Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Calling all Anarchists!

OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, so this girl in my LD team made this horrible argument to me(we were debating off topic) about how essentially, without the government, everything implodes upon itself. Now, I countered of course, but since everyone discussing it was a Liberal.....I kinda looked like the crazy uncle.

So, this was her basic argument 1) without the government, we would have no way to import/export cause all those wonderful regs and customs 2) without the government, terrorists would run rampant across the US, blowing stuff up, cause of how our government stops them 3) without the government, we would all be conquered by other countries.....

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-"". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
(all you guys^)

Ikr?

So, please proceed to tear her argument apart and please provide examples of an anarchist society.....that girl will not call me "hon" again! >:D
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 8:43:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no anarchist society so a posteriori examples aren't exactly possible. We just have to rely on logic and reasoning. Of course there's no argument to refute. The woman from your story just threw together a barely coherent set of thoughts without evidence or reasoning backing it up. Onus is on her to prove her point. Status quo bias FTL.
: 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.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 10:04:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok, so this girl in my LD team made this horrible argument to me(we were debating off topic) about how essentially, without the government, everything implodes upon itself. Now, I countered of course, but since everyone discussing it was a Liberal.....I kinda looked like the crazy uncle.

So, this was her basic argument 1) without the government, we would have no way to import/export cause all those wonderful regs and customs 2) without the government, terrorists would run rampant across the US, blowing stuff up, cause of how our government stops them 3) without the government, we would all be conquered by other countries.....

Even if her crazy, nonsensical, non-factual argument was totally valid, I don't see it as making the case for anything more than the smallest of governments as envisioned by most libertarians who think a government is necessary to secure property rights/national security/free trade. As a debater, she might want to look into how to use logic and facts, because those are pretty essential to making a sound, compelling argument.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 10:07:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
So, please proceed to tear her argument apart and please provide examples of an anarchist society
Hmm, that's a tough one. Those "societies" could barely fit 10 huts in them. Sure, you can use logic and reasoning to support anarchy. You can also use it to claim that we can make Venus inhabitable. The likelihood of it happening is zero. That's out of the anarchists minds'. I guess imagination is good to have, eh?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 10:42:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 10:07:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
So, please proceed to tear her argument apart and please provide examples of an anarchist society
Hmm, that's a tough one. Those "societies" could barely fit 10 huts in them. Sure, you can use logic and reasoning to support anarchy. You can also use it to claim that we can make Venus inhabitable. The likelihood of it happening is zero. That's out of the anarchists minds'. I guess imagination is good to have, eh?

Many an anarchist would say that if you can successfully make the logical/moral case for anarchy over the state, that is enough to prove that we should be working towards it, regardless of likelihood or practicality.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:24:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 10:07:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
So, please proceed to tear her argument apart and please provide examples of an anarchist society
Hmm, that's a tough one. Those "societies" could barely fit 10 huts in them. Sure, you can use logic and reasoning to support anarchy. You can also use it to claim that we can make Venus inhabitable. The likelihood of it happening is zero. That's out of the anarchists minds'. I guess imagination is good to have, eh?

Wanna debate anarchism?
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:29:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:24:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Wanna debate anarchism?
"Anarchism will most likely not be established as a standard political ideology." Sounds good sir?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:36:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Socialpinko, I also have another debate in mind (we can have two at once - argument time will be split): Islamic Economics would create a more stable economy than anarcho-capitalism. Since I won't be here much next week, we can have a one or two hour-per-round debates right now.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:41:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:29:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:24:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Wanna debate anarchism?
"Anarchism will most likely not be established as a standard political ideology." Sounds good sir?

That's not really what I wanted to debate. You seemed to be claiming anarchism was untenable, that it wouldn't be able to function if established. I know anarchism won't come about for a bit, that doesn't mean I don't think it can "work" in a much better way than the various forms of statism.
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:44:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok, so this girl in my LD team made this horrible argument to me(we were debating off topic) about how essentially, without the government, everything implodes upon itself. Now, I countered of course, but since everyone discussing it was a Liberal.....I kinda looked like the crazy uncle.

So, this was her basic argument 1) without the government, we would have no way to import/export cause all those wonderful regs and customs 2) without the government, terrorists would run rampant across the US, blowing stuff up, cause of how our government stops them 3) without the government, we would all be conquered by other countries.....



. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-"". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
(all you guys^)

Ikr?

So, please proceed to tear her argument apart and please provide examples of an anarchist society.....that girl will not call me "hon" again! >:D

I think her argument was pretty good.

I think other issues include law enforcement and institutional maintenance.

Let me ask you something. Let me ask all the of the "Anarchists" something. In the system we currently have, there are no real restrictions on what people can do to circumvent issues they aren't particularly fond of, or to change things to the majority's advantage. We have a pretty malleable system that allows for change in accordance with current trends. This has proven true. So, my question is, given that things are generally already the way things would be if there were no government, except with government assistance, then why don't people change things now to reflect an Anarchist ideal, whereby they can maintain laissez-faire capitalism, for example, without required interference from a governing body to keep them in check?

Because, if things could maintain by itself, then I don't see why the government would spend money maintaining it.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:44:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:36:04 PM, Mirza wrote:
Socialpinko, I also have another debate in mind (we can have two at once - argument time will be split): Islamic Economics would create a more stable economy than anarcho-capitalism. Since I won't be here much next week, we can have a one or two hour-per-round debates right now.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so perhaps change AnCap in the resolution to mutualism or agorism. And I don't do quick debates. I need time to write out and present a case, as well as time to actually think over my response. We can do one on that subject when you come back.
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:47:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:41:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That's not really what I wanted to debate. You seemed to be claiming anarchism was untenable, that it wouldn't be able to function if established. I know anarchism won't come about for a bit, that doesn't mean I don't think it can "work" in a much better way than the various forms of statism.
Uh oh, coping out are we? Now, please understand my sentences correctly Ma'am. You're all English-speakers here, bit one would think you're either too naive or just plain dumb to understand what people say. I said even if you support anarchy with logic and reason, that does NOT mean it is an achievable state of society. I'd like to defend that claim in a debate.

Now, I don't need to make a sole attack against anarchy in order to be against it. I can support another competing ideology. So, accept my debate on what would create a better and more stable economy for all people in a society: Islamic Economics versus Anarcho-capitalism.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:53:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:44:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so perhaps change AnCap in the resolution to mutualism or agorism.
LOL! Ok. You see the big issues on my profile? I used to be either Pro or Con on the various issues, but now I'm Conpro! So I don't really want to debate what my stance seems to be on them. Bye.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:53:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not one of those people who are like "zomg, anarkkkkeeee!!!!!1!!! Everybody will run around being savages!!!!". However, I do still think it's an idealistic goal that'll never be feasible in our current society. Minarchy could work, but anarchism? No.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:55:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:44:29 PM, Ren wrote:

I think her argument was pretty good.

I think other issues include law enforcement and institutional maintenance.

Let me ask you something. Let me ask all the of the "Anarchists" something. In the system we currently have, there are no real restrictions on what people can do to circumvent issues they aren't particularly fond of, or to change things to the majority's advantage.

There are a host of problems with this. First, things don't change to the majority's advantage, at least not as a rule. Policies which actually might do this are what is called a public good, a good which is unlikely to be produced under the current system. You know, individual rationality turns to collective irrationality. See basic public choice theory, it explains why he have things like debt crisis, exponential growth of government, lack of actual scaling back of terrible policies (i.e., the drug war), etc. So right off the bat your description of the current state of affairs is dead wrong.

We have a pretty malleable system that allows for change in accordance with current trends. This has proven true. So, my question is, given that things are generally already the way things would be if there were no government, except with government assistance, then why don't people change things now to reflect an Anarchist ideal, whereby they can maintain laissez-faire capitalism, for example, without required interference from a governing body to keep them in check?

What? How can things be the way they would be if there were no government? There IS government! Without government we wouldn't have a institutional aggression against person and property, monocentric law, a myriad of public choice problems, etc. Where are you getting the idea that government just doesn't exist? Furthermore, things don't change for a few reasons, none of which actually prove the untenability of anarchism.

Ideological and educational barriers are the main problem. Most people go to state schools, state schools generally don't put anarchism or non-mainstream political theory in a positive light. Only status quo allowed. Furthermore the trend of liberal democracy is towards rational ignorance of most people. This is more related to public choice theory effects on voters. The cost of pouring one's self into every issue usually outweighs the benefit since voting at the individual level is useless and the incentives of special interests more line up with politicians.

Because, if things could maintain by itself, then I don't see why the government would spend money maintaining it.

Things could "maintain" themselves without government. Society could also function without rape and theft. Pointing out that we have rapists and thieves doesn't disprove this.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 11:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:53:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:44:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so perhaps change AnCap in the resolution to mutualism or agorism.
LOL! Ok. You see the big issues on my profile? I used to be either Pro or Con on the various issues, but now I'm Conpro! So I don't really want to debate what my stance seems to be on them. Bye.

It's no secret I'm not an Ancap bro. I agree with them on most issues but have some fundamental disagreements.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:01:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:47:06 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:41:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That's not really what I wanted to debate. You seemed to be claiming anarchism was untenable, that it wouldn't be able to function if established. I know anarchism won't come about for a bit, that doesn't mean I don't think it can "work" in a much better way than the various forms of statism.
Uh oh, coping out are we? Now, please understand my sentences correctly Ma'am. You're all English-speakers here, bit one would think you're either too naive or just plain dumb to understand what people say. I said even if you support anarchy with logic and reason, that does NOT mean it is an achievable state of society. I'd like to defend that claim in a debate.

I suppose it would depend on the methods you think are necessary to achieve something. I hold that the current system (or really all states) are unsustainable. So when they collapse at some point, boom we have anarchism. But I assume you wouldn't think that the same amirite? I think I can make a good case though so let's do it.

Besides, the fact that people are drawn more and more to government even given the exponential outgrowth of detrimental policy isn't really an argument against anarchism, it's an argument for it since it basically makes beneficial governance an unattainable public good under statism. I'm not copping out Ma'am, send over a challenge.

Now, I don't need to make a sole attack against anarchy in order to be against it. I can support another competing ideology. So, accept my debate on what would create a better and more stable economy for all people in a society: Islamic Economics versus Anarcho-capitalism.

Make it Islamic Economics vs. Mutualism. We'll do it with a three day posting period. I already said I'm not an Ancap Ma'am.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:05:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:53:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not one of those people who are like "zomg, anarkkkkeeee!!!!!1!!! Everybody will run around being savages!!!!". However, I do still think it's an idealistic goal that'll never be feasible in our current society. Minarchy could work, but anarchism? No.

Does that mean you think it could function *if* it were established?
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:06:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's no proper way of arguing against anarchists. All of them come in different shapes and forms. I oppose the notion that an anarchist society is likely to be real, challenge someone to a debate on the matter, and what I get is a wall-of-text from a kid, as RoyLatham said, "Speaking a language that nobody understands." They don't want to debate anything. They change positions to be able to say, "I don't actually believe X. I believe Y. Still anarchy, but your criticism is invalid!"

SP, Tell me when you're ready to accept one (or both) of my two challenges above.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:11:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:05:50 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:53:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not one of those people who are like "zomg, anarkkkkeeee!!!!!1!!! Everybody will run around being savages!!!!". However, I do still think it's an idealistic goal that'll never be feasible in our current society. Minarchy could work, but anarchism? No.

Does that mean you think it could function *if* it were established?

To a certain extent, sure. However, my main issue with it is that somebody will eventually rise up and take control. It just naturally seems to happen after a period of time. Even primitive tribes have a leader.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:14:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:06:27 AM, Mirza wrote:
There's no proper way of arguing against anarchists. All of them come in different shapes and forms.

As oppose to other groups which are *so* homogenous like Christians, socialists, Muslims, libertarians, conservatives, etc. etc. etc. "Oh ma gawd Muslims are sooo lame! This one said he thought homosexuality was immoral but this one said it was kewl. So confusing!"

I oppose the notion that an anarchist society is likely to be real, challenge someone to a debate on the matter, and what I get is a wall-of-text from a kid,

Why bring up my age? Weird.

as RoyLatham said, "Speaking a language that nobody understands."

And like I responded to him, just because you're too stupid to understand what we're saying proves no fault of our own.

They don't want to debate anything.

I'm in two debates at current on anarchism and have done three or four in the past.

They change positions to be able to say, "I don't actually believe X. I believe Y. Still anarchy, but your criticism is invalid!"

Not really. I'm not just changing my position out of nowhere. See my profile. It's said I consider myself a neo-mutualist for some time now. Besides, I already said I'd be willing to debate the first debate you asked for. So stop whining pl0z.

SP, Tell me when you're ready to accept one (or both) of my two challenges above.

I already told you to send over the challenge on whether anarchism could be attained. On your second, I already said I wasn't an AnCap. Learn to read brosky.
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:20:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:14:06 AM, socialpinko wrote:
As oppose to other groups which are *so* homogenous like Christians, socialists, Muslims, libertarians, conservatives, etc. etc. etc. "Oh ma gawd Muslims are sooo lame!
Strawman.

This one said he thought homosexuality was immoral but this one said it was kewl. So confusing!"
Another strawman. By the way, when I say I support an Islamic State, what does that have to do with other Muslims? They are not necessarily politically opinionated. "Muslim" doesn't mean you have a political opinion. Anarchist does. Logic is simple. Grasping it is not.

And like I responded to him, just because you're too stupid to understand what we're saying proves no fault of our own.
Oh, we are all stupid indeed. Hmm I'm sure neither of us would hesitate to compare IQ's though, Ma'am.

I'm in two debates at current on anarchism and have done three or four in the past.
You don't debate anything you're challenged on. Nobody knows what most of you believe. If I attack anarchy, outline to me that you don't think anarcho-capitalism is the same as anarcho-x, and that the latter is actually more likely to be applied. If you want to defend anarchy as a whole, then surely I can pick any part of it and debate you on it, can I not?

Not really. I'm not just changing my position out of nowhere. See my profile. It's said I consider myself a neo-mutualist for some time now. Besides, I already said I'd be willing to debate the first debate you asked for. So stop whining pl0z.
None of your proposals have anything to do with my challenge.

I already told you to send over the challenge on whether anarchism could be attained. On your second, I already said I wasn't an AnCap. Learn to read brosky.
Good. So you are Con on: "Anarchism will most likely not be established as a standard political ideology." We're settled?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:21:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 11:56:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:53:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:44:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so perhaps change AnCap in the resolution to mutualism or agorism.
LOL! Ok. You see the big issues on my profile? I used to be either Pro or Con on the various issues, but now I'm Conpro! So I don't really want to debate what my stance seems to be on them. Bye.

It's no secret I'm not an Ancap bro. I agree with them on most issues but have some fundamental disagreements.

I'm very curious as to what these fundamental disagreements are, since right now I'm looking into ancap, libertarian socialism, mutualism, etc... Any websites or anything you could recommend on the topic(s)? I also feel like I agree with ancap on most issues and yet I'm uneasy with the idea of having profit as the sole motivator of an economic system, the end all be all of human society...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:29:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:20:17 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/18/2012 12:14:06 AM, socialpinko wrote:
As oppose to other groups which are *so* homogenous like Christians, socialists, Muslims, libertarians, conservatives, etc. etc. etc. "Oh ma gawd Muslims are sooo lame!
Strawman.

How so. You tried to group all anarchists into some monolithic mess, why can't I do the same with Muslims?

This one said he thought homosexuality was immoral but this one said it was kewl. So confusing!"
Another strawman. By the way, when I say I support an Islamic State, what does that have to do with other Muslims? They are not necessarily politically opinionated. "Muslim" doesn't mean you have a political opinion. Anarchist does. Logic is simple. Grasping it is not.

It's not limited to political theory. Anarchists are like Muslims in the sense that they're simply ideological groupings of people who agree in some sense. They don't have to agree on everything. The only thing binding anarchists is that they support a society without a State. It doesn't mean they're all capitalists, communists, mutualists, collectivists, individualists, etc. and it's moronic to think so.

And like I responded to him, just because you're too stupid to understand what we're saying proves no fault of our own.
Oh, we are all stupid indeed. Hmm I'm sure neither of us would hesitate to compare IQ's though, Ma'am.

Doesn't really refute what I said. Anarchism is actually pretty simple. So you're either willfully ignorant or stupid. Take your pick.

I'm in two debates at current on anarchism and have done three or four in the past.
You don't debate anything you're challenged on.

Examples sir?

Nobody knows what most of you believe.

I'm pretty open about it actually.

If I attack anarchy, outline to me that you don't think anarcho-capitalism is the same as anarcho-x, and that the latter is actually more likely to be applied. If you want to defend anarchy as a whole, then surely I can pick any part of it and debate you on it, can I not?

I already said I would debate you on anarchism (i.e., generic stateless society) in the first debate you want to challenge me on.

Not really. I'm not just changing my position out of nowhere. See my profile. It's said I consider myself a neo-mutualist for some time now. Besides, I already said I'd be willing to debate the first debate you asked for. So stop whining pl0z.
None of your proposals have anything to do with my challenge.

You're saying Islamic economics vs. Anarcho-capitalism. For like the fifth time, I'm not a mutherfucking anarcho-capitalist.

I already told you to send over the challenge on whether anarchism could be attained. On your second, I already said I wasn't an AnCap. Learn to read brosky.
Good. So you are Con on: "Anarchism will most likely not be established as a standard political ideology." We're settled?

Sure bro.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:33:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:21:53 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:56:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:53:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/17/2012 11:44:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so perhaps change AnCap in the resolution to mutualism or agorism.
LOL! Ok. You see the big issues on my profile? I used to be either Pro or Con on the various issues, but now I'm Conpro! So I don't really want to debate what my stance seems to be on them. Bye.

It's no secret I'm not an Ancap bro. I agree with them on most issues but have some fundamental disagreements.

I'm very curious as to what these fundamental disagreements are, since right now I'm looking into ancap, libertarian socialism, mutualism, etc... Any websites or anything you could recommend on the topic(s)?

If you want to learn about mutualism, read Kevin Carson. His stuff can be found here: (http://c4ss.org...) and here: (http://www.mutualist.org...). The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand is great. If you want to learn about anarcho-capitalism, read Friedman or Rothbard. For libertarian socialism, see Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin for a more modern formulation.

I also feel like I agree with ancap on most issues and yet I'm uneasy with the idea of having profit as the sole motivator of an economic system, the end all be all of human society...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 1:24:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok, so this girl in my LD team made this horrible argument to me(we were debating off topic) about how essentially, without the government, everything implodes upon itself. Now, I countered of course, but since everyone discussing it was a Liberal.....I kinda looked like the crazy uncle.

So, this was her basic argument 1) without the government, we would have no way to import/export cause all those wonderful regs and customs 2) without the government, terrorists would run rampant across the US, blowing stuff up, cause of how our government stops them 3) without the government, we would all be conquered by other countries.....

K. I'm not any less high, but I'm going to try to answer this as well as I can.

1. Regulation/customs enforcement aren't even necessary in a world that isn't founded on closed nation-states. Customs enforcement is designed to make sure that national security threats or criminal cargo don't get in or out, which isn't really as big a problem in a world that's networked, rather than hierarchically organized. There isn't a sense of "infiltration" by a foreign entity that tends to motivate customs checks (which, in line with this thesis, occur at the borders).

2. That is not an argument. That's conjectural fear-mongering with no empirical basis. One of the big reasons in light of which terrorist attacks occur are bad foreign policy judgments and attempts to forcibly export our culture. The traditions of historical stateless regions tend to shy away from cultural imperialism, since the kinds of cultural memes that discourage the emergence of central authority also entail a reciprocal aversion to oppressing other groups. cf. http://papers.ssrn.com...

3. That's based on a bad model of international relations which treats geopolitics like a game of Risk. There are plenty of tiny countries which exist now, and plenty more wealthy states with unimpressive militaries (e.g., Switzerland, The Netherlands). If the realist model of IR was true, you would expect these countries to be swallowed up or controlled by their larger counterparts. Why doesn't the US invade and conquer Monaco? There are obviously more incentives in play than a desire for short-term conquest. One thing that liberal IR theory got right is the peaceful set of relations resulting from economic interdependence. If the US tried to attack Liechtenstein, there are several immediate conflicts of interest: the US would be hurting not only its own economic interests by invading and destroying, but it would hurt the economic interests of its regional and other global trading partners, sparking a threat of coercive backlash. Nobody's going to want to take over a bunch of anarchist communities. And I mean, like the paper I linked above notes, there have been historically peaceful, prosperous, long-lasting anarchic societies employing numerous statecraft-resistant techniques (e.g., particular kinds of agriculture, oral legal traditions based on custom and geared toward restoration/restitution, cultural hostility toward taking orders/complying with authority, mobile lifestyle, decentralized population and production structure) for a very long time, and I think these can at least represent, if not paradigms, then gestures toward where we ought to go to reinvent our culture to make it resistant to statism.

And I mean, if the only criticism is that it's difficult, that doesn't do it for me. It just means our work is cut out for us, and that all the contrarian obstinacy is just unhelpful.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 1:34:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:24:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok, so this girl in my LD team made this horrible argument to me(we were debating off topic) about how essentially, without the government, everything implodes upon itself. Now, I countered of course, but since everyone discussing it was a Liberal.....I kinda looked like the crazy uncle.

So, this was her basic argument 1) without the government, we would have no way to import/export cause all those wonderful regs and customs 2) without the government, terrorists would run rampant across the US, blowing stuff up, cause of how our government stops them 3) without the government, we would all be conquered by other countries.....

K. I'm not any less high, but I'm going to try to answer this as well as I can.

1. Regulation/customs enforcement aren't even necessary in a world that isn't founded on closed nation-states. Customs enforcement is designed to make sure that national security threats or criminal cargo don't get in or out, which isn't really as big a problem in a world that's networked, rather than hierarchically organized. There isn't a sense of "infiltration" by a foreign entity that tends to motivate customs checks (which, in line with this thesis, occur at the borders).

2. That is not an argument. That's conjectural fear-mongering with no empirical basis. One of the big reasons in light of which terrorist attacks occur are bad foreign policy judgments and attempts to forcibly export our culture. The traditions of historical stateless regions tend to shy away from cultural imperialism, since the kinds of cultural memes that discourage the emergence of central authority also entail a reciprocal aversion to oppressing other groups. cf. http://papers.ssrn.com...

3. That's based on a bad model of international relations which treats geopolitics like a game of Risk. There are plenty of tiny countries which exist now, and plenty more wealthy states with unimpressive militaries (e.g., Switzerland, The Netherlands). If the realist model of IR was true, you would expect these countries to be swallowed up or controlled by their larger counterparts. Why doesn't the US invade and conquer Monaco? There are obviously more incentives in play than a desire for short-term conquest. One thing that liberal IR theory got right is the peaceful set of relations resulting from economic interdependence. If the US tried to attack Liechtenstein, there are several immediate conflicts of interest: the US would be hurting not only its own economic interests by invading and destroying, but it would hurt the economic interests of its regional and other global trading partners, sparking a threat of coercive backlash. Nobody's going to want to take over a bunch of anarchist communities. And I mean, like the paper I linked above notes, there have been historically peaceful, prosperous, long-lasting anarchic societies employing numerous statecraft-resistant techniques (e.g., particular kinds of agriculture, oral legal traditions based on custom and geared toward restoration/restitution, cultural hostility toward taking orders/complying with authority, mobile lifestyle, decentralized population and production structure) for a very long time, and I think these can at least represent, if not paradigms, then gestures toward where we ought to go to reinvent our culture to make it resistant to statism.

And I mean, if the only criticism is that it's difficult, that doesn't do it for me. It just means our work is cut out for us, and that all the contrarian obstinacy is just unhelpful.

Marry me.
: 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.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:13:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:24:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/17/2012 8:26:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok, so this girl in my LD team made this horrible argument to me(we were debating off topic) about how essentially, without the government, everything implodes upon itself. Now, I countered of course, but since everyone discussing it was a Liberal.....I kinda looked like the crazy uncle.

So, this was her basic argument 1) without the government, we would have no way to import/export cause all those wonderful regs and customs 2) without the government, terrorists would run rampant across the US, blowing stuff up, cause of how our government stops them 3) without the government, we would all be conquered by other countries.....

K. I'm not any less high, but I'm going to try to answer this as well as I can.

1. Regulation/customs enforcement aren't even necessary in a world that isn't founded on closed nation-states. Customs enforcement is designed to make sure that national security threats or criminal cargo don't get in or out, which isn't really as big a problem in a world that's networked, rather than hierarchically organized. There isn't a sense of "infiltration" by a foreign entity that tends to motivate customs checks (which, in line with this thesis, occur at the borders).

2. That is not an argument. That's conjectural fear-mongering with no empirical basis. One of the big reasons in light of which terrorist attacks occur are bad foreign policy judgments and attempts to forcibly export our culture. The traditions of historical stateless regions tend to shy away from cultural imperialism, since the kinds of cultural memes that discourage the emergence of central authority also entail a reciprocal aversion to oppressing other groups. cf. http://papers.ssrn.com...

3. That's based on a bad model of international relations which treats geopolitics like a game of Risk. There are plenty of tiny countries which exist now, and plenty more wealthy states with unimpressive militaries (e.g., Switzerland, The Netherlands). If the realist model of IR was true, you would expect these countries to be swallowed up or controlled by their larger counterparts. Why doesn't the US invade and conquer Monaco? There are obviously more incentives in play than a desire for short-term conquest. One thing that liberal IR theory got right is the peaceful set of relations resulting from economic interdependence. If the US tried to attack Liechtenstein, there are several immediate conflicts of interest: the US would be hurting not only its own economic interests by invading and destroying, but it would hurt the economic interests of its regional and other global trading partners, sparking a threat of coercive backlash. Nobody's going to want to take over a bunch of anarchist communities. And I mean, like the paper I linked above notes, there have been historically peaceful, prosperous, long-lasting anarchic societies employing numerous statecraft-resistant techniques (e.g., particular kinds of agriculture, oral legal traditions based on custom and geared toward restoration/restitution, cultural hostility toward taking orders/complying with authority, mobile lifestyle, decentralized population and production structure) for a very long time, and I think these can at least represent, if not paradigms, then gestures toward where we ought to go to reinvent our culture to make it resistant to statism.

And I mean, if the only criticism is that it's difficult, that doesn't do it for me. It just means our work is cut out for us, and that all the contrarian obstinacy is just unhelpful.

Props to you good sir not just for this wonderful intellectual ownage (DDO can always count and you, and spinko as well, for some top notch defenses of anarchy) but more so for doing it while apparently totally blazed. That's a more coherent, eloquent, yet concise defense of (certain aspects of) anarchy than I could ever type sober. (Then again, I do my best writing and thinking while high, so idk.) I have now favorited this thread.