
- Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?â??
18
Knowing their malice, Jesus said, â??Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?
19 - Show me the coin that pays the census tax.â?? Then they handed him the Roman coin.
20
He said to them, â??Whose image is this and whose inscription?â??
21
e They replied, â??Caesarâ??s.â??* At that he said to them, â??Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.â??
Your analogy is underpinned by dubious logic. You CHOOSE to reside within the given territory of a state and enjoy the services it provides through its tax revenues. You are complicit by maintaining your current lifestyle. You can’t have your cake and eat it as well. If you truly feel that you are oppressed to the degree to be considered a slave, why do you choose to remain in your subjugated position?
I think you have misinterpreted Matthew 22:15-22. The Herodians advocated submission to Rome and therefore supported the poll tax. The Pharisees opposed it. They both hated Jesus and so sought to entrap him by asking if they should pay tribute to Tiberius. Jesus gave a deliberately ambiguous answer to avoid entrapment. A relevant verse would be Jesus’s answer to Pontius Pilate in John 18:36.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
As SMH wrote earlier in this thread, your anarchism is not logically compatible with your belief in the Abrahamic God.[/quote]
How is it not? This is like saying your worship of the state is not logically compatible with your refusal to follow a man who tells you to follow him as he jumps off a bridge.
Is that so? We’re all headed that way, then.
If I believe God is just another human, then that is true. I don’t oppose hunting or the ownership of animals for the same reason that I don’t equate worshipping God with the worship of other humans.
Where is this stateless territory so apparent to statists? It does not exist. The only way to overcome statism is for the majority of an area to intellectually reject it(as has happened many times in history), and even that rejection will only last a short time. I can either remain a slave or kill myself, and I lack Cato the Younger’s morality.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If I believe God is just another human, then that is true. I don’t oppose hunting or the ownership of animals for the same reason that I don’t equate worshipping God with the worship of other humans.
[/quote]
What if for arguments sake, we agnostic atheists are right and your god is a man made construct, then you are worshipping other humans trough their creating your god. So it is ok to worship as long as it is based on trickery?
It seems to me anarchists are confident that they are dangerous enough to survive a world without rules. I would call it overconfidence.
[quote]espenl wrote:
What if for arguments sake, we agnostic atheists are right and your god is a man made construct, then you are worshipping other humans trough their creating your god. So it is ok to worship as long as it is based on trickery?[/quote]
No, then I worship something that doesn’t exist. I’m not sure how you could see that as worshipping other humans.
As has been pointed out a number of times(by smh, and possibly others), the world doesn’t have rules. Rules only exist for certain territories. I just oppose tyranny. I’m not against people grouping together for defensive purposes. When the defensive group begins to punish people for activities without a victim, it becomes tyrannical. Revolutions then sometimes occur; other times, the people just accept it, due to indoctrination, nationalism, etc.