Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchists

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:22:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We imagine a hypothetical anarchist area (government free state). An organized, powerful, and quite secret group tries to take control of the land in order to exercise control in a form similar to one of a government. Preventing that is hard because there is not much overview of who this group is, where it is controlled from, and how severe weapons it has.

What is your position on this?
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:29:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:22:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
We imagine a hypothetical anarchist area (government free state). An organized, powerful, and quite secret group tries to take control of the land in order to exercise control in a form similar to one of a government. Preventing that is hard because there is not much overview of who this group is, where it is controlled from, and how severe weapons it has.

What is your position on this?

In order to be organized, powerful, and secret, they're going to have to expend a lot of resources. The cost of taking over an area with no centralized rule is astronomical compared to overthrowing a government. They will probably run out of resources before they can subjugate the area, and if they don't they will certainly never recoup their losses.

The idea of anarchist defense isn't to be able to defeat the enemy, it's to make attacking such a terrible idea that no one will bother. If someone who is overwhelmingly powerful desperately wants to take over, there's nothing you can do no matter how you're organized.

Sieben will probably say that this is equivalent to asking about an anarchist alien invasion contingency plan. We will worry about that when the Covenant comes.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:32:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:29:34 PM, Grape wrote:
In order to be organized, powerful, and secret, they're going to have to expend a lot of resources.
Sure, it is possible.

The cost of taking over an area with no centralized rule is astronomical compared to overthrowing a government.
I implied that there is a central commandment.

They will probably run out of resources before they can subjugate the area, and if they don't they will certainly never recoup their losses.
Unsupported assertion.

The idea of anarchist defense isn't to be able to defeat the enemy, it's to make attacking such a terrible idea that no one will bother. If someone who is overwhelmingly powerful desperately wants to take over, there's nothing you can do no matter how you're organized.
Even if the result will not be formation of a government, who says that the group will be defeated? Who will prevent a civil war?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:39:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:22:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
We imagine a hypothetical anarchist area (government free state). An organized, powerful, and quite secret group tries to take control of the land in order to exercise control in a form similar to one of a government. Preventing that is hard because there is not much overview of who this group is, where it is controlled from, and how severe weapons it has.

What is your position on this?

Nobody would give that group legitimacy. If they tried to use force to impose it, people (like a citizen's army) would collectively fight it.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:41:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:39:05 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/20/2011 12:22:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
We imagine a hypothetical anarchist area (government free state). An organized, powerful, and quite secret group tries to take control of the land in order to exercise control in a form similar to one of a government. Preventing that is hard because there is not much overview of who this group is, where it is controlled from, and how severe weapons it has.

What is your position on this?

Nobody would give that group legitimacy. If they tried to use force to impose it, people (like a citizen's army) would collectively fight it.
Sure, and who will prevent a civil war from occurring? Who will prevent chaos? Fighting a powerful group will most certainly result in civil war.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:43:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:32:38 PM, Mirza wrote:
The cost of taking over an area with no centralized rule is astronomical compared to overthrowing a government.
I implied that there is a central commandment.


I was referring to the anarchist area, not the secret organization. The secret organization has a central command, but the anarchists by definition don't. That means you have to conquer every individual and not just the centralized seat of government.

They will probably run out of resources before they can subjugate the area, and if they don't they will certainly never recoup their losses.
Unsupported assertion.


I'm not claiming it's an objective truth that they'll run out of resources. However, it only takes one look at the cost of war to realized it's a waste of money. The US was unable to subjugate the relatively centralized nation of Afghanistan. How long do you think we'd have to rob that poor country to make up our losses if when wanted to? War isn't profitable, and it's unsustainable.

The idea of anarchist defense isn't to be able to defeat the enemy, it's to make attacking such a terrible idea that no one will bother. If someone who is overwhelmingly powerful desperately wants to take over, there's nothing you can do no matter how you're organized.
Even if the result will not be formation of a government, who says that the group will be defeated? Who will prevent a civil war?

Let me reiterate: the goal is that they not attack in the first place. They probably won't because it will be difficult, costly, and probably a net loss. If they do attack anyway, the anarchists may be screwed. But that is true under any system of government: if someone with way more power attacks you, you usually lose.

I don't understand your questions about civil wars or defeating this group. Anarchists don't engage in civil wars or try to 'defeat' enemies unless survival demands it because conflicts are too costly.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:50:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:43:27 PM, Grape wrote:
I was referring to the anarchist area, not the secret organization. The secret organization has a central command, but the anarchists by definition don't. That means you have to conquer every individual and not just the centralized seat of government.
You cannot make sure that every individual will be an anarchist. Not every Russian was a communist in the Soviet Era. You would not have been able to make sure that a political fight against the Soviet would result in ever Russian supporting the government.

I'm not claiming it's an objective truth that they'll run out of resources. However, it only takes one look at the cost of war to realized it's a waste of money. The US was unable to subjugate the relatively centralized nation of Afghanistan. How long do you think we'd have to rob that poor country to make up our losses if when wanted to? War isn't profitable, and it's unsustainable.
I come from a country whose GDP fell by 75%, but it managed to form a military that defended the entire country against over thousand rolling tanks. There's no objective truth in that anarchist individuals will not be defeated. It is possible even in all secrecy.

Let me reiterate: the goal is that they not attack in the first place. They probably won't because it will be difficult, costly, and probably a net loss. If they do attack anyway, the anarchists may be screwed. But that is true under any system of government: if someone with way more power attacks you, you usually lose.
Sure, but statism still remains statism, and control still remains control. Anarchism risks turning into statism if a civil war occurs. Its ideology is more vulnerable than statism (but not necessarily more than e.g., communism).

I don't understand your questions about civil wars or defeating this group. Anarchists don't engage in civil wars or try to 'defeat' enemies unless survival demands it because conflicts are too costly.
In a hypothetical scenario where a powerful group wants to take control, I ask how anarchists would prevent it. Who can make sure that there's agreement and consensus between the individuals? If I were living in an anarchist state, I would most certainly not identify myself as an anarchist.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:52:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:45:26 PM, Grape wrote:
At 2/20/2011 12:41:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
Fighting a powerful group will most certainly result in civil war.

Why?
Because melting ice is the same as turning ice into water. Fighting a group who has weapons and power is fighting. Mass fighting. That is war. Between different peoples it is civil war.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:54:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:22:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
We imagine a hypothetical anarchist area (government free state). An organized, powerful, and quite secret group tries to take control of the land in order to exercise control in a form similar to one of a government. Preventing that is hard because there is not much overview of who this group is, where it is controlled from, and how severe weapons it has.

What is your position on this?

Applies to both governments and anarchies. The implicit question is which can better defend itself. Ask it.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:55:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:54:00 PM, Sieben wrote:
Applies to both governments and anarchies. The implicit question is which can better defend itself. Ask it.
That is not my objection. A state being invaded by another state will still remain: a state. An anarchist state being taken under control will not be anarchist state. That's the fundamental difference.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:56:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:55:25 PM, Mirza wrote:

That is not my objection. A state being invaded by another state will still remain: a state. An anarchist state being taken under control will not be anarchist state. That's the fundamental difference.

And a state being taken over by an anarchy will become an anarchy.

There is no point to this line of reasoning. Its just semantic crap.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:57:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:56:49 PM, Sieben wrote:
And a state being taken over by an anarchy will become an anarchy.

There is no point to this line of reasoning. Its just semantic crap.
Explain how that is probable in any way.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:00:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:57:43 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/20/2011 12:56:49 PM, Sieben wrote:
And a state being taken over by an anarchy will become an anarchy.

There is no point to this line of reasoning. Its just semantic crap.
Explain how that is probable in any way.

Which one? An anarchy taking over a state or that this is just semantic crap?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:01:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:22:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
We imagine a hypothetical anarchist area (government free state). An organized, powerful, and quite secret group tries to take control of the land in order to exercise control in a form similar to one of a government. Preventing that is hard because there is not much overview of who this group is, where it is controlled from, and how severe weapons it has.

What is your position on this?

What's to stop some secret group from taking over a government? It will be much more difficult to do in an anarchist society because there is no central authority -- it's not like chess where you kill the king and you win.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:02:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:00:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
Which one? An anarchy taking over a state or that this is just semantic crap?
The latter is semantical in itself, so I am not going to derail the thread due to that.

The former is what I am referring to.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:03:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:01:08 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
What's to stop some secret group from taking over a government? It will be much more difficult to do in an anarchist society because there is no central authority -- it's not like chess where you kill the king and you win.
The chances of a secret group taking over a government are lower than such a group taking over land in an anarchist area. It is hard to defend something without centralized control. Still, disregarding this, even if the government does get taken over - a state will most likely remain a state.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:08:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:02:11 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/20/2011 1:00:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
Which one? An anarchy taking over a state or that this is just semantic crap?
The latter is semantical in itself,
No no no. You're just throwing around these words without any definitions or analysis. Word games cannot substitute for game theory.

The former is what I am referring to.

A market anarchy might bring down a government because they believe it to be impeding their economic opportunities in the world. For example, anarcho-capitalists might destroy a bunch of gulags, free, the people, and then hire them at better living condition than they had before.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:10:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:50:59 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/20/2011 12:43:27 PM, Grape wrote:
I was referring to the anarchist area, not the secret organization. The secret organization has a central command, but the anarchists by definition don't. That means you have to conquer every individual and not just the centralized seat of government.
You cannot make sure that every individual will be an anarchist. Not every Russian was a communist in the Soviet Era. You would not have been able to make sure that a political fight against the Soviet would result in ever Russian supporting the government.


If the anarchists start deciding to throw away their rights and join up with the conquerors, there would be a serious problem. However, in practice all you have to do to be an anarchist is not commit or support acts of aggressive violence. We assume that most people prefer what is profitable value their own free will. If you lived free your whole life you'd not be eager to be a slave. Still, I agree that could be a serious problem.

I'm not claiming it's an objective truth that they'll run out of resources. However, it only takes one look at the cost of war to realized it's a waste of money. The US was unable to subjugate the relatively centralized nation of Afghanistan. How long do you think we'd have to rob that poor country to make up our losses if when wanted to? War isn't profitable, and it's unsustainable.
I come from a country whose GDP fell by 75%, but it managed to form a military that defended the entire country against over thousand rolling tanks. There's no objective truth in that anarchist individuals will not be defeated. It is possible even in all secrecy.


That increases my confidence in the ability of the anarchists to defend themselves. A powerful army invaded and was defeated by weaker people acting in self defense. Invasions fundamentally do not work well. It is true that aliens could come and destroy us, but all else being equal the advantage is with the defender.

Let me reiterate: the goal is that they not attack in the first place. They probably won't because it will be difficult, costly, and probably a net loss. If they do attack anyway, the anarchists may be screwed. But that is true under any system of government: if someone with way more power attacks you, you usually lose.
Sure, but statism still remains statism, and control still remains control. Anarchism risks turning into statism if a civil war occurs. Its ideology is more vulnerable than statism (but not necessarily more than e.g., communism).


I still don't understand the civil war bit. If an enemy invades and takes over, that would be statism. Not much we can do about it if they're arbitrarily powerful. I've already mentioned that against a strong enough enemy you always lose whatever your system of social organization.

I don't understand your questions about civil wars or defeating this group. Anarchists don't engage in civil wars or try to 'defeat' enemies unless survival demands it because conflicts are too costly.
In a hypothetical scenario where a powerful group wants to take control, I ask how anarchists would prevent it. Who can make sure that there's agreement and consensus between the individuals? If I were living in an anarchist state, I would most certainly not identify myself as an anarchist.

As long as you don't use violence against people who aren't harming you, you'd be living by anarchist principles. If this organization came to you and said, "Mirza, you are now our slave" would you just comply? No, you'd probably try to fight them and cooperate with other people to fight them. You don't need force to do this.

Anarchists can organize. They just don't use violence to force people to accept their method of organization.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:11:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:08:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
No no no. You're just throwing around these words without any definitions or analysis. Word games cannot substitute for game theory.
Listen, these kind of arguments can make me split them in halves, but I will not waste time on that. If you have a problem with accepting different views, create a thread in the personality forum. If you dislike the way I ask about something, then don't answer. You're not necessary for this thread anyway. I look for people who can answer what I ask, not question how I ask.

A market anarchy might bring down a government because they believe it to be impeding their economic opportunities in the world. For example, anarcho-capitalists might destroy a bunch of gulags, free, the people, and then hire them at better living condition than they had before.
Market anarchy is not necessarily what people want. It is not the best way of creating a well-functioning free market. That is not enough to roll down a government. If it is, it does not answer my original question.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:15:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:03:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/20/2011 1:01:08 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
What's to stop some secret group from taking over a government? It will be much more difficult to do in an anarchist society because there is no central authority -- it's not like chess where you kill the king and you win.
The chances of a secret group taking over a government are lower than such a group taking over land in an anarchist area. It is hard to defend something without centralized control.

No it's not, centralization makes it easier to overthrow. You have a clearly defined target: take out a country's leadership and you win. In an anarchist society, you have multiple defense associations that would likely form ad hoc alliances, not to mention armed civilians that would volunteer as well. Non-state resistance groups were a much bigger problem for Hitler than the Danish army, which surrendered without a fight.

Still, disregarding this, even if the government does get taken over - a state will most likely remain a state.

Ok, but you still have better and worse governments. What if the government is overthrown by anarchists?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:15:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:11:58 PM, Mirza wrote:

Listen, these kind of arguments can make me split them in halves, but I will not waste time on that. If you have a problem with accepting different views, create a thread in the personality forum. If you dislike the way I ask about something, then don't answer. You're not necessary for this thread anyway. I look for people who can answer what I ask, not question how I ask.

Oh please. You haven't even defined anarchy or the state (I've actually never seen you define either), and you want to know how they are likely to behave? Any answer without definitions is patently incoherent. Particularly in your case since you seem to think that governments can exist without taxation.

Market anarchy is not necessarily what people want.
Market anarchy is BY DEFINITION what people want :) See http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is not the best way of creating a well-functioning free market.
Absolute property rights don't equate to a free market? What are you smoking?

That is not enough to roll down a government. If it is, it does not answer my original question.
Lol. Troll harder mirza. Why can markets not "roll down" governments? Governments are just backed up by men with guns. Markets can hire men with guns. So why do you think governments automatically win? Trollololololololololol.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:19:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:10:22 PM, Grape wrote:
If the anarchists start deciding to throw away their rights and join up with the conquerors, there would be a serious problem. However, in practice all you have to do to be an anarchist is not commit or support acts of aggressive violence. We assume that most people prefer what is profitable value their own free will. If you lived free your whole life you'd not be eager to be a slave. Still, I agree that could be a serious problem.
Yes, and the serious problem is not prevented by any warranty in an anarchist state. You cannot expect people to agree with everything, not even in totalitarian states. It is a serious problem, and will most likely be in an anarchist state. It is even in a government state, but that is expected.

That increases my confidence in the ability of the anarchists to defend themselves. A powerful army invaded and was defeated by weaker people acting in self defense. Invasions fundamentally do not work well. It is true that aliens could come and destroy us, but all else being equal the advantage is with the defender.
Sure - but in this case, the group is hardly known, the oppressive forces are not identified, etc. Finding the common enemy and letting all people decide upon a matter is hard - unless anarchists form a centralized command, which would not be their biggest wish as far as I'm concerned. Also, there is still a civil war in this case.

I still don't understand the civil war bit. If an enemy invades and takes over, that would be statism. Not much we can do about it if they're arbitrarily powerful. I've already mentioned that against a strong enough enemy you always lose whatever your system of social organization.
With a stable central command, defense is possible. Partnership is also possible and helpful. Anarchists would not want clashes between partnerships, would they? No, so they would not want such bonds between groups. And again, statism will most likely remain statism. Anarchism would not, or it would turn into a social chaos

As long as you don't use violence against people who aren't harming you, you'd be living by anarchist principles.
Sure, I agree - but I'm not an anarchist. A few ideals of an ideology doesn't make you an avid supporter of it.

If this organization came to you and said, "Mirza, you are now our slave" would you just comply? No, you'd probably try to fight them and cooperate with other people to fight them. You don't need force to do this.
That is a vague description. Propaganda by secret and powerful forces will most likely not be "you are now our slave."

Anarchists can organize. They just don't use violence to force people to accept their method of organization.
Yes, but their enemies do.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:24:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:15:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
No it's not, centralization makes it easier to overthrow. You have a clearly defined target: take out a country's leadership and you win. In an anarchist society, you have multiple defense associations that would likely form ad hoc alliances, not to mention armed civilians that would volunteer as well. Non-state resistance groups were a much bigger problem for Hitler than the Danish army, which surrendered without a fight.
The Danish example is a poor one. There is more in the history than that. And, a government is not easier to overthrow. It is easier to identify it and have an overview of what it - granted. But it has more power than individuals, and has more power to defend itself than individuals do. Had it been the contrary, fewer states would have had governments today than they do now. That's not the case.

Ok, but you still have better and worse governments.
True, and I didn't argue for what kind of governments would be established - just that states would remain states (i.e., with government).

What if the government is overthrown by anarchists?
Then that will be it - an anarchist societies would still risk facing problems as in the case I described. But, it is historically recorded that governments form easier than they collapse.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:31:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:15:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
Oh please. You haven't even defined anarchy or the state (I've actually never seen you define either), and you want to know how they are likely to behave?
1. Bring your evidence for that claim - right now (and don't bother asking me to do the job for you).

2. You want it that way? Let us try - you've never seen an anarchist state in action, you've never lived in one, you've never experienced how people would behave in order, and you want to know how the state is likely to behave?

Any answer without definitions is patently incoherent. Particularly in your case since you seem to think that governments can exist without taxation.
There's more in economics and government than you know. Taxation is not necessary for a government.

Market anarchy is BY DEFINITION what people want :) See http://en.wikipedia.org...
Not the people I think of.

Absolute property rights don't equate to a free market? What are you smoking?
Property rights do not equate your ideology. There is freedom in economics in various ideologies, but they are not necessarily anarchist.

Lol. Troll harder mirza. Why can markets not "roll down" governments? Governments are just backed up by men with guns. Markets can hire men with guns. So why do you think governments automatically win? Trollololololololololol.
Discussing with you seems like a waste of time. Leave it over to the other, more reasonable anarchists. Questioning is not trolling, by the way. Enjoy your chamomile tea.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:32:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:19:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/20/2011 1:10:22 PM, Grape wrote:
If the anarchists start deciding to throw away their rights and join up with the conquerors, there would be a serious problem. However, in practice all you have to do to be an anarchist is not commit or support acts of aggressive violence. We assume that most people prefer what is profitable value their own free will. If you lived free your whole life you'd not be eager to be a slave. Still, I agree that could be a serious problem.
Yes, and the serious problem is not prevented by any warranty in an anarchist state. You cannot expect people to agree with everything, not even in totalitarian states. It is a serious problem, and will most likely be in an anarchist state. It is even in a government state, but that is expected.


A government can't solve the problem that people disagree with anarchy. Anarchy means people behaving according to their own free will and not using force against one another. A government is an organization that is set up for the purpose of using violence against people and restricting their rights. The fact that people sometimes irrational is an unsolvable problem with human nature, not a fault of anarchy that can be solve through violence.

That increases my confidence in the ability of the anarchists to defend themselves. A powerful army invaded and was defeated by weaker people acting in self defense. Invasions fundamentally do not work well. It is true that aliens could come and destroy us, but all else being equal the advantage is with the defender.
Sure - but in this case, the group is hardly known, the oppressive forces are not identified, etc. Finding the common enemy and letting all people decide upon a matter is hard - unless anarchists form a centralized command, which would not be their biggest wish as far as I'm concerned. Also, there is still a civil war in this case.


They are able to oppress you, but they're secret? Government is pretty overt. This is just like the Covenant coming, only now they have those stealth brutes from ODST that throw fire and are goddamn invisible. I am not worried about this possibility at all. And yes, if someone invades there is a war.

I still don't understand the civil war bit. If an enemy invades and takes over, that would be statism. Not much we can do about it if they're arbitrarily powerful. I've already mentioned that against a strong enough enemy you always lose whatever your system of social organization.
With a stable central command, defense is possible. Partnership is also possible and helpful. Anarchists would not want clashes between partnerships, would they? No, so they would not want such bonds between groups. And again, statism will most likely remain statism. Anarchism would not, or it would turn into a social chaos


Anarchists are not against cooperation just because cooperatives may fight each other. Individuals may fight each other. There is nothing wrong with organization, the problem is with violence. And history as shown that non-centralized guerrillas are much more of a problem for invaders than national armies.

As long as you don't use violence against people who aren't harming you, you'd be living by anarchist principles.
Sure, I agree - but I'm not an anarchist. A few ideals of an ideology doesn't make you an avid supporter of it.


You can be a cheerleader for violence all you want, if you don't attack innocent people you're living by anarchist principles.

If this organization came to you and said, "Mirza, you are now our slave" would you just comply? No, you'd probably try to fight them and cooperate with other people to fight them. You don't need force to do this.
That is a vague description. Propaganda by secret and powerful forces will most likely not be "you are now our slave."


The Covenant have stealth brutes and mind control? Yep, we are utterly screwed no matter what system of social organization we use.

Anarchists can organize. They just don't use violence to force people to accept their method of organization.
Yes, but their enemies do.

And if they are arbitrarily powerful it will work. But until the Covenant comes anarchism is capable of resisting enemies, and when the Covenant does come we are all going to lose anyway.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:42:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:31:12 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/20/2011 1:15:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
Oh please. You haven't even defined anarchy or the state (I've actually never seen you define either), and you want to know how they are likely to behave?
1. Bring your evidence for that claim - right now
You're asking me to prove a negative? I could pick any of your posts...

(and don't bother asking me to do the job for you).
Lol. I'm actually the one who's gone back and dug stuff up. You're the one who claims to have addressed arguments he never touched.

2. You want it that way? Let us try - you've never seen an anarchist state in action, you've never lived in one, you've never experienced how people would behave in order,

i) We just use game theory to predict how people will react given a certain rule set (anarchy). It's not difficult

ii) I've given you many examples of anarchy before, including this one http://www.daviddfriedman.com...

iii) TURN this point on you - if you don't know how an anarchy would behave, you can't say it would automatically fall to a state.

and you want to know how the state is likely to behave?

I want you to do some analysis instead of just running your mouth.

There's more in economics and government than you know. Taxation is not necessary for a government.
Assertionism.

Market anarchy is BY DEFINITION what people want :) See http://en.wikipedia.org...
Not the people I think of.
You just can't read :(

Absolute property rights don't equate to a free market? What are you smoking?
Property rights do not equate your ideology.
My ideology is ANARCHO CAPITALIST. If that doesn't scream property rights I don't know what to say.

There is freedom in economics in various ideologies, but they are not necessarily anarchist.
Absolute property rights are a sufficient condition for anarchy because government must violate property rights to exist.

Discussing with you seems like a waste of time. Leave it over to the other, more reasonable anarchists.
Trollololololololololololol!!!

Questioning is not trolling, by the way. Enjoy your chamomile tea.
You're not really questioning. You're positing that an anarchy would lose in a battle with states. You haven't defined anarchy. You haven't defined states. You haven't done any analysis at all. You just sit around shooting your thoughtless opinions right in our faces. Its public masturbation. Get a clue.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:46:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:24:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/20/2011 1:15:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
No it's not, centralization makes it easier to overthrow. You have a clearly defined target: take out a country's leadership and you win. In an anarchist society, you have multiple defense associations that would likely form ad hoc alliances, not to mention armed civilians that would volunteer as well. Non-state resistance groups were a much bigger problem for Hitler than the Danish army, which surrendered without a fight.
The Danish example is a poor one. There is more in the history than that. And, a government is not easier to overthrow.

Okay, then how about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel?

It is easier to identify it and have an overview of what it - granted. But it has more power than individuals, and has more power to defend itself than individuals do. Had it been the contrary, fewer states would have had governments today than they do now. That's not the case.

The government is not some mystical entity -- it's just a group of individuals. Your argument basically comes down to capital allocation, but there's no reason to think that an anarchist society couldn't allocate capital as effectively as a state. If war materiel is in demand, that's what will end up being produced. Markets react in all kinds of crazy ways to unexpected events.

What if the government is overthrown by anarchists?
Then that will be it - an anarchist societies would still risk facing problems as in the case I described. But, it is historically recorded that governments form easier than they collapse.

Once anarchy has been established, it's unlikely that governments would re-emerge. I'm debating Cosmic on it later this week.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 2:26:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thanks to J.Kenyon and Grape for your inputs. I intended to see what your position was, not to make a strong attack against it.

Sieben, if you are not satisfied with the way I ask or argue, then click away from my posts.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 2:36:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 2:26:57 PM, Mirza wrote:

Sieben, if you are not satisfied with the way I ask or argue, then click away from my posts.

Nope. I'm explaining to lurkers why you have down syndrome.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...