Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nuclear Weapons in an Anarchist society

quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:43:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been leaning towards Anarcho-Capitalism but the concept of nuclear weapons threatens to keep me a Minarchist.

Today, with thousands of nuclear warheads all over the world, what would prevent a few select corporations or individuals from using already built nuclear weapons in a destructive manner? Such as using them to threaten cities, blackmail competition, etc.

I was hoping a more experienced Anarchist could solve this conundrum for me.

Thanks in advance.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:47:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What keeps States from doing the same? You might be fuzzy on how anarchists could deal with this but the burden to show why monocentric institutional control over them somehow fixes the problem has surely not been met.
: 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.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:01:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:43:57 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
I've been leaning towards Anarcho-Capitalism but the concept of nuclear weapons threatens to keep me a Minarchist.

Today, with thousands of nuclear warheads all over the world, what would prevent a few select corporations or individuals from using already built nuclear weapons in a destructive manner? Such as using them to threaten cities, blackmail competition, etc.

I was hoping a more experienced Anarchist could solve this conundrum for me.

Thanks in advance.

Supposedly there will be functions in the society to take care of this issue and all others. We have no idea what they are but somehow it will be ok because people are good, intelligent, and will take the time to do stuff. But to be honest it seems to be more of an ideology rather than a reality
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:07:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:01:10 PM, jharry wrote:

Supposedly there will be functions in the society to take care of this issue and all others. We have no idea what they are but somehow it will be ok because people are good, intelligent,

Anarchism doesn't make these two claims. Actually, perhaps the more utopian versions do but they're hardly a universal notion.

and will take the time to do stuff.

I'm not sure I understand this. Why do we have such services as food, furniture, housing, and every other sort of product in the world? Because the producers of those services feel some societal burden to help make the world a better place with their product? No, because most people desire them. To think that people grow food for profit but that the only way macro-services could be produced is by either benevolence or fiat legislation is naive.

But to be honest it seems to be more of an ideology rather than a reality

How are you defining reality? As currently being in place? Then yes. As mere fantastical wishing? Then no. There's a wealth of hard-nosed literature on non-State service production. Just ignoring that and calling it "ideology" is misleading and false.
: 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.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:17:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:07:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:01:10 PM, jharry wrote:

Supposedly there will be functions in the society to take care of this issue and all others. We have no idea what they are but somehow it will be ok because people are good, intelligent,

Anarchism doesn't make these two claims. Actually, perhaps the more utopian versions do but they're hardly a universal notion.

I know, when are hard question comes up I get something that resembles a circular argument. Or "I don't have to know for it to be right, or will work

and will take the time to do stuff.

I'm not sure I understand this. Why do we have such services as food, furniture, housing, and every other sort of product in the world? Because the producers of those services feel some societal burden to help make the world a better place with their product? No, because most people desire them. To think that people grow food for profit but that the only way macro-services could be produced is by either benevolence or fiat legislation is naive.

There are six other sins besides greed. People have desires, but they are not all driven by the one.

But to be honest it seems to be more of an ideology rather than a reality

How are you defining reality? As currently being in place? Then yes. As mere fantastical wishing? Then no. There's a wealth of hard-nosed literature on non-State service production. Just ignoring that and calling it "ideology" is misleading and false.

Actually being able to function. Kinda like building a engine that runs on urine, yeah the benefits would outstanding, but you can't just throw some parts together and expect it to run. If someone claims it will work I'm sure they will need to answer some questions before someone will be willing to "bet the farm" on it.

So as it stands right now anarchy sounds great on paper, but that is as far as it goes
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:20:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:47:29 AM, socialpinko wrote:
What keeps States from doing the same? You might be fuzzy on how anarchists could deal with this but the burden to show why monocentric institutional control over them somehow fixes the problem has surely not been met.

States keep control because states wield massive amounts of power. An anarchy could not muster the type of force that a state can. Also, the security dilemma and balance of power is easier to manage when there are a few large nuclear states than it would be if there were a host of smaller anarchic groups.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:31:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:17:08 PM, jharry wrote:

I know, when are hard question comes up I get something that resembles a circular argument. Or "I don't have to know for it to be right, or will work

Circular argument? Elaborate.

There are six other sins besides greed. People have desires, but they are not all driven by the one.

Wut.

Actually being able to function. Kinda like building a engine that runs on urine, yeah the benefits would outstanding, but you can't just throw some parts together and expect it to run. If someone claims it will work I'm sure they will need to answer some questions before someone will be willing to "bet the farm" on it.

So as it stands right now anarchy sounds great on paper, but that is as far as it goes

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Sounds great on paper? Then what are you using to disprove it exactly?
: 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
11/14/2012 12:33:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:20:27 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/14/2012 11:47:29 AM, socialpinko wrote:
What keeps States from doing the same? You might be fuzzy on how anarchists could deal with this but the burden to show why monocentric institutional control over them somehow fixes the problem has surely not been met.

States keep control because states wield massive amounts of power. An anarchy could not muster the type of force that a state can. Also, the security dilemma and balance of power is easier to manage when there are a few large nuclear states than it would be if there were a host of smaller anarchic groups.

Why do you hold States in a separate sphere from everyone else? As if people need States to protect them from others but no one to protect them from States? If this is true than you're just special pleading in favor of States.
: 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.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:38:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:31:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:17:08 PM, jharry wrote:

I know, when are hard question comes up I get something that resembles a circular argument. Or "I don't have to know for it to be right, or will work

Circular argument? Elaborate.

Me: Roads to my house will be expensive

You: So, it's better then a State.

Me: Not really.

You: Uh huh

Rinse, cycle repeat.

There are six other sins besides greed. People have desires, but they are not all driven by the one.

Wut.

This whole ideology seems to stand on greed being the prime motivator to everything working in anarchy. But greed is nor the only motivator. I think it is one of the weakest

Actually being able to function. Kinda like building a engine that runs on urine, yeah the benefits would outstanding, but you can't just throw some parts together and expect it to run. If someone claims it will work I'm sure they will need to answer some questions before someone will be willing to "bet the farm" on it.

So as it stands right now anarchy sounds great on paper, but that is as far as it goes

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Sounds great on paper? Then what are you using to disprove it exactly?

There is nothing to disprove, it's just an ideology. If some one brings me a truck that runs on urine you better know that I'm gonna drain the tank and piss in it. So far anarchists won't let me pee in the tank.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:50:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:38:32 PM, jharry wrote:

Me: Roads to my house will be expensive

You: So, it's better then a State.

Me: Not really.

You: Uh huh

Rinse, cycle repeat.

Not really sure if that has actually happened but okay. There's plenty of literature actually refuting your claim in any case.
http://c4ss.org...
http://www.cato.org...
http://freemarketanarchism.com...
(there's more if you'd like more material)

This whole ideology seems to stand on greed being the prime motivator to everything working in anarchy. But greed is nor the only motivator. I think it is one of the weakest

Not really. That's a common criticism of libertarianism/anarchism but thankfully it's completely hallow. Anarchists rely on self interested motivation on the macro scale i.e., markets for the primary economic organization of society. That doesn't mean everything that exists is based on the profit motive though. There are still opportunities for non-"greed" makeups on the micro-scale, i.e., charities, neighborhood associations, community organization, etc. Furthermore I find it odd you invoke the supposed sin of greed as some refutation of markets co-opting things like defense and roads but have no problem with the same situation applied to food and housing. Curious isn't it?

There is nothing to disprove, it's just an ideology. If some one brings me a truck that runs on urine you better know that I'm gonna drain the tank and piss in it. So far anarchists won't let me pee in the tank.

There's plenty to disprove. There's the claim that States are less efficient than markets, there's the claim that there's no prima facie problem with market centered defense services, there's the incredibly large amount of literature going into detail explaining how non-State social organization is completely workable. Just closing your eyes and screaming "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't disprove that. Furthermore as a methodological tool it's completely untenable given the undue status quo bias i.e., we can just as well apply the same criticism to various revolutionary changes in society that we look back on now as incredibly beneficial; changes like eradicating slavery and the like. So your methodology isn't just wrong, it's self undermining.
: 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
11/14/2012 12:56:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:43:57 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
I've been leaning towards Anarcho-Capitalism but the concept of nuclear weapons threatens to keep me a Minarchist.

Today, with thousands of nuclear warheads all over the world, what would prevent a few select corporations or individuals from using already built nuclear weapons in a destructive manner? Such as using them to threaten cities, blackmail competition, etc.

I was hoping a more experienced Anarchist could solve this conundrum for me.

Thanks in advance.

Let me turn the question on you--what prevents so-called "rogue states" from just using sovereignty claims to shelter and arm malignant organizations?

I mean, look. I'm sure we could conceive of some nightmare scenario where Hans Gruber gets control of a nuclear weapon or something, but the conceivability of nightmare scenarios just signals that we should, following Arendt, be wary of the human capacity to "do evil", loosely speaking. The only entity in the brief history of nuclear power to actually employ such technology for combat purposes has been the United States. Even "belligerents" like North Korea have contented themselves with random underground tests and a bunch of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Interestingly, there are two competing conceptions of anarchist society being used in tandem. One is a theory according to which entire groups of people (whose size is, ex hypothesi, impossible to predict) are unable to muster a coherent defense. Hence responses about military weakness, warlords, inevitability of the state, etc. In sum, anarchy's too weak to function. On the other hand, companies or isolated individuals, who probably suffer substantially tougher constraints (e.g., the inability to just print and borrow indefinitely), are somehow capable of a complex nuclear blackmail scheme that even some states with tested nuclear capacities have been unable to manage.

So, for purposes of objection, I think you get to hold either that they're too weak/poor to do much of anything, or that they're prosperous, etc. enough to be threatened by expensive, sophisticated nuclear terrorism (given that the costs of acquisition, upkeep, deployment, etc. can be pretty massive, in terms not only of money, but of human and social capital). You don't get both. :P
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:06:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
States can keep one another in check with nuclear weapons due to the guarantee of mutually assured destruction. This can be avoided if a state very secretly provides rogue groups with the weapons -- in which case, a target country would have a difficult time targeting, let alone identifying, the aggressors. If states did not exist, I don't see a good reason for rogue groups to abstain from using nuclear weapons. It would be much easier to acquire than today. Major powers do everything to make sure only highly authorized figures have control over WMD's.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:08:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:06:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
States can keep one another in check with nuclear weapons due to the guarantee of mutually assured destruction. This can be avoided if a state very secretly provides rogue groups with the weapons -- in which case, a target country would have a difficult time targeting, let alone identifying, the aggressors. If states did not exist, I don't see a good reason for rogue groups to abstain from using nuclear weapons. It would be much easier to acquire than today. Major powers do everything to make sure only highly authorized figures have control over WMD's.

So you're just admitting that even your "State solution" doesn't work because rogue States can just give nuclear weapons to rogue groups. Why do you think there's less of a reason for rogue groups to abstain from using nuclear weapons under anarchism then there is under 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:13:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:08:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
So you're just admitting that even your "State solution" doesn't work because rogue States can just give nuclear weapons to rogue groups. Why do you think there's less of a reason for rogue groups to abstain from using nuclear weapons under anarchism then there is under statism?
Correct -- to an extent. Corrupt states often do whatever they want, and never seek approval of their policies. The existence of major powers is what prevents nuclear weapons from being redistributed easily. (I pointed that out earlier.) America, for example, has all the technology to detect when nuclear weapons might be built, where, and so on. They can undertake any action to prevent further development.

In addition, to prevent rogue groups from acquiring these weapons, almost nobody is going to have luck building nuclear weapons any more. Iran is a prime example. Without major powers, a society like Iran would never hesitate to build the weapons -- and right now, no-one is too sure whether or not they are trying to.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:18:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:13:46 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:08:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
So you're just admitting that even your "State solution" doesn't work because rogue States can just give nuclear weapons to rogue groups. Why do you think there's less of a reason for rogue groups to abstain from using nuclear weapons under anarchism then there is under statism?
Correct -- to an extent. Corrupt states often do whatever they want, and never seek approval of their policies. The existence of major powers is what prevents nuclear weapons from being redistributed easily. (I pointed that out earlier.) America, for example, has all the technology to detect when nuclear weapons might be built, where, and so on. They can undertake any action to prevent further development.

In addition, to prevent rogue groups from acquiring these weapons, almost nobody is going to have luck building nuclear weapons any more. Iran is a prime example. Without major powers, a society like Iran would never hesitate to build the weapons -- and right now, no-one is too sure whether or not they are trying to.

This all just seems like "We need good States to do good things and to keep bad States from doing bad things." Internally coherent perhaps but you don't really provide substantiation for its likelihood.
: 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
11/14/2012 1:20:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:38:32 PM, jharry wrote:
There is nothing to disprove, it's just an ideology. If some one brings me a truck that runs on urine you better know that I'm gonna drain the tank and piss in it. So far anarchists won't let me pee in the tank.

Actually, it's more like refusing to piss in the tank until you have impossibly elaborate data about the efficacy of pissing in the tank. You want to test the viability of anarchism without actually doing anarchism. We retort that it's possible to prove that anarchism is a priori better, but then you just complain about tanks and pee.

Even if/when successful anarchism persisted for any duration, though, it usually just gets swept over by states. History's written by the victor, and the position of the state (generically speaking) as the dominant political force recasts history in such a way that any disanalogous politics is construed as backward or uncivilized merely because their forms of life are deemed unworthy by arbitrary sovereign decision. There are plenty of retellings [http://papers.ssrn.com...] according to which persistent, prosperous anarchist cultures just had numerous tools for discouraging state-building (e.g., hard-to-appropriate agricultural practices, topographical advantage, cultural antipathy toward commandment and authority), all deployed while resisting annexation, appropriation, and conquest.

There were even some cultures who radicalized Foucault's later insight that political theory must "cut off the King's head" ("Truth and Power", 1977), i.e., establish itself as fundamentally non-sovereign--they would actually kill anyone who tried to assume a position of political dominance. Such was the extent of their anti-authoritarianism.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:22:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:18:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This all just seems like "We need good States to do good things and to keep bad States from doing bad things." Internally coherent perhaps but you don't really provide substantiation for its likelihood.
Nope, because they already exist. Never said they will remain this way.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:23:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:50:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:38:32 PM, jharry wrote:

Me: Roads to my house will be expensive

You: So, it's better then a State.

Me: Not really.

You: Uh huh

Rinse, cycle repeat.

Not really sure if that has actually happened but okay. There's plenty of literature actually refuting your claim in any case.
http://c4ss.org...
http://www.cato.org...
http://freemarketanarchism.com...
(there's more if you'd like more material)

We did. I did not see anything covering the long road out to my house with 6 people living on it, and the three others I take to get to the last road I use to get to work every day.

This whole ideology seems to stand on greed being the prime motivator to everything working in anarchy. But greed is nor the only motivator. I think it is one of the weakest

Not really. That's a common criticism of libertarianism/anarchism but thankfully it's completely hallow. Anarchists rely on self interested motivation on the macro scale i.e., markets for the primary economic organization of society. That doesn't mean everything that exists is based on the profit motive though. There are still opportunities for non-"greed" makeups on the micro-scale, i.e., charities, neighborhood associations, community organization, etc. Furthermore I find it odd you invoke the supposed sin of greed as some refutation of markets co-opting things like defense and roads but have no problem with the same situation applied to food and housing. Curious isn't it?

And even at the macro scale not everyone will do what's best for themselves.

Not sure what you mean by food and housing situations

There is nothing to disprove, it's just an ideology. If some one brings me a truck that runs on urine you better know that I'm gonna drain the tank and piss in it. So far anarchists won't let me pee in the tank.

There's plenty to disprove. There's the claim that States are less efficient than markets, there's the claim that there's no prima facie problem with market centered defense services, there's the incredibly large amount of literature going into detail explaining how non-State social organization is completely workable. Just closing your eyes and screaming "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't disprove that. Furthermore as a methodological tool it's completely untenable given the undue status quo bias i.e., we can just as well apply the same criticism to various revolutionary changes in society that we look back on now as incredibly beneficial; changes like eradicating slavery and the like. So your methodology isn't just wrong, it's self undermining.

Cool, my long road problem will be a great place to start
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:32:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:20:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:38:32 PM, jharry wrote:
There is nothing to disprove, it's just an ideology. If some one brings me a truck that runs on urine you better know that I'm gonna drain the tank and piss in it. So far anarchists won't let me pee in the tank.


Actually, it's more like refusing to piss in the tank until you have impossibly elaborate data about the efficacy of pissing in the tank. You want to test the viability of anarchism without actually doing anarchism. We retort that it's possible to prove that anarchism is a priori better, but then you just complain about tanks and pee.

Well I did go a little far with that one. It just sounded cool for some reason. But yeah, I wanna see the blueprint to this piss engine before I invest in it


Even if/when successful anarchism persisted for any duration, though, it usually just gets swept over by states. History's written by the victor, and the position of the state (generically speaking) as the dominant political force recasts history in such a way that any disanalogous politics is construed as backward or uncivilized merely because their forms of life are deemed unworthy by arbitrary sovereign decision. There are plenty of retellings [http://papers.ssrn.com...] according to which persistent, prosperous anarchist cultures just had numerous tools for discouraging state-building (e.g., hard-to-appropriate agricultural practices, topographical advantage, cultural antipathy toward commandment and authority), all deployed while resisting annexation, appropriation, and conquest.

I've brought up Freetown in Denmark a few tines but no one has replied.

Maybe anarchism is just the weaker system?

There were even some cultures who radicalized Foucault's later insight that political theory must "cut off the King's head" ("Truth and Power", 1977), i.e., establish itself as fundamentally non-sovereign--they would actually kill anyone who tried to assume a position of political dominance. Such was the extent of their anti-authoritarianism.

Seems pretty authoritarian to me, if I'm reading it right.

If I am then it would require that society forcefully resists any advancement of a group of people forming a government, that sounds like coercion to me.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:35:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:06:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
States can keep one another in check with nuclear weapons due to the guarantee of mutually assured destruction. This can be avoided if a state very secretly provides rogue groups with the weapons -- in which case, a target country would have a difficult time targeting, let alone identifying, the aggressors. If states did not exist, I don't see a good reason for rogue groups to abstain from using nuclear weapons. It would be much easier to acquire than today. Major powers do everything to make sure only highly authorized figures have control over WMD's.

The radical counter-analysis is that the concert of major powers just uses its functional nuclear hegemony to subjugate and exploit the other powers--who aren't allowed in the nuclear club--for geopolitical advantage. Following Derrida, genuine nuclear conflict appears mostly textual (not only in the sense of being patently unlikely, but also insofar as "nuclear war" is one among many discourses used to propagate invasive security and police technologies). It's a perhaps-tamer version of the "link to nuclear war" tactic often employed in policy debate.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:36:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:35:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The radical counter-analysis is that the concert of major powers just uses its functional nuclear hegemony to subjugate and exploit the other powers--who aren't allowed in the nuclear club--for geopolitical advantage.
Doesn't really deny the fact that major powers keep nuclear weapon in check, does it?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:36:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:23:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:50:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really sure if that has actually happened but okay. There's plenty of literature actually refuting your claim in any case.
http://c4ss.org...
http://www.cato.org...
http://freemarketanarchism.com...
(there's more if you'd like more material)

We did. I did not see anything covering the long road out to my house with 6 people living on it, and the three others I take to get to the last road I use to get to work every day.

Could you elaborate. I'm not sure what we're talking about here.

Not really. That's a common criticism of libertarianism/anarchism but thankfully it's completely hallow. Anarchists rely on self interested motivation on the macro scale i.e., markets for the primary economic organization of society. That doesn't mean everything that exists is based on the profit motive though. There are still opportunities for non-"greed" makeups on the micro-scale, i.e., charities, neighborhood associations, community organization, etc. Furthermore I find it odd you invoke the supposed sin of greed as some refutation of markets co-opting things like defense and roads but have no problem with the same situation applied to food and housing. Curious isn't it?

And even at the macro scale not everyone will do what's best for themselves.

So some people don't do what you deem best for themselves, therefore you just conjure up a fantastical States that just happens to do what's best for everybody. I's empty hypothesizing with zero substantiation as to its tenability or plausibility.

Not sure what you mean by food and housing situations

Food and housing are more or less provided on the market. Meaning the States hasn't monopolistically appropriated those services. Yet even on a profitability macro-base, most people continue to thrive and those services continue to be produced to society's benefit. Some people fall through the cracks though and what's under is a micro-base of non-profit motivated organizations i.e., churches, charities, community organized drives and such. I'm wondering where you derive some sort of difference between allowing "greed" (as you put it) to meta-organize these services but not others like defense and roads.

There's plenty to disprove. There's the claim that States are less efficient than markets, there's the claim that there's no prima facie problem with market centered defense services, there's the incredibly large amount of literature going into detail explaining how non-State social organization is completely workable. Just closing your eyes and screaming "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't disprove that. Furthermore as a methodological tool it's completely untenable given the undue status quo bias i.e., we can just as well apply the same criticism to various revolutionary changes in society that we look back on now as incredibly beneficial; changes like eradicating slavery and the like. So your methodology isn't just wrong, it's self undermining.

Cool, my long road problem will be a great place to start

See above. Elaboration please.
: 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
11/14/2012 1:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:36:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:35:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The radical counter-analysis is that the concert of major powers just uses its functional nuclear hegemony to subjugate and exploit the other powers--who aren't allowed in the nuclear club--for geopolitical advantage.
Doesn't really deny the fact that major powers keep nuclear weapon in check, does it?

It actually does though. Smaller, weaker nations aren't able to use nuclear weapons to subjugate and coerce others perhaps, but this "solution" opens the door and actually facilitates an opposite (yet equally detrimental) scenario, that of larger, stronger nations doing the same thing.
: 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
11/14/2012 1:44:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:39:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It actually does though. Smaller, weaker nations aren't able to use nuclear weapons to subjugate and coerce others perhaps, but this "solution" opens the door and actually facilitates an opposite (yet equally detrimental) scenario, that of larger, stronger nations doing the same thing.
The major powers, like USA and UK, have enough military power to exercise geopolitical policies that suit their agendas even without nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons only keep them safe from other major powers, like Russia or China. I don't see the parallel you're trying to make. Some weaker countries do have nuclear weapons, but again, they're kept safe by aid from the major powers.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:46:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The way I see it there's little merit to just theorizing large, States into existence that not only keep smaller States from coming into nuclear power but also use that power responsibly rather than using it to subjugate weaker States since we know that larger States do in fact do this, see the U.S.' geopolitical situation for the last 60 odd years.

If you're going to just theorize perfectly responsible and benevolent people into existence, why not just default to anarchism? At least under anarchism there's no a priori institutionalized coercion amirite?
: 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
11/14/2012 1:48:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:32:32 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:20:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Actually, it's more like refusing to piss in the tank until you have impossibly elaborate data about the efficacy of pissing in the tank. You want to test the viability of anarchism without actually doing anarchism. We retort that it's possible to prove that anarchism is a priori better, but then you just complain about tanks and pee.

Well I did go a little far with that one. It just sounded cool for some reason. But yeah, I wanna see the blueprint to this piss engine before I invest in it

Well, for the tank, http://cleantechnica.com... http://www.wired.com...


Even if/when successful anarchism persisted for any duration, though, it usually just gets swept over by states. History's written by the victor, and the position of the state (generically speaking) as the dominant political force recasts history in such a way that any disanalogous politics is construed as backward or uncivilized merely because their forms of life are deemed unworthy by arbitrary sovereign decision. There are plenty of retellings [http://papers.ssrn.com...] according to which persistent, prosperous anarchist cultures just had numerous tools for discouraging state-building (e.g., hard-to-appropriate agricultural practices, topographical advantage, cultural antipathy toward commandment and authority), all deployed while resisting annexation, appropriation, and conquest.

I've brought up Freetown in Denmark a few tines but no one has replied.

I've brought up Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Imperial Japan and Imperial China and the British Empire and...

but no one has replied.

Maybe anarchism is just the weaker system?

That statement is meaningless--there is no context or definition.

There were even some cultures who radicalized Foucault's later insight that political theory must "cut off the King's head" ("Truth and Power", 1977), i.e., establish itself as fundamentally non-sovereign--they would actually kill anyone who tried to assume a position of political dominance. Such was the extent of their anti-authoritarianism.

Seems pretty authoritarian to me, if I'm reading it right.

Then you're probably reading it wrong.

If I am then it would require that society forcefully resists any advancement of a group of people forming a government, that sounds like coercion to me.

1. It doesn't require anything. It just is, and people make their way in the space opened up by statelessness.

2. "Coercion" involves initiatory violence. Supposing that anarchism does require forceful resistance to attempts at establishing government, then it's completely defensive. Formal government is a violent institution (as the "anarchism is weak" advocates are happy to acknowledge), and its establishment--which requires dominating other people--is equally coercive. In these particular cultures, they don't like being ordered around, and they refuse to tolerate anyone elevating themselves to a position of commandment.

3. Given, as noted in the paper, that states cannot employ coercion against everyone all of the time, there are also certain legitimating narratives that sovereignty tells about itself. While these narratives tend to be relatively hyperbolic (from Kim Jong-Il's story about being born atop a holy mountain under a double rainbow to the American stories of exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and whatever other sovereign mythology), the important thing is that people behave as if these things were true, if they're not plausible enough to be believed (social contract theory trips many up regarding whether it's really the case). What's important is that they accede to the demands of the state because they accept the stories on the basis of which the state presents its authority to reign. One important task, I argue, is rejecting those stories, and the "right" of sovereignty and state alongside them.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 2:07:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:36:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:35:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The radical counter-analysis is that the concert of major powers just uses its functional nuclear hegemony to subjugate and exploit the other powers--who aren't allowed in the nuclear club--for geopolitical advantage.
Doesn't really deny the fact that major powers keep nuclear weapon in check, does it?

It's like saying that individual states keep violence in check because of gradual phenotypic modifications resulting in more docile populations. Maybe certain forms of violence are denied to the subjugated party, but the point is that they're being dominated, which calls into question the behavior of the state placing itself in that relation to the subject, particularly when you reach a point at which the subject is sufficiently powerless that it could never escape the domination of its master. In the first instance, I don't think that states "check" proliferation--I think it instantiates a dilemma according to which increasing amounts of money have to be spent on international policing.

That, actually, is what I find interesting. Most of this stuff isn't about national sovereignty, or war, or whatever. It's almost always understood as a kind of sovereign policing intended to preserve the intangible dignity of international law and nuclear treaties (often regarded as a politics of fear and criminality). Those who mock the United States as a "global policeman", rather than as merely an empire, or a hegemon, or a sovereign power, expose something instructive--those regarded as outside the law are, in the name of the preservation of that law, subjected to an unmediated risk of domination by police abiding by what Jacques Ranciere has termed an "ethical turn" of politics [http://m.friendfeed-media.com...], understood not as using moral frameworks to bound political decisions, but as the collapse of the is-ought cap in which the "right" thing coincides with whatever the "sovereign police" (using Giorgio Agamben's terminology; [http://www.scribd.com...]) decide to do to punish the outlaw (a figure which could include any entity, from refugees to so-called "rogue states"). Sovereignty and its permutations are a (perhaps prohibitively) high price to pay for a "security" whose required tools and apparatuses are themselves invasive and domineering.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 3:52:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:36:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:23:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:50:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really sure if that has actually happened but okay. There's plenty of literature actually refuting your claim in any case.
http://c4ss.org...
http://www.cato.org...
http://freemarketanarchism.com...
(there's more if you'd like more material)

We did. I did not see anything covering the long road out to my house with 6 people living on it, and the three others I take to get to the last road I use to get to work every day.

Could you elaborate. I'm not sure what we're talking about here.

I said privatizing roads would drive up the cost nearly half the country due to less people paying for a rural road


Not really. That's a common criticism of libertarianism/anarchism but thankfully it's completely hallow. Anarchists rely on self interested motivation on the macro scale i.e., markets for the primary economic organization of society. That doesn't mean everything that exists is based on the profit motive though. There are still opportunities for non-"greed" makeups on the micro-scale, i.e., charities, neighborhood associations, community organization, etc. Furthermore I find it odd you invoke the supposed sin of greed as some refutation of markets co-opting things like defense and roads but have no problem with the same situation applied to food and housing. Curious isn't it?

And even at the macro scale not everyone will do what's best for themselves.

So some people don't do what you deem best for themselves, therefore you just conjure up a fantastical States that just happens to do what's best for everybody. I's empty hypothesizing with zero substantiation as to its tenability or plausibility.

No, I look at it realistically. Roads were not government business even at the beginning of this country. I'm assuming you want me to believe the "government" came in and forced everyone to pay taxes on it.

Not sure what you mean by food and housing situations

Food and housing are more or less provided on the market. Meaning the States hasn't monopolistically appropriated those services. Yet even on a profitability macro-base, most people continue to thrive and those services continue to be produced to society's benefit. Some people fall through the cracks though and what's under is a micro-base of non-profit motivated organizations i.e., churches, charities, community organized drives and such. I'm wondering where you derive some sort of difference between allowing "greed" (as you put it) to meta-organize these services but not others like defense and roads.

Defense and roads are different.


There's plenty to disprove. There's the claim that States are less efficient than markets, there's the claim that there's no prima facie problem with market centered defense services, there's the incredibly large amount of literature going into detail explaining how non-State social organization is completely workable. Just closing your eyes and screaming "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't disprove that. Furthermore as a methodological tool it's completely untenable given the undue status quo bias i.e., we can just as well apply the same criticism to various revolutionary changes in society that we look back on now as incredibly beneficial; changes like eradicating slavery and the like. So your methodology isn't just wrong, it's self undermining.

Cool, my long road problem will be a great place to start

See above. Elaboration please.

See above
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 3:59:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 3:52:42 PM, jharry wrote:

I said privatizing roads would drive up the cost nearly half the country due to less people paying for a rural road

Less use means less maintenance, meaning lower costs. Furthermore do you have figures to back up your claim? Relative costs to build and maintain a road where you live, how much you project costs to change, etc.

No, I look at it realistically. Roads were not government business even at the beginning of this country. I'm assuming you want me to believe the "government" came in and forced everyone to pay taxes on it.

I'm not making a historical argument. I'm arguing that there's no compelling reason to believe that coercion is the only way to provide for the needs of society.

Defense and roads are different.

K. I didn't want an argument or anything. Your word is good enough. Everyone, Jharry just refuted anarchism. Consider me a Statist.
: 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.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 4:12:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:48:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:32:32 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:20:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Actually, it's more like refusing to piss in the tank until you have impossibly elaborate data about the efficacy of pissing in the tank. You want to test the viability of anarchism without actually doing anarchism. We retort that it's possible to prove that anarchism is a priori better, but then you just complain about tanks and pee.

Well I did go a little far with that one. It just sounded cool for some reason. But yeah, I wanna see the blueprint to this piss engine before I invest in it

Well, for the tank, http://cleantechnica.com... http://www.wired.com...

Cool, but I still want to see some blueprints or proof before I invest in it. In just this little instance both articles are doing what I see most an caps here doing. Just telling me it will work and or it will be better.


Even if/when successful anarchism persisted for any duration, though, it usually just gets swept over by states. History's written by the victor, and the position of the state (generically speaking) as the dominant political force recasts history in such a way that any disanalogous politics is construed as backward or uncivilized merely because their forms of life are deemed unworthy by arbitrary sovereign decision. There are plenty of retellings [http://papers.ssrn.com...] according to which persistent, prosperous anarchist cultures just had numerous tools for discouraging state-building (e.g., hard-to-appropriate agricultural practices, topographical advantage, cultural antipathy toward commandment and authority), all deployed while resisting annexation, appropriation, and conquest.

I've brought up Freetown in Denmark a few tines but no one has replied.

I've brought up Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Imperial Japan and Imperial China and the British Empire and...

but no one has replied.

Are these anarchist countries? If not I don't understand. Freetown in Denmark was a community with no government. Over time the community developed laws and a local government. It evolved from nothing.

Maybe anarchism is just the weaker system?

That statement is meaningless--there is no context or definition.

Lol, kinda like natural selection. Anarchism lacks sufficient means to survive.

There were even some cultures who radicalized Foucault's later insight that political theory must "cut off the King's head" ("Truth and Power", 1977), i.e., establish itself as fundamentally non-sovereign--they would actually kill anyone who tried to assume a position of political dominance. Such was the extent of their anti-authoritarianism.

Seems pretty authoritarian to me, if I'm reading it right.

Then you're probably reading it wrong.

If I am then it would require that society forcefully resists any advancement of a group of people forming a government, that sounds like coercion to me.

1. It doesn't require anything. It just is, and people make their way in the space opened up by statelessness.

And governments form in that void, different degrees of government but government none the less.

2. "Coercion" involves initiatory violence. Supposing that anarchism does require forceful resistance to attempts at establishing government, then it's completely defensive. Formal government is a violent institution (as the "anarchism is weak" advocates are happy to acknowledge), and its establishment--which requires dominating other people--is equally coercive. In these particular cultures, they don't like being ordered around, and they refuse to tolerate anyone elevating themselves to a position of commandment.

Stopping a group of people from forming a government is coercion.

3. Given, as noted in the paper, that states cannot employ coercion against everyone all of the time, there are also certain legitimating narratives that sovereignty tells about itself. While these narratives tend to be relatively hyperbolic (from Kim Jong-Il's story about being born atop a holy mountain under a double rainbow to the American stories of exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and whatever other sovereign mythology), the important thing is that people behave as if these things were true, if they're not plausible enough to be believed (social contract theory trips many up regarding whether it's really the case). What's important is that they accede to the demands of the state because they accept the stories on the basis of which the state presents its authority to reign. One important task, I argue, is rejecting those stories, and the "right" of sovereignty and state alongside them.

States didn't create society, society created States. It seems like you are saying the "State" colonized this land and then drew people into it. Or Kim Jong formed a government and then people flocked to him because he is so cool. After the Revolution the Americans could go any which way they wanted, they choose this government. I think it has grown into the mobster you may be describing. But I have not been convinced it was against the will of the people. And I don't think it was due to anything you mentioned. Could be good ole American sloth and ignorance
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen