Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Totalitarianism to Market Anarchism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 5:56:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Totalitarianism to Market Anarchism

You are a powerful dictator placed in charge of a state-socialist government that controls 100% of economic activity. Your aim is to achieve market anarchy through legislative change in under decade. In ten steps or less, outline the phases you would go through to achieve market anarchism.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 7:24:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Privatize all industries current nationalized.

2. Abolish unions as coercive organizations

3. Remove all regulations from the economy.

4. Eliminate all taxes.

5. Eliminate all governmental organizations except for essential services- those will be paid for with voluntary payment by desiring recepients.

6. Kill all commies (Stalin style)

6b. Build Gulags.

I think that's it...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 8:23:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 5:56:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Totalitarianism to Market Anarchism

You are a powerful dictator placed in charge of a state-socialist government that controls 100% of economic activity. Your aim is to achieve market anarchy through legislative change in under decade. In ten steps or less, outline the phases you would go through to achieve market anarchism.

I don't support market anarchism.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 8:28:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Change currency to gold
2. Give full property rights to the current users of all personal property (houses, cars, etc).
3. Privatize all government owned companies by issuing freely tradable stock shares to workers and those that retired from that company. This would include giving up all government control of the operation of these companies--wage/price controls, etc.
4. Open up the country to the world--free trade/investment/travel/etc.
5. Split the country into 100 (or some other number--depending on population size) different autonomous districts, hand over control of all remaining government services/taxes to these districts.
6. After the dust clears and the economy stabilizes, allow people to choose which district they want to have jurisdiction over them (or a new police/court/whatever firm if people want), rather than them being under the control of wherever they happen to live--and then we're done.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 8:30:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 7:24:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
1. Privatize all industries current nationalized.

Outline how you'd do that.

2. Abolish unions as coercive organizations

Opposite of anarchy seeing as unions are not definitionally coercive and are usually voluntary.

3. Remove all regulations from the economy.

4. Eliminate all taxes.

5. Eliminate all governmental organizations except for essential services- those will be paid for with voluntary payment by desiring recepients.

Still maintains the monopoly on the provision of those services.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 8:31:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 8:30:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/8/2012 7:24:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
1. Privatize all industries current nationalized.

Outline how you'd do that.

2. Abolish unions as coercive organizations

Opposite of anarchy seeing as unions are not definitionally coercive and are usually voluntary.
lol. Also, I don't think totalitarian states have unions, I'm pretty sure that's just mixed economies.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 8:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 8:31:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/8/2012 8:30:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/8/2012 7:24:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
1. Privatize all industries current nationalized.

Outline how you'd do that.

2. Abolish unions as coercive organizations

Opposite of anarchy seeing as unions are not definitionally coercive and are usually voluntary.
lol. Also, I don't think totalitarian states have unions, I'm pretty sure that's just mixed economies.

Problem? My point is that unions aren't definitionally coercive. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to just generalize that you would abolish all of them.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 8:39:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 8:35:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/8/2012 8:31:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/8/2012 8:30:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/8/2012 7:24:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
1. Privatize all industries current nationalized.

Outline how you'd do that.

2. Abolish unions as coercive organizations

Opposite of anarchy seeing as unions are not definitionally coercive and are usually voluntary.
lol. Also, I don't think totalitarian states have unions, I'm pretty sure that's just mixed economies.

Problem? My point is that unions aren't definitionally coercive. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to just generalize that you would abolish all of them.

Technically, your point was that unions aren't definitionally coercive AND "are usually voluntary." But they don't have to be 'definititionally' coercive to abolish them all if all existing ones, are, in fact, coercive. Although you wouldn't need to abolish them, you could just get rid of all labor laws and let them disintegrate.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 8:44:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 8:41:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Imagine you're a central planner..."

No. Bad methodology is bad.

Saw it coming a mile away.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:04:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 11:58:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/8/2012 8:44:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/8/2012 8:41:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Imagine you're a central planner..."

No. Bad methodology is bad.

Saw it coming a mile away.

Can you blame a bro?

Unless you were to have a violent coup against the state, an unlikely successful propagandist, or a dictator, this process would be highly improbable. Do you have a process you'd like to share?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:08:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 8:23:04 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/8/2012 5:56:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Totalitarianism to Market Anarchism

You are a powerful dictator placed in charge of a state-socialist government that controls 100% of economic activity. Your aim is to achieve market anarchy through legislative change in under decade. In ten steps or less, outline the phases you would go through to achieve market anarchism.

I don't support market anarchism.

I do say! Valiant effort, good chap!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:12:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:04:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/8/2012 11:58:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Can you blame a bro?

Unless you were to have a violent coup against the state, an unlikely successful propagandist, or a dictator, this process would be highly improbable. Do you have a process you'd like to share?

The argument goes that anarchism is inherently opposed to the methodology which you've implied in your OP. You're basically asking us to use Statist methodology (the idea that we're omniscient enough or even have the right to plan society) to arrive at an anarchist conclusion. But the whole point of anarchism is that we don't plan society from the outside. We let people solve problems for themselves in a non-hierarchal or coercive manner.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:16:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:04:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/8/2012 11:58:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/8/2012 8:44:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/8/2012 8:41:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Imagine you're a central planner..."

No. Bad methodology is bad.

Saw it coming a mile away.

Can you blame a bro?

Unless you were to have a violent coup against the state, an unlikely successful propagandist, or a dictator, this process would be highly improbable. Do you have a process you'd like to share?

Spinko already got it, basically. To be a little more snarky about it, though: You can't counter "the methodology of central planners is bad" with a question about what my plan is.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:21:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:12:10 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:04:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/8/2012 11:58:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Can you blame a bro?

Unless you were to have a violent coup against the state, an unlikely successful propagandist, or a dictator, this process would be highly improbable. Do you have a process you'd like to share?

You're basically asking us to use Statist methodology (the idea that we're omniscient enough or even have the right to plan society) to arrive at an anarchist conclusion.

No, I'm not asking the dictator to shape the anarchic society, merely to actively precipitate the conditions that would allow the anarchic societal structures to emerge. Also, you could assume that the reason you, the dictator, has made the decision to dismantle the Leviathan government is because you've come to the conclusion that government is incapable of efficiently managing economic and social affairs.

But the whole point of anarchism is that we don't plan society from the outside.

Not the point and not stated in the thread, you have to arrive at anarchy prior to allowing natural anarchism to function. Dismantling the government is not structuring the anarchic sectors, but allowing spontaneous order to do so.

We let people solve problems for themselves in a non-hierarchal or coercive manner.

Yes, after the coercive government is out of the way, which was the point of this project.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:30:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Really, though, I think states are inherently unstable. They can persist for a while because they scare people into submission and condition them into accepting statism as an inevitable default, but I don't think states have the capacity to keep regulating people. If you borrow the notion of requisite variety from the systems theory people, you recognize that a successful regulator requires more variety/flexibility than the regulated system--sort of how the better of two chess players is the one with better algorithmic processing abilities, in the form of being able to look ahead n moves, recognizing particular patterns of moves, etc. I think centralized power structures are inherently inferior in this respect to the decentralized actions of individuals and the networks of relations among them, which basically means that states' days have been numbered from the start, particularly when you realize that states, not really being unitary actors, also have to account for their own organization, which immediately makes things problematic for them.

Obviously, their capacity to regulate grows with technology and particular forms of politics and stuff, but that just means that the rate at which the gap between regulator and regulated grows is slower than it would be if states were stagnant--hence, extended lifespan (with a pretty shoddy institutional record regardless, mind you).

So, I don't think I really need to do anything, per se. It's not a question of whether anarchism is plausible--it's a question of how long we have to wait until states just stop working at all, and the decentralized networks of relations take the reins. That time frame is speculative, but I don't think one can realistically deny the eventual outcome. If you had to ask me, on that basis, what my "process" is, I'd say that I want to accelerate the rate at which the state decays. For me, the academic philosopher, it requires making the philosophy understandable to people in a way that convinces them to take a little sabbatical. Following Walter Benjamin, redeeming the world from statism doesn't require tremendous, earth-shaking change--it just requires a bit of adjustment.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:30:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:16:18 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Spinko already got it, basically. To be a little more snarky about it, though: You can't counter "the methodology of central planners is bad" with a question about what my plan is.

You really missed the entire point of the thread. But, nevertheless, what would be your preferred method for dismantling such a state?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:31:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 5:56:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Totalitarianism to Market Anarchism

You are a powerful dictator placed in charge of a state-socialist government that controls 100% of economic activity. Your aim is to achieve market anarchy through legislative change in under decade. In ten steps or less, outline the phases you would go through to achieve market anarchism.

Abolish government
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:35:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:30:51 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:16:18 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Spinko already got it, basically. To be a little more snarky about it, though: You can't counter "the methodology of central planners is bad" with a question about what my plan is.

You really missed the entire point of the thread. But, nevertheless, what would be your preferred method for dismantling such a state?

Nah, bro. I only suggested that the point of the thread is dumbsauce, and that circumventing it was totes a better idea. Also, I like to troll, so there's that.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:48:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:30:45 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Really, though, I think states are inherently unstable.

That's what Peter Leeson says, but the existence of the state subsumes most of the Earth's population.

They can persist for a while because they scare people into submission and condition them into accepting statism as an inevitable default, but I don't think states have the capacity to keep regulating people. If you borrow the notion of requisite variety from the systems theory people, you recognize that a successful regulator requires more variety/flexibility than the regulated system--sort of how the better of two chess players is the one with better algorithmic processing abilities, in the form of being able to look ahead n moves, recognizing particular patterns of moves, etc. I think centralized power structures are inherently inferior in this respect to the decentralized actions of individuals and the networks of relations among them, which basically means that states' days have been numbered from the start, particularly when you realize that states, not really being unitary actors, also have to account for their own organization, which immediately makes things problematic for them.

I don't think that means the state's days are numbered. It just means that they fvck shlt up when they attempt to regulate people, which is apparent in many countries with oppressive governments. Even after revolutions, violent coups, etc governments reestablish themselves over people. Another point to add to this comes from SOFEX, the increased purchase of arms that generals and military leaders use have been increasingly used on their own people to control rebellions and that sort of thing. Technology of weaponry is increasingly advanced, making any sort of successful rebellion against the state decreasingly probable.

Obviously, their capacity to regulate grows with technology and particular forms of politics and stuff, but that just means that the rate at which the gap between regulator and regulated grows is slower than it would be if states were stagnant--hence, extended lifespan (with a pretty shoddy institutional record regardless, mind you).

Whoa, you totally mind read me right there. I agree, exponentially increasing computational power (until Moore's Law becomes irrelevant at the nano scale) could better model an economic market, but it will never perform at the level of the free market, hence people get screwed.

So, I don't think I really need to do anything, per se. It's not a question of whether anarchism is plausible--it's a question of how long we have to wait until states just stop working at all, and the decentralized networks of relations take the reins.

We differ here, I think states can persist while being a shlt-fvck on the economy and society. The state doesn't work well, but it maintains its dominance through methods you know as well as I do: coercion, propaganda, deception, tradition, etc..

That time frame is speculative, but I don't think one can realistically deny the eventual outcome. If you had to ask me, on that basis, what my "process" is, I'd say that I want to accelerate the rate at which the state decays.
For me, the academic philosopher, it requires making the philosophy understandable to people in a way that convinces them to take a little sabbatical. Following Walter Benjamin, redeeming the world from statism doesn't require tremendous, earth-shaking change--it just requires a bit of adjustment.

That must be a hefty chunk of "a bit of adjustment." Apathy and ignorance are giants that stand in the way of this accelerated decay.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:49:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:34:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The fact that anarchism is taken seriously by a lot of academics, and that we're beginning to divorce ourselves from the jargon of centralized power structures (or considering it, at least, as this paper on Public Admin demonstrates [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...]), makes me a bit more optimistic than usual.

More optimism news pl0x.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:51:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:31:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/8/2012 5:56:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Totalitarianism to Market Anarchism

You are a powerful dictator placed in charge of a state-socialist government that controls 100% of economic activity. Your aim is to achieve market anarchy through legislative change in under decade. In ten steps or less, outline the phases you would go through to achieve market anarchism.

Abolish government

Oh, wurd?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:56:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:35:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:30:51 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:16:18 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Spinko already got it, basically. To be a little more snarky about it, though: You can't counter "the methodology of central planners is bad" with a question about what my plan is.

You really missed the entire point of the thread. But, nevertheless, what would be your preferred method for dismantling such a state?

Nah, bro. I only suggested that the point of the thread is dumbsauce, and that circumventing it was totes a better idea. Also, I like to troll, so there's that.

You've yet to provide a reason for that assertion. The idea was this: suppose you're in charge of an oppressive state, how do you dismantle it from the inside given your incredible power as a demi-god?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:57:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:48:34 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:30:45 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Really, though, I think states are inherently unstable.

That's what Peter Leeson says, but the existence of the state subsumes most of the Earth's population.

I've already had this conversation with Ren. You should go read that so I don't have to do it all over again.

They can persist for a while because they scare people into submission and condition them into accepting statism as an inevitable default, but I don't think states have the capacity to keep regulating people. If you borrow the notion of requisite variety from the systems theory people, you recognize that a successful regulator requires more variety/flexibility than the regulated system--sort of how the better of two chess players is the one with better algorithmic processing abilities, in the form of being able to look ahead n moves, recognizing particular patterns of moves, etc. I think centralized power structures are inherently inferior in this respect to the decentralized actions of individuals and the networks of relations among them, which basically means that states' days have been numbered from the start, particularly when you realize that states, not really being unitary actors, also have to account for their own organization, which immediately makes things problematic for them.

I don't think that means the state's days are numbered. It just means that they fvck shlt up when they attempt to regulate people, which is apparent in many countries with oppressive governments.

Nah, it's not just about failure--it's about the ability even to try to regulate. For example: when states are overwhelmed by a giant mass of refugees, they're almost always experience decision paralysis. Big masses of refugees--particularly those who don't claim a juridical identity or allegiance to a state--present immediate problems to the mechanisms of power that parse, divide, classify, subjugate, etc.

Even after revolutions, violent coups, etc governments reestablish themselves over people.

I'm not suggesting either a revolution or a violent coup--I'm suggesting a complete neutralization, or a rendering powerless, of the mechanisms of state power.

Another point to add to this comes from SOFEX, the increased purchase of arms that generals and military leaders use have been increasingly used on their own people to control rebellions and that sort of thing. Technology of weaponry is increasingly advanced, making any sort of successful rebellion against the state decreasingly probable.

Okie dokie.

Obviously, their capacity to regulate grows with technology and particular forms of politics and stuff, but that just means that the rate at which the gap between regulator and regulated grows is slower than it would be if states were stagnant--hence, extended lifespan (with a pretty shoddy institutional record regardless, mind you).

Whoa, you totally mind read me right there. I agree, exponentially increasing computational power (until Moore's Law becomes irrelevant at the nano scale) could better model an economic market, but it will never perform at the level of the free market, hence people get screwed.

Cool cool.

So, I don't think I really need to do anything, per se. It's not a question of whether anarchism is plausible--it's a question of how long we have to wait until states just stop working at all, and the decentralized networks of relations take the reins.

We differ here, I think states can persist while being a shlt-fvck on the economy and society. The state doesn't work well, but it maintains its dominance through methods you know as well as I do: coercion, propaganda, deception, tradition, etc..

Sure. That has no bearing on my suggestion, though.

That time frame is speculative, but I don't think one can realistically deny the eventual outcome. If you had to ask me, on that basis, what my "process" is, I'd say that I want to accelerate the rate at which the state decays.
For me, the academic philosopher, it requires making the philosophy understandable to people in a way that convinces them to take a little sabbatical. Following Walter Benjamin, redeeming the world from statism doesn't require tremendous, earth-shaking change--it just requires a bit of adjustment.

That must be a hefty chunk of "a bit of adjustment." Apathy and ignorance are giants that stand in the way of this accelerated decay.

They don't seem very giant to me. I think you might just be a bit uncreative or pessimistic. :)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:59:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:56:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:35:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:30:51 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:16:18 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Spinko already got it, basically. To be a little more snarky about it, though: You can't counter "the methodology of central planners is bad" with a question about what my plan is.

You really missed the entire point of the thread. But, nevertheless, what would be your preferred method for dismantling such a state?

Nah, bro. I only suggested that the point of the thread is dumbsauce, and that circumventing it was totes a better idea. Also, I like to troll, so there's that.

You've yet to provide a reason for that assertion.

Oh, it isn't an assertion. I'm informing you that I have no desire to employ statist methodology. :)

The idea was this: suppose you're in charge of an oppressive state, how do you dismantle it from the inside given your incredible power as a demi-god?

I would prefer not to.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:22:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:01:17 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Since my general philosophical strategy is a neutralization or de-powering of the logic underlying statism, the last thing I desire is to participate in a thought experiment predicated upon that logic. :)

You're no fun :(
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:29:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:22:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:01:17 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Since my general philosophical strategy is a neutralization or de-powering of the logic underlying statism, the last thing I desire is to participate in a thought experiment predicated upon that logic. :)

You're no fun :(

You did pose the question. Why not take the cue and help to deactivate the logic of statism? The greatest enemy of the state is the one who refuses even to acknowledge the rules of the game. :)