Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

- Anarcho-Communism -

annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:01:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

That's like picking herpes over syphilis.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:08:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:00:47 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
I would like to hear your thoughts on Anarcho-Communism.

Positive and Negative thoughts are both welcome.

I'll refer you to my post that touches on the subject, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 12:02:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:00:47 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
I would like to hear your thoughts on Anarcho-Communism.

Positive and Negative thoughts are both welcome.

2 questions. What are your justifications for general anarchism? What are your justifications for general stateless communism?
My manwich!
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 2:42:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 12:02:55 AM, Merda wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:00:47 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
I would like to hear your thoughts on Anarcho-Communism.

Positive and Negative thoughts are both welcome.

2 questions. What are your justifications for general anarchism? What are your justifications for general stateless communism?

1.) Government in general leads to control over others and a hierarchy of some sort. No man or woman should have to choose between (A.)being controlled or (B.) being free and punished. Karma balances things just fine. Social agreements are better than government laws.

2.) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

3.) This society would not have a traditional army or private "for profit" police agencies. Instead, it would have Militia. Social agreement is key to organization. Government law is an illusion, social agreements or social law, is the real law.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 8:55:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 2:42:07 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 12:02:55 AM, Merda wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:00:47 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
I would like to hear your thoughts on Anarcho-Communism.

Positive and Negative thoughts are both welcome.

2 questions. What are your justifications for general anarchism? What are your justifications for general stateless communism?

1.) Government in general leads to control over others and a hierarchy of some sort. No man or woman should have to choose between (A.)being controlled or (B.) being free and punished. Karma balances things just fine. Social agreements are better than government laws.

I agree with most of it except for the karma bullsh1t.

2.) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

That's not a reason. It's a quote.

3.) This society would not have a traditional army or private "for profit" police agencies. Instead, it would have Militia. Social agreement is key to organization. Government law is an illusion, social agreements or social law, is the real law.

An AnCap society would not prohibit voluntary militia. They would simply compete with for profit militia. The more efficient or productive one would come out on top.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
My manwich!
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 9:25:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 8:55:59 PM, Merda wrote:
At 6/8/2011 2:42:07 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 12:02:55 AM, Merda wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:00:47 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
I would like to hear your thoughts on Anarcho-Communism.

Positive and Negative thoughts are both welcome.

2 questions. What are your justifications for general anarchism? What are your justifications for general stateless communism?

1.) Government in general leads to control over others and a hierarchy of some sort. No man or woman should have to choose between (A.)being controlled or (B.) being free and punished. Karma balances things just fine. Social agreements are better than government laws.

I agree with most of it except for the karma bullsh1t.

2.) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

That's not a reason. It's a quote.

3.) This society would not have a traditional army or private "for profit" police agencies. Instead, it would have Militia. Social agreement is key to organization. Government law is an illusion, social agreements or social law, is the real law.

An AnCap society would not prohibit voluntary militia. They would simply compete with for profit militia. The more efficient or productive one would come out on top.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

profit; monetary systems; it all leads to an in balance of power and control over others.

A society motivated by nothing but profit and raising your position in the monetary scale will inevitably lead to power imbalances and control issues.

Monetary systems are not needed. Profit is a desire that leads to negative results.

Profit = More than you need.

When everyone in society has what they need. It creates a society with more happiness, strength, and love. It gives the people in the society the time and energy to focus on other things besides the monetary system. The monetary system rules most people's lives in today's society.

Besides, AnCap society would never last long. It is a self defeating idea.

Capitalism conquers anarchy. There used to be free profit markets once upon a time. Whoever wins in the free market and gains the most profit, starts to gain power over others and influence in the market itself. Once this happens... hierarchy forms and the AnCap ideals are defeated. AnCaps don't seem to grasp this though.

Profit is a desire for influence and power. Profit being the glue that holds the society together is self defeating.

AnCom is much more efficient, as there is no profit cause power struggles. There isn't a monetary system cause envy of wealth. People would start to value other things in life, besides the monetary system and their place in it.

AnCom has alot of benefits with very little negative side effects. Now, if you are a greedy, power hungry, control freak... You would hate AnCom society. I doubt such a society would spawn many offspring like that though, because everyone would mostly have what they want or have the same ways of obtaining it if they don't.

Envy. greed, control over others,... They would all have little place in AnCom society.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 10:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 10:31:55 PM, Merda wrote:
Wanna debate? "AnCap is a more humanitarian and justified fom of social organization than AnCom."

I would rather do a side by side real life simulation. Debating it proves nothing in real life.

What is humanitarian about revolving an entire society around profit?
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 10:48:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 10:45:51 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 10:31:55 PM, Merda wrote:
Wanna debate? "AnCap is a more humanitarian and justified fom of social organization than AnCom."

I would rather do a side by side real life simulation.

Okay, go do that and then come back to us. Or read chapter six of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism and learn why controlled experiments can't work in the social sciences the way they do in the natural sciences.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 11:22:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).

I still don't know how you can stop a state from forming: Either obtained through consent or through force.

Let's say a scenario occurs where private security contractors do exist. Wouldn't the most profitable action for these security contractors would be to create a cartel, or essential monopoly: And kill anybody that tries to form another security contract.

Then after that, I don't know what the security contractors could do to increase their profits. My guess is the state would require "funds" and create a crony capitalist society.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 11:30:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 11:22:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).

I still don't know how you can stop a state from forming: Either obtained through consent or through force.


No one will consent to live under a state after they have lived in a free society for a sufficient length of time. That basically answers both the questions. As David Hume first pointed out (and this has been a key idea in the sociological analysis of the state since then), the state rules through consent and not through force. The minority cannot rule the majority through force for a sustained length of time.

Let's say a scenario occurs where private security contractors do exist. Wouldn't the most profitable action for these security contractors would be to create a cartel, or essential monopoly: And kill anybody that tries to form another security contract.


Not any more than this is the case with private shoe companies. And if they start killing people who try to compete with them, that will be pretty bad publicity and they can expect their income to drop.

Then after that, I don't know what the security contractors could do to increase their profits. My guess is the state would require "funds" and create a crony capitalist society.

They would start robbing people and would quickly be labelled as criminals by the overwhelming majority of society who are hurt by their actions. Theft is not a sustainable business practice and before long they'd be gone.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 12:02:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 11:30:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:22:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).

I still don't know how you can stop a state from forming: Either obtained through consent or through force.


No one will consent to live under a state after they have lived in a free society for a sufficient length of time. That basically answers both the questions. As David Hume first pointed out (and this has been a key idea in the sociological analysis of the state since then), the state rules through consent and not through force. The minority cannot rule the majority through force for a sustained length of time.

States have existed throughout history, while anarchy when practiced has only been around through a few years.

Second off, we consent in the sense that an anarchist society would lead to a dictatorship (see analysis below). We'd be better off in a state then in anarchy. We also choose are representatives, so it is consent in a sense.

Either way, to show that anarchy is viable would: you would first have to solve the human action problem, namely how an anarchist society can form while statism has prevailed throughout history. Either something has changed to make anarchy more viable, or the analysis is wrong.

In other words, please explain to me why you think statism has prevailed in history even though people prefer "anarchy".

Let's say a scenario occurs where private security contractors do exist. Wouldn't the most profitable action for these security contractors would be to create a cartel, or essential monopoly: And kill anybody that tries to form another security contract.


Not any more than this is the case with private shoe companies. And if they start killing people who try to compete with them, that will be pretty bad publicity and they can expect their income to drop.

Except private shoe companies don't have the ability to use force. The only way a private shoe company can reduce competition in a free market is to do predatory pricing, in which the consumer benefits and it is an unstable strategy to begin with. Even if the private shoe company forms a monopoly, it is not harmful to the consumer if it takes advantage of economics of scale.

Private security firms on the other hand have force on their side. They just don't have the ability to threaten other firms w/ a price war: they have the ability to kill others.

Also, bad publicity isn't really that much of a problem if you have a cartel. So what if they get bad publicity for people trying to compete with them. It doesn't matter if there is no competition. The United States has bad publicity. It doesn't matter though because there's not much you can do about it except either try to lead a revolution (which would likely fail), or move out of the country.

Then after that, I don't know what the security contractors could do to increase their profits. My guess is the state would require "funds" and create a crony capitalist society.

They would start robbing people and would quickly be labelled as criminals by the overwhelming majority of society who are hurt by their actions. Theft is not a sustainable business practice and before long they'd be gone.

Tell that to any dictatorship or African nation.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 2:01:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 9:25:21 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Capitalism conquers anarchy. There used to be free profit markets once upon a time. Whoever wins in the free market and gains the most profit, starts to gain power over others and influence in the market itself. Once this happens... hierarchy forms and the AnCap ideals are defeated.

Ah, the good old myth of primitive accumulation.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 3:38:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kropotkine, arguing in favor of Communism, says that he has "always observed that workers with difficulty understand the possibility of a wage-system of labor-checks and like artificial inventions of Socialists," but has been "struck on the contrary by the easiness with which they always accept Communist principles." Was Kropotkine ever struck by the easiness with which simple-minded people accept the creation theory and the difficulty with which they understand the possibility of evolution? If so, did he ever use this fact as an argument in favor of the creation hypothesis? Just as it is easier to rest satisfied with the statement, "Male and female created he them," than to trace in the geological strata the intricacies in the evolution of species, so it is easier to say that every man shall have whatever he wants than to find the economic law by which every man may get the equivalent of his product. The ways of Faith are direct and easy to follow, but their goal is a quagmire; whereas the ways of Science, however devious and difficult to tread, lead to solid ground at last. Communism belongs to the Age of Faith, Anarchistic Socialism to the Age of Science.—Liberty, September 15, 1888.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 3:48:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 11:30:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:22:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).

I still don't know how you can stop a state from forming: Either obtained through consent or through force.


No one will consent to live under a state after they have lived in a free society for a sufficient length of time. That basically answers both the questions. As David Hume first pointed out (and this has been a key idea in the sociological analysis of the state since then), the state rules through consent and not through force. The minority cannot rule the majority through force for a sustained length of time.

I'd disagree with that. How do you think states first formed? We were in a free society prior to having a state, and the states formed. So obviously there was some reason for people to join into the state.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 4:06:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 3:48:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:30:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:22:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).

I still don't know how you can stop a state from forming: Either obtained through consent or through force.


No one will consent to live under a state after they have lived in a free society for a sufficient length of time. That basically answers both the questions. As David Hume first pointed out (and this has been a key idea in the sociological analysis of the state since then), the state rules through consent and not through force. The minority cannot rule the majority through force for a sustained length of time.

I'd disagree with that. How do you think states first formed? We were in a free society prior to having a state, and the states formed. So obviously there was some reason for people to join into the state.

Force. Force is the key to why state's always form. An accumulation of wealth over resources naturally causes the source to have control, power, and influence over other people. Anything that creates an accumulation of wealth gives strength imbalance in a society. The imbalance will take form in the reality of the society. States form from this imbalance. This accumulation of wealth. This accumulation of power, control, and influence.

The desire for an accumulation of wealth or "profit" in a monetary system is what causes the imbalance in a monetary society, which eventually forms some form of authority over other people in the society.

AnCom produces a more sustainable balance in society than AnCap.

AnCap produces imbalance due to it's society revolving around profit..
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 5:37:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 4:16:23 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I don't understand anarcho communism

Do you have any specific questions about it?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 5:48:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 4:06:45 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/9/2011 3:48:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:30:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:22:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).

I still don't know how you can stop a state from forming: Either obtained through consent or through force.


No one will consent to live under a state after they have lived in a free society for a sufficient length of time. That basically answers both the questions. As David Hume first pointed out (and this has been a key idea in the sociological analysis of the state since then), the state rules through consent and not through force. The minority cannot rule the majority through force for a sustained length of time.

I'd disagree with that. How do you think states first formed? We were in a free society prior to having a state, and the states formed. So obviously there was some reason for people to join into the state.

Force. Force is the key to why state's always form. An accumulation of wealth over resources naturally causes the source to have control, power, and influence over other people. Anything that creates an accumulation of wealth gives strength imbalance in a society. The imbalance will take form in the reality of the society. States form from this imbalance. This accumulation of wealth. This accumulation of power, control, and influence.

The desire for an accumulation of wealth or "profit" in a monetary system is what causes the imbalance in a monetary society, which eventually forms some form of authority over other people in the society.

AnCom produces a more sustainable balance in society than AnCap.

AnCap produces imbalance due to it's society revolving around profit..

I'd disagree. We naturally form social circles for our own protection at an early stage of evolutionary development, see other apes in their social circles. There is safety and strength in numbers. And in all animal social circles, there is a leader. Often it is the strongest. However, as our logic developed, at some point we may have realized that the strongest was not always the most fit to lead, as we were evolving to gain our edge in the world by use of our brains rather than our muscles, it would naturally come that the smartest would be the most fit to lead.

Eventually, the numbers of each "clan" got so large (remember that there is safety and strength in numbers) that a single leader could not micromange the entire thing, so government was born. Extremely shortly afterwards, (I think milliseconds) corruption as came out. Power corrupts, though I'd argue that it doesn't corrupt everyone, only some (most), and so the more people you have involved with power, the more chances there are of corruption. From corruption (namely corruption of knowledge) monarchies form. Convincing people that they are naturally better and superior or hand picked by God, or some other excuse to get people to stop questioning. The rest is well documented history.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 6:52:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 5:48:44 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/9/2011 4:06:45 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/9/2011 3:48:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:30:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/8/2011 11:22:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2011 10:55:31 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:13:08 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:45:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:29:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The anarchy part is fine. The communist part is economically ignorant.

The anarchy part ceases to be okay when communism is involved. :P

I'd choose AnCom over the status quo. :P

Agreed.

For the same reasons?

The advantages of eliminating the state outweigh the economic disadvantages of a relatively free communist system (especially considering the fact that the status quo is heavily socialized anyway), and I think a communist society with no state would eventually become capitalist on its own anyway (that is what happened when human societies first formed, after all. This time we might just be lucky or smart enough to prevent the emergence of states).

I still don't know how you can stop a state from forming: Either obtained through consent or through force.


No one will consent to live under a state after they have lived in a free society for a sufficient length of time. That basically answers both the questions. As David Hume first pointed out (and this has been a key idea in the sociological analysis of the state since then), the state rules through consent and not through force. The minority cannot rule the majority through force for a sustained length of time.

I'd disagree with that. How do you think states first formed? We were in a free society prior to having a state, and the states formed. So obviously there was some reason for people to join into the state.

Force. Force is the key to why state's always form. An accumulation of wealth over resources naturally causes the source to have control, power, and influence over other people. Anything that creates an accumulation of wealth gives strength imbalance in a society. The imbalance will take form in the reality of the society. States form from this imbalance. This accumulation of wealth. This accumulation of power, control, and influence.

The desire for an accumulation of wealth or "profit" in a monetary system is what causes the imbalance in a monetary society, which eventually forms some form of authority over other people in the society.

AnCom produces a more sustainable balance in society than AnCap.

AnCap produces imbalance due to it's society revolving around profit..

I'd disagree. We naturally form social circles for our own protection at an early stage of evolutionary development, see other apes in their social circles. There is safety and strength in numbers. And in all animal social circles, there is a leader. Often it is the strongest. However, as our logic developed, at some point we may have realized that the strongest was not always the most fit to lead, as we were evolving to gain our edge in the world by use of our brains rather than our muscles, it would naturally come that the smartest would be the most fit to lead.

Eventually, the numbers of each "clan" got so large (remember that there is safety and strength in numbers) that a single leader could not micromange the entire thing, so government was born. Extremely shortly afterwards, (I think milliseconds) corruption as came out. Power corrupts, though I'd argue that it doesn't corrupt everyone, only some (most), and so the more people you have involved with power, the more chances there are of corruption. From corruption (namely corruption of knowledge) monarchies form. Convincing people that they are naturally better and superior or hand picked by God, or some other excuse to get people to stop questioning. The rest is well documented history.

Yes, leaders will always be a part of society.

Difference.

1.) A leader that is freely followed out of love and respect.

2.) A leader that is forcefully followed out of fear and control.

A society whose leaders are followed because of love, respect, and choice are far better off towards peace and happiness, than a society whose leaders are followed because of force, fear, and control.

Your gorilla scenario shows a leader of force, fear, and control. Te more intelligence a life gains, the more it learns that any leadership over people coming from those qualities is not only bad for the overall happiness of the people in the society, but that such leadership is self defeating. All forms of such leadership will no last that test of time.

Thousands of years from now, future humans will look back at our forms of government leadership and they will see it similar to how we currently see gorilla leadership.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 7:14:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Social freedom is impossible without economic freedom.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 7:29:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 7:14:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Social freedom is impossible without economic freedom.

well slap that on a bumper sticker!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"