Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

6 main types of constitutions

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 2:11:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are 6 main types of constitutions, which can be separated in 3 categories

1) One Sovereign (mono-imperium/sovereignty of one)
a.) monarchy (one leader)
b.) tyranny (an unrestricted or illegitimate ruler)
2.) A Few Sovereigns (oligo-imperium/sovereignty of a few)
a.) oligarchy (a few leaders)
b.) aristocracy (dominion of the best)
3.) Many Sovereigns (demo-imperium/sovereignty of the people)
a.) democracy (dominion of the people/citizens)
b.) Republic (associated with/belonging to the entire populace)


One Sovereign


A Monarchy is when a single sovereign wields supreme authority over the state. A Tyranny is when that sovereign is illegitimate, or unrestricted. It thus follows that a monarch (as opposed to a tyranny) is restricted by laws and tradition. An example of a monarchy becoming a tyranny is when King Charles II named his younger brother, King James II, as heir to the throne. King James II was a catholic which made his reign illegitimate according to the laws regarding the rules of succession. Those who supported King James were nicknamed Tories (meaning an outlaw).

A monarch is bound by tradition and/or laws, and a tyrant is not.


A few Sovereigns


An oligarchy is when a few people wield supreme authority over the state. For example, a single party state is an oligarchy (provided the party controls the state and not a single man).

An aristocracy is when the best qualified wield supreme authority over the state. The qualifications are dependent on the society. Some societies may believe that a council of judges are the best qualified, while others may believe that belonging to a predominant family makes one the best qualified. If only people with a certain IQ was allowed to vote, it would be an aristocracy of intellectuals.

An aristocrat is chosen based on his qualifications, and an oligarch is chosen based on his influence.


Many Sovereigns


A democracy is when the people wield supreme authority over the state. A republic is when each individual person wields an equal share of that authority. In a democracy the majority opinion prevails, but in a republic the state is limited by laws and traditions granting everyone within society an equal share in the state.

A democracy is limited by majority rule, and a republic is limited by rule of law.


Difference between sovereigns and rulers


The sovereign has authority over the rulers, but are not necessarily a ruler. If a dictator steps down from government but still holds supreme authority over the government, he is a sovereign even though he no longer wields executive, legislative, or judicial powers. A monarchy can have any number of rulers, but only one sovereign. The sovereign is greater than the ruler, because the ruler relies on the sovereign for power.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 4:59:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 3:52:58 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What about private law and no sovereigns? :)

Are you referring to a stateless society? A stateless society has no rulers, and therefore no constitution. There may be a legislature or a judicature, but the government lacks the executive powers required to be considered a state. If there is no administration, there is no state.

Take for example a confederation. A confederation has a central government, but lacks a central state. The United States in Congress assembled was a confederation, lacking an executive branch, but it still had a court of last resort and, as the name implies, a congress. Only the state governments, at that time, wielded executive powers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 8:25:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

Moral superiority will mean nothing to a war-torn and starving people.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 8:28:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 8:25:57 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

Moral superiority will mean nothing to a war-torn and starving people.

Cool story bro, why don't you tell me again how a stateless society hurts people?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 8:31:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 8:28:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 8:25:57 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

Moral superiority will mean nothing to a war-torn and starving people.

Cool story bro, why don't you tell me again how a stateless society hurts people?

Your response to Contras argument was that Anarchy, even if it causes constant war, is morally superior. Moral superiority is unimportant to someone in constant war.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 8:40:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 8:31:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/23/2012 8:28:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 8:25:57 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

Moral superiority will mean nothing to a war-torn and starving people.

Cool story bro, why don't you tell me again how a stateless society hurts people?

Your response to Contras argument was that Anarchy, even if it causes constant war, is morally superior. Moral superiority is unimportant to someone in constant war.

That wasn't MY response. That was A response that I've heard.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 8:42:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 8:40:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 8:31:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/23/2012 8:28:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 8:25:57 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

Moral superiority will mean nothing to a war-torn and starving people.

Cool story bro, why don't you tell me again how a stateless society hurts people?

Your response to Contras argument was that Anarchy, even if it causes constant war, is morally superior. Moral superiority is unimportant to someone in constant war.

That wasn't MY response. That was A response that I've heard.

Ok, well that was my response to a response that you've heard.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 9:01:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 2:11:34 PM, DanT wrote:
There are 6 main types of constitutions, which can be separated in 3 categories

1) One Sovereign (mono-imperium/sovereignty of one)
a.) monarchy (one leader)
b.) tyranny (an unrestricted or illegitimate ruler)
2.) A Few Sovereigns (oligo-imperium/sovereignty of a few)
a.) oligarchy (a few leaders)
b.) aristocracy (dominion of the best)
3.) Many Sovereigns (demo-imperium/sovereignty of the people)
a.) democracy (dominion of the people/citizens)
b.) Republic (associated with/belonging to the entire populace)


One Sovereign


A Monarchy is when a single sovereign wields supreme authority over the state. A Tyranny is when that sovereign is illegitimate, or unrestricted. It thus follows that a monarch (as opposed to a tyranny) is restricted by laws and tradition. An example of a monarchy becoming a tyranny is when King Charles II named his younger brother, King James II, as heir to the throne. King James II was a catholic which made his reign illegitimate according to the laws regarding the rules of succession. Those who supported King James were nicknamed Tories (meaning an outlaw).

A monarch is bound by tradition and/or laws, and a tyrant is not.


A few Sovereigns


An oligarchy is when a few people wield supreme authority over the state. For example, a single party state is an oligarchy (provided the party controls the state and not a single man).

An aristocracy is when the best qualified wield supreme authority over the state. The qualifications are dependent on the society. Some societies may believe that a council of judges are the best qualified, while others may believe that belonging to a predominant family makes one the best qualified. If only people with a certain IQ was allowed to vote, it would be an aristocracy of intellectuals.

An aristocrat is chosen based on his qualifications, and an oligarch is chosen based on his influence.


Many Sovereigns


A democracy is when the people wield supreme authority over the state. A republic is when each individual person wields an equal share of that authority. In a democracy the majority opinion prevails, but in a republic the state is limited by laws and traditions granting everyone within society an equal share in the state.

A democracy is limited by majority rule, and a republic is limited by rule of law.



Difference between sovereigns and rulers


The sovereign has authority over the rulers, but are not necessarily a ruler. If a dictator steps down from government but still holds supreme authority over the government, he is a sovereign even though he no longer wields executive, legislative, or judicial powers. A monarchy can have any number of rulers, but only one sovereign. The sovereign is greater than the ruler, because the ruler relies on the sovereign for power.

anarchy is not the topic
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:54:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Wait, so smaller government fouth with each other, therefore we need a bigger government to make sure everyone plays nice? Ignoring the fact that the supposed need for higher authority leads to ultimate regress (the Fed. gov. should be the authority of the state gov. who is an authority to the....etc.) and that the only way to bypass this is mutual multicentric political organization (i.e., polycentric organizations whether organized communely or capitalistically and a system of horizontal checks of authority is the only viable form of political organization), you're simply generalizing from the fighting of states (i.e, GOVERNMENTS) to the supposed inevitability of everyone fighting without taking into account incentive structures inherent in States that cause this type of thing (i.e., monpolistic power over violence and conflict resolution, taxation).

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

Uuuuum, that they didn't? Your theory has a few flaws.

(A) It presuppose that governments have historically done this. Even statists generally admit that no government existing before say one or two hundred years ago has actually existed for any reason other than for the interests of those who governed i.e., Kings, royalty, the prisetly class, etc. If your argument draws on history then this is a legitimate counter-argument. If your argument rests on idealistic conditions then history is irrelevant.

(B) It presupposes that the choices of a few people generations ago can impose real obligation on anyone living i.e., your great great great great great great great great great grandfather started a business with some other dudes. Now you and everyone in the area has to buy shoes from that business. It's retarded logic.

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

That's not going to convine people though. The general paradigm is that woot woot without the beloved State roming biker gangs would gangbang your sister. You have to show people why this utterly absurd notion is false. A lot of people do think the government is evil in a sense but they keep adding the qualifier necessary. Annoying really.
: 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.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 9:01:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/23/2012 2:11:34 PM, DanT wrote:
There are 6 main types of constitutions, which can be separated in 3 categories

1) One Sovereign (mono-imperium/sovereignty of one)
a.) monarchy (one leader)
b.) tyranny (an unrestricted or illegitimate ruler)
2.) A Few Sovereigns (oligo-imperium/sovereignty of a few)
a.) oligarchy (a few leaders)
b.) aristocracy (dominion of the best)
3.) Many Sovereigns (demo-imperium/sovereignty of the people)
a.) democracy (dominion of the people/citizens)
b.) Republic (associated with/belonging to the entire populace)


One Sovereign


A Monarchy is when a single sovereign wields supreme authority over the state. A Tyranny is when that sovereign is illegitimate, or unrestricted. It thus follows that a monarch (as opposed to a tyranny) is restricted by laws and tradition. An example of a monarchy becoming a tyranny is when King Charles II named his younger brother, King James II, as heir to the throne. King James II was a catholic which made his reign illegitimate according to the laws regarding the rules of succession. Those who supported King James were nicknamed Tories (meaning an outlaw).

A monarch is bound by tradition and/or laws, and a tyrant is not.


A few Sovereigns


An oligarchy is when a few people wield supreme authority over the state. For example, a single party state is an oligarchy (provided the party controls the state and not a single man).

An aristocracy is when the best qualified wield supreme authority over the state. The qualifications are dependent on the society. Some societies may believe that a council of judges are the best qualified, while others may believe that belonging to a predominant family makes one the best qualified. If only people with a certain IQ was allowed to vote, it would be an aristocracy of intellectuals.

An aristocrat is chosen based on his qualifications, and an oligarch is chosen based on his influence.


Many Sovereigns


A democracy is when the people wield supreme authority over the state. A republic is when each individual person wields an equal share of that authority. In a democracy the majority opinion prevails, but in a republic the state is limited by laws and traditions granting everyone within society an equal share in the state.

A democracy is limited by majority rule, and a republic is limited by rule of law.



Difference between sovereigns and rulers


The sovereign has authority over the rulers, but are not necessarily a ruler. If a dictator steps down from government but still holds supreme authority over the government, he is a sovereign even though he no longer wields executive, legislative, or judicial powers. A monarchy can have any number of rulers, but only one sovereign. The sovereign is greater than the ruler, because the ruler relies on the sovereign for power.

anarchy is not the topic

Your topic was boring. Defining things is dull as Fern Cotton unless useful. It isn't useful in this context.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 6:11:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 6:08:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've made this thread before. And it's kinda useless.

All threads have been made before. And they are all useless. Like your mum. In bed last night.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 6:12:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 6:11:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 9/24/2012 6:08:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've made this thread before. And it's kinda useless.

All threads have been made before. And they are all useless. Like your mum. In bed last night.

That's like some cyclical metaphysics or some shlt.
: 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.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 7:24:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Aristotle came up with this categorization.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 7:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:54:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Wait, so smaller government fouth with each other, therefore we need a bigger government to make sure everyone plays nice? Ignoring the fact that the supposed need for higher authority leads to ultimate regress (the Fed. gov. should be the authority of the state gov. who is an authority to the....etc.) and that the only way to bypass this is mutual multicentric political organization (i.e., polycentric organizations whether organized communely or capitalistically and a system of horizontal checks of authority is the only viable form of political organization), you're simply generalizing from the fighting of states (i.e, GOVERNMENTS) to the supposed inevitability of everyone fighting without taking into account incentive structures inherent in States that cause this type of thing (i.e., monpolistic power over violence and conflict resolution, taxation).

Over time, governments arose to protect people's wealth. True, private organizations could likely do the same, but couldn't do it as good of a scale. Think about this. Private organizations only have a limited amount of men. They will have trouble repeatedly fighting off nomads who come and every so often ravage the town for its wealth.

Gov't also arose eventually in many areas to create irrigation systems, and other public works projects.

I can see how the private sector could perform these tasks efficiently though if allowed to do so (say, farmers devote so much of their rent or money received via irrigation towards the businesses that produced the irrigation system).

Regarding law and order though, gov't naturally arose over time numerous times. It's almost inevitable. And when they formed, they rolled over anarchist areas. This is how all the early civilizations played out, they extended their rule over areas with no or weaker gov'ts.


Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

Uuuuum, that they didn't? Your theory has a few flaws.

(A) It presuppose that governments have historically done this. Even statists generally admit that no government existing before say one or two hundred years ago has actually existed for any reason other than for the interests of those who governed i.e., Kings, royalty, the prisetly class, etc. If your argument draws on history then this is a legitimate counter-argument. If your argument rests on idealistic conditions then history is irrelevant.

Go on.

I'll admit though that many gov'ts were corrupted and used tax revenues to benefit themselves and political allies. This was a big cause of the instability in ancient times.

(B) It presupposes that the choices of a few people generations ago can impose real obligation on anyone living i.e., your great great great great great great great great great grandfather started a business with some other dudes. Now you and everyone in the area has to buy shoes from that business. It's retarded logic.

No, I don't know if I get what you're saying. My point is that history can serve as a guide. Like, we know that the state monopoly over car production is a horrible idea. In East Germany, the communist state took fine steel, and actually decreased the value of it when producing crappy brittle vehicles. And no competition prevented this enterprise from going extinct.

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

That's not going to convince people though. The general paradigm is that woot woot without the beloved State roming biker gangs would gangbang your sister. You have to show people why this utterly absurd notion is false. A lot of people do think the government is evil in a sense but they keep adding the qualifier necessary. Annoying really.

My real point is though this. If governments tend to arise naturally over time, what is an anarchist "state" supposed to do about this central force which can rally up many people to overcome this anarchist area? I know in Switzerland very strong gun ownership acts as a strong deterrent. Is this your idea, and is it really practical with the US?

I know many anarchists have put up videos for private entities protecting property rights, though I've never got to watch them.

What would happen with no gov't, about negative externalities? If CO2 imposes a soceital cost of $1.50 per pound (hypothetical estimate), who is to enforce this in an anarchist society?
"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
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 8:03:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 7:24:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Aristotle came up with this categorization.

I expanded on it, (but just a bit), while staying true to the original context. In my opinion Aristotle was a bit vague.
http://debate.org...

The more sovereigns there are, the more individualist the constitution is. That separates it into 3 categories. Whether the constitution is loose, or strict determines splits the 3 categories into 6 categories. Loose constitutions are left wing, while strict constitutions are right wing.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 9:11:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 8:25:57 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

Moral superiority will mean nothing to a war-torn and starving people.

For once I agree.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 7:03:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 7:38:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:54:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Wait, so smaller government fouth with each other, therefore we need a bigger government to make sure everyone plays nice? Ignoring the fact that the supposed need for higher authority leads to ultimate regress (the Fed. gov. should be the authority of the state gov. who is an authority to the....etc.) and that the only way to bypass this is mutual multicentric political organization (i.e., polycentric organizations whether organized communely or capitalistically and a system of horizontal checks of authority is the only viable form of political organization), you're simply generalizing from the fighting of states (i.e, GOVERNMENTS) to the supposed inevitability of everyone fighting without taking into account incentive structures inherent in States that cause this type of thing (i.e., monpolistic power over violence and conflict resolution, taxation).

Over time, governments arose to protect people's wealth. True, private organizations could likely do the same, but couldn't do it as good of a scale. Think about this. Private organizations only have a limited amount of men. They will have trouble repeatedly fighting off nomads who come and every so often ravage the town for its wealth.

Gov't also arose eventually in many areas to create irrigation systems, and other public works projects.

I can see how the private sector could perform these tasks efficiently though if allowed to do so (say, farmers devote so much of their rent or money received via irrigation towards the businesses that produced the irrigation system).

Regarding law and order though, gov't naturally arose over time numerous times. It's almost inevitable. And when they formed, they rolled over anarchist areas. This is how all the early civilizations played out, they extended their rule over areas with no or weaker gov'ts.


Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

Uuuuum, that they didn't? Your theory has a few flaws.

(A) It presuppose that governments have historically done this. Even statists generally admit that no government existing before say one or two hundred years ago has actually existed for any reason other than for the interests of those who governed i.e., Kings, royalty, the prisetly class, etc. If your argument draws on history then this is a legitimate counter-argument. If your argument rests on idealistic conditions then history is irrelevant.

Go on.

I'll admit though that many gov'ts were corrupted and used tax revenues to benefit themselves and political allies. This was a big cause of the instability in ancient times.

(B) It presupposes that the choices of a few people generations ago can impose real obligation on anyone living i.e., your great great great great great great great great great grandfather started a business with some other dudes. Now you and everyone in the area has to buy shoes from that business. It's retarded logic.

No, I don't know if I get what you're saying. My point is that history can serve as a guide. Like, we know that the state monopoly over car production is a horrible idea. In East Germany, the communist state took fine steel, and actually decreased the value of it when producing crappy brittle vehicles. And no competition prevented this enterprise from going extinct.

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

That's not going to convince people though. The general paradigm is that woot woot without the beloved State roming biker gangs would gangbang your sister. You have to show people why this utterly absurd notion is false. A lot of people do think the government is evil in a sense but they keep adding the qualifier necessary. Annoying really.

My real point is though this. If governments tend to arise naturally over time, what is an anarchist "state" supposed to do about this central force which can rally up many people to overcome this anarchist area? I know in Switzerland very strong gun ownership acts as a strong deterrent. Is this your idea, and is it really practical with the US?

I know many anarchists have put up videos for private entities protecting property rights, though I've never got to watch them.

What would happen with no gov't, about negative externalities? If CO2 imposes a soceital cost of $1.50 per pound (hypothetical estimate), who is to enforce this in an anarchist society?

I'd like a response/ rebuttal please.
"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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 7:48:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 7:38:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:54:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/23/2012 7:09:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/23/2012 6:55:09 PM, Contra wrote:
With no central gov't connecting the various states, it would lead to conflict. Take a look at ancient China. The Zhou Dynasty gave very strong powers to the states, and they became relatively independent, and gradually ignored the central gov't, and the states ferociously fought for power and it became a war-zone until the Qin Dynasty united the states together.

Wait, so smaller government fouth with each other, therefore we need a bigger government to make sure everyone plays nice? Ignoring the fact that the supposed need for higher authority leads to ultimate regress (the Fed. gov. should be the authority of the state gov. who is an authority to the....etc.) and that the only way to bypass this is mutual multicentric political organization (i.e., polycentric organizations whether organized communely or capitalistically and a system of horizontal checks of authority is the only viable form of political organization), you're simply generalizing from the fighting of states (i.e, GOVERNMENTS) to the supposed inevitability of everyone fighting without taking into account incentive structures inherent in States that cause this type of thing (i.e., monpolistic power over violence and conflict resolution, taxation).

Over time, governments arose to protect people's wealth. True, private organizations could likely do the same, but couldn't do it as good of a scale. Think about this. Private organizations only have a limited amount of men. They will have trouble repeatedly fighting off nomads who come and every so often ravage the town for its wealth.

(A) You're ignoring the historical point. Just saying governments were originally formed to protect society doesn't make it true. That might be true for some more modern ones but on the whole that's only a few historically. (B) I'm not sure what you mean. Any given city doesn't have a million strong police force. How many people are you saying it takes to defend property and why don't you think private organizations could supply it?

Gov't also arose eventually in many areas to create irrigation systems, and other public works projects.

I can see how the private sector could perform these tasks efficiently though if allowed to do so (say, farmers devote so much of their rent or money received via irrigation towards the businesses that produced the irrigation system).

Okay then, no government needed there.

Regarding law and order though, gov't naturally arose over time numerous times. It's almost inevitable. And when they formed, they rolled over anarchist areas. This is how all the early civilizations played out, they extended their rule over areas with no or weaker gov'ts.

You have no reason to extrapolate the supposed inevitability of governments forming simply from there having been historical instances of such. You could say the same thing of slavery or religion or Communism but obviously that's not the instance. It's just conjecture.


Government arose to create law and order, and eventually to protect people against invaders. How do anarchists rebut this history?

Uuuuum, that they didn't? Your theory has a few flaws.

(A) It presuppose that governments have historically done this. Even statists generally admit that no government existing before say one or two hundred years ago has actually existed for any reason other than for the interests of those who governed i.e., Kings, royalty, the prisetly class, etc. If your argument draws on history then this is a legitimate counter-argument. If your argument rests on idealistic conditions then history is irrelevant.

Go on.

I'll admit though that many gov'ts were corrupted and used tax revenues to benefit themselves and political allies. This was a big cause of the instability in ancient
times.

This hasn't changed that much unfortunately.

(B) It presupposes that the choices of a few people generations ago can impose real obligation on anyone living i.e., your great great great great great great great great great grandfather started a business with some other dudes. Now you and everyone in the area has to buy shoes from that business. It's retarded logic.

No, I don't know if I get what you're saying. My point is that history can serve as a guide. Like, we know that the state monopoly over car production is a horrible idea. In East Germany, the communist state took fine steel, and actually decreased the value of it when producing crappy brittle vehicles. And no competition prevented this enterprise from going extinct.

One could argue that certain historical features unique to such an area gave rise to those conditions i.e., lack of a division of labor, no real industry, etc. That doesn't go very far to establish a universal law though which is what you're trying to do.

I've heard the argument, from morality-driven anarchists, that if anarchy can be shown to be a philosophically or morally superior choice, then that is all the necessary prerequisite to support it.

That's not going to convince people though. The general paradigm is that woot woot without the beloved State roming biker gangs would gangbang your sister. You have to show people why this utterly absurd notion is false. A lot of people do think the government is evil in a sense but they keep adding the qualifier necessary. Annoying really.

My real point is though this. If governments tend to arise naturally over time, what is an anarchist "state" supposed to do about this central force which can rally up many people to overcome this anarchist area? I know in Switzerland very strong gun ownership acts as a strong deterrent. Is this your idea, and is it really practical with the US?

That's the point of defense agencies (communal or private). Saying there shouldn't be a government doesn't mean the same thing as saying there shouldn't be protection services or defense of person and property. And again this is connected to extrapolating universal historical laws unnecessarily which I think statists end up doing.

I know many anarchists have put up videos for private entities protecting property rights, though I've never got to watch them.

You should. Some are rather interesting.

What would happen with no gov't, about negative externalities? If CO2 imposes a soceital cost of $1.50 per pound (hypothetical estimate), who is to enforce this in an anarchist society?

Murray Rothbard wrote some interesting stuff on the subject. He basically supports extending tort law to handle all pollution matters. For instance, say company X pollutes town Y. Some of the people in the town are having their property polluted so they would have a strong case to bring a common suit against the company. There's a wealth of literature on the subject to be found though that explains it a lot better than I.
: 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.