Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Government of the Gaps

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 6:47:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
NOTE: I get that probably everyone, especially anarchists, know this. But I wanted to phrase it in my own way/posit it on my own. So please don't be cruel!

I was earlier thinking about how anarchism is generally argued against, disputed, etc. And it's come to my attention that a lot of the criticisms I see of anarchism are flawed in their falling under the umbrella of what, as I thought of it, is called the Government of the Gaps. Basically, the arguments go like:

Defender of Government: Who would put out fires in anarchy? Who would protect people from crime? What about large scale protection? What about waste disposal? What about ROADS?

And, ultimately, I think that all of the arguments in that vein are basically defunct by nature. They attempt to poke a hole or gap in anarchism, and then fill it with, guess what? Government. When an answer isn't satisfactorily provided by the anarchist, the statist jumps to government as the solution. This is reminiscent of the famous God of the Gaps, which we clearly see as being a poor argument for God. So why should it be any more valid or strong for defending the idea of government?

Don't get me wrong, I do think that there are potentially valid arguments against anarchism/for government or statism. However, I have seen the above line of questions posed in a way to criticize anarchism, and I find it to no, or to very little, extent valid.

But what do you all think?
But if the chance remains
to see those better days,
I'd cut the cannons down.

- Vampire Weekend "Giving Up the Gun"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 7:42:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 6:47:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
NOTE: I get that probably everyone, especially anarchists, know this. But I wanted to phrase it in my own way/posit it on my own. So please don't be cruel!

I was earlier thinking about how anarchism is generally argued against, disputed, etc. And it's come to my attention that a lot of the criticisms I see of anarchism are flawed in their falling under the umbrella of what, as I thought of it, is called the Government of the Gaps. Basically, the arguments go like:

Defender of Government: Who would put out fires in anarchy? Who would protect people from crime? What about large scale protection? What about waste disposal? What about ROADS?

And, ultimately, I think that all of the arguments in that vein are basically defunct by nature. They attempt to poke a hole or gap in anarchism, and then fill it with, guess what? Government. When an answer isn't satisfactorily provided by the anarchist, the statist jumps to government as the solution. This is reminiscent of the famous God of the Gaps, which we clearly see as being a poor argument for God. So why should it be any more valid or strong for defending the idea of government?

Don't get me wrong, I do think that there are potentially valid arguments against anarchism/for government or statism. However, I have seen the above line of questions posed in a way to criticize anarchism, and I find it to no, or to very little, extent valid.

But what do you all think?

The difference is that "god of the gaps" is talking about a gap in the understanding of the laws of nature, and filling them with something that many consider illogical, just so it is filled. This is entirely different from a "government of the gaps" because the anarchy short comings are not from a lack of understanding, but an actual lack of functionality in the system (or more accurately, an unsatisfactory answer of the system) and that the alternative system provides a superior solution to those problems.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 8:18:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's a complete misnomer.

"God of the gaps," your derivative, refers to the use of God as the default answer when things have not yet been scientifically explained. As in,...when we don't yet know the answer, the answer is God. In the case of government, there are positions that government fills...that would be left untended if the government was to dissolve. You can't advocate that dissolution without finding answers to those questions. The questions themselves are not arguments, nor have they ever been used as arguments by anyone....because they are questions, not statements. So the OP is invalid.

What you're suggesting is similar to blowing up an extremely important bridge without first planning how you're going to build a new one.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 8:24:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 8:18:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
That's a complete misnomer.

"God of the gaps," your derivative, refers to the use of God as the default answer when things have not yet been scientifically explained. As in,...when we don't yet know the answer, the answer is God. In the case of government, there are positions that government fills...that would be left untended if the government was to dissolve. You can't advocate that dissolution without finding answers to those questions. The questions themselves are not arguments, nor have they ever been used as arguments by anyone....because they are questions, not statements. So the OP is invalid.

What you're suggesting is similar to blowing up an extremely important bridge without first planning how you're going to build a new one.

The problem here is a general miscommunication between anarchists and statists. Anarchists, while advocating anarchy, tend to do so from a theoretical standpoint. Only a small few go out and actively try to bring down the government. This theoretical standpoint requires no obligation to provide a plan for this reason.

However, not only this, but the very idea of anarchy cannot by definition have any sort of plan on how it'll work. If a state of anarchy was somehow magically declared/implemented, the fact its that people and microcosms will react differently. Anarchism advocates a very broad idea of no state, allowing for freedom to solve for things in a near-unlimited non-statist list of manners. This is distinct from a statist perspective, which, by definition, must have a subsidiary ideology prescribing what the role of the state is.
But if the chance remains
to see those better days,
I'd cut the cannons down.

- Vampire Weekend "Giving Up the Gun"
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 9:33:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the OP is close.

My own view is that the burden of proof is horribly blurred in debates on anarchism. For instance, someone will ask how roads would be built, with an expectation of me somehow knowing each and every nook and cranny concerning road construction and maintenance. The thing is though, there's no possible way to know exactly how that would happen. I can give possibles wherein I show that there's no institutional gap preventing markets from providing roads but beyond that it's mostly just speculation.

What statists do is look at that and then proceed to give an answer like Ike just did. "Well why should I advocate anarchy if you don't have an exact blueprint of how every single possible scenario would be handled?" Its eerily similar to when a Christian refuses to consider atheism because the atheist they're arguing with doesn't know how life or the universe began. I honestly have next to no idea but that doesn't add an iota of plausibility to the theistic explanation. Likewise just because I don't have a masters in city planning doesn't mean that the statist explanation/solution any bit better.

This is why I tend to lol at statist-atheists who employ these types of arguments. The cognitive dissonance is just too obvious.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 9:40:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 7:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

The difference is that "god of the gaps" is talking about a gap in the understanding of the laws of nature, and filling them with something that many consider illogical, just so it is filled. This is entirely different from a "government of the gaps" because the anarchy short comings are not from a lack of understanding, but an actual lack of functionality in the system (or more accurately, an unsatisfactory answer of the system) and that the alternative system provides a superior solution to those problems.

I'm sure both scenarios exist. Functionality is one issue, epistemic laziness is another (ex. Jharry and Ike).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 9:46:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 9:33:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the OP is close.

My own view is that the burden of proof is horribly blurred in debates on anarchism. For instance, someone will ask how roads would be built, with an expectation of me somehow knowing each and every nook and cranny concerning road construction and maintenance. The thing is though, there's no possible way to know exactly how that would happen. I can give possibles wherein I show that there's no institutional gap preventing markets from providing roads but beyond that it's mostly just speculation.

What statists do is look at that and then proceed to give an answer like Ike just did. "Well why should I advocate anarchy if you don't have an exact blueprint of how every single possible scenario would be handled?" Its eerily similar to when a Christian refuses to consider atheism because the atheist they're arguing with doesn't know how life or the universe began. I honestly have next to no idea but that doesn't add an iota of plausibility to the theistic explanation. Likewise just because I don't have a masters in city planning doesn't mean that the statist explanation/solution any bit better.

This is why I tend to lol at statist-atheists who employ these types of arguments. The cognitive dissonance is just too obvious.

Yes, yes, just like the cognitive dissonance of being a nihilist and supporting an ideology. You've so brutalized that term that it no longer has any recognizable meaning when you say it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 9:48:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 9:46:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/29/2012 9:33:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the OP is close.

My own view is that the burden of proof is horribly blurred in debates on anarchism. For instance, someone will ask how roads would be built, with an expectation of me somehow knowing each and every nook and cranny concerning road construction and maintenance. The thing is though, there's no possible way to know exactly how that would happen. I can give possibles wherein I show that there's no institutional gap preventing markets from providing roads but beyond that it's mostly just speculation.

What statists do is look at that and then proceed to give an answer like Ike just did. "Well why should I advocate anarchy if you don't have an exact blueprint of how every single possible scenario would be handled?" Its eerily similar to when a Christian refuses to consider atheism because the atheist they're arguing with doesn't know how life or the universe began. I honestly have next to no idea but that doesn't add an iota of plausibility to the theistic explanation. Likewise just because I don't have a masters in city planning doesn't mean that the statist explanation/solution any bit better.

This is why I tend to lol at statist-atheists who employ these types of arguments. The cognitive dissonance is just too obvious.

Yes, yes, just like the cognitive dissonance of being a nihilist and supporting an ideology. You've so brutalized that term that it no longer has any recognizable meaning when you say it.

When I saw that you posted I thought you actually responded to what I said :(
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:16:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 9:40:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 7:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

The difference is that "god of the gaps" is talking about a gap in the understanding of the laws of nature, and filling them with something that many consider illogical, just so it is filled. This is entirely different from a "government of the gaps" because the anarchy short comings are not from a lack of understanding, but an actual lack of functionality in the system (or more accurately, an unsatisfactory answer of the system) and that the alternative system provides a superior solution to those problems.

I'm sure both scenarios exist. Functionality is one issue, epistemic laziness is another (ex. Jharry and Ike).

I think laziness would be an issue with the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:17:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 9:56:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Ikey where'd ya go?!!?

Don't call for him! I prefer fewer discussion dissolve into mindless chaos.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:21:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:17:41 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2012 9:56:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Ikey where'd ya go?!!?

Don't call for him! I prefer fewer discussion dissolve into mindless chaos.

He always runs away whenever anarchism comes up. Why let him get away so easily?
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:24:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:16:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2012 9:40:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 7:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

The difference is that "god of the gaps" is talking about a gap in the understanding of the laws of nature, and filling them with something that many consider illogical, just so it is filled. This is entirely different from a "government of the gaps" because the anarchy short comings are not from a lack of understanding, but an actual lack of functionality in the system (or more accurately, an unsatisfactory answer of the system) and that the alternative system provides a superior solution to those problems.

I'm sure both scenarios exist. Functionality is one issue, epistemic laziness is another (ex. Jharry and Ike).

I think laziness would be an issue with the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

I don't see where the distinction comes in. If someone ad homs, we don't say it's them not the argument since it's the argument itself that's wrong. Likewise someone demanding that I pull a blueprint of an anarchist utopia out of my arse or they can't be bothered to listen are making a dumb argument.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:29:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.

You honestly think people can be trusted?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:31:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:29:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.

You honestly think people can be trusted?

No, I agree. That's why I want a government of non-people to watch over us. Sentient and benevolent non-persons exist right?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:33:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:24:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:16:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2012 9:40:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 7:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

The difference is that "god of the gaps" is talking about a gap in the understanding of the laws of nature, and filling them with something that many consider illogical, just so it is filled. This is entirely different from a "government of the gaps" because the anarchy short comings are not from a lack of understanding, but an actual lack of functionality in the system (or more accurately, an unsatisfactory answer of the system) and that the alternative system provides a superior solution to those problems.

I'm sure both scenarios exist. Functionality is one issue, epistemic laziness is another (ex. Jharry and Ike).

I think laziness would be an issue with the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

I don't see where the distinction comes in. If someone ad homs, we don't say it's them not the argument since it's the argument itself that's wrong. Likewise someone demanding that I pull a blueprint of an anarchist utopia out of my arse or they can't be bothered to listen are making a dumb argument.

That is correct. To clarify, I mean that the laziness would be an issue with that person's individual argument. But since there are individuals that argue not from laziness, the laziness is not an issue for the arguments made by the people that actually do the work to try to figure things out. Otherwise, trying to paint the laziness upon all would be a broad brushing fallacy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:33:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:31:32 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:29:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.

You honestly think people can be trusted?

No, I agree. That's why I want a government of non-people to watch over us. Sentient and benevolent non-persons exist right?

God.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:40:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:33:44 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:31:32 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:29:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.

You honestly think people can be trusted?

No, I agree. That's why I want a government of non-people to watch over us. Sentient and benevolent non-persons exist right?

God.

Exist was the conditional characteristic I had in mind. ;)
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:43:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:33:03 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:24:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:

I don't see where the distinction comes in. If someone ad homs, we don't say it's them not the argument since it's the argument itself that's wrong. Likewise someone demanding that I pull a blueprint of an anarchist utopia out of my arse or they can't be bothered to listen are making a dumb argument.

That is correct. To clarify, I mean that the laziness would be an issue with that person's individual argument. But since there are individuals that argue not from laziness, the laziness is not an issue for the arguments made by the people that actually do the work to try to figure things out. Otherwise, trying to paint the laziness upon all would be a broad brushing fallacy.

We both distinguished the function argument from the lack-of-imagination/laziness argument though. Someone saying markets are conceptually unable to accommodate necessary social services is different from refusing to consider anarchism on the basis of unreasonable epistemic standards.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:49:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know, I really love how the anarchists on this website constantly expose themselves :) They are all very bright little crayons.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:52:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:31:32 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:29:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.

You honestly think people can be trusted?

No, I agree. That's why I want a government of non-people to watch over us. Sentient and benevolent non-persons exist right?

Isn't say that, but I'm saying a group of people society can hold in check is better than everyone for himself.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:58:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:52:48 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:31:32 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:29:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.

You honestly think people can be trusted?

No, I agree. That's why I want a government of non-people to watch over us. Sentient and benevolent non-persons exist right?

Isn't say that, but I'm saying a group of people society can hold in check is better than everyone for himself.

Who said everyone for himself?

On another note (not directed at you, more about you lol), it's fun to talk with people who's exposure to anarchist theory is minimal. From what I've seen it seems to lend credence to Jat's thesis that opposition to anarchism/reverence for the State is largely a matter of ontological confusion i.e., people holding baseless assumptions about anarchism (that it's everyone for himself, that there are no rules, etc. etc.) and statism (that it's some magic wand way to eradicate social ills, that it's the only conceptual method of interpersonal governance, etc.). Ober's interestingly naive presupposition regarding anarchism in the above quote is just a single example of this.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 1:00:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:49:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
You know, I really love how the anarchists on this website constantly expose themselves :) They are all very bright little crayons.

Elaboration pl0x? Not only because the statement was a bit ambiguous/unclear but because it's a rarity to see you post.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 1:03:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:58:24 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:52:48 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:31:32 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:29:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:28:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:26:40 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Biggest argument against Anarchy for me is human nature.

I agree. We need a government of non-humans (reptilian humanoids preferably) to keep dem bad people in line.

You honestly think people can be trusted?

No, I agree. That's why I want a government of non-people to watch over us. Sentient and benevolent non-persons exist right?

Isn't say that, but I'm saying a group of people society can hold in check is better than everyone for himself.

Who said everyone for himself?

On another note (not directed at you, more about you lol), it's fun to talk with people who's exposure to anarchist theory is minimal. From what I've seen it seems to lend credence to Jat's thesis that opposition to anarchism/reverence for the State is largely a matter of ontological confusion i.e., people holding baseless assumptions about anarchism (that it's everyone for himself, that there are no rules, etc. etc.) and statism (that it's some magic wand way to eradicate social ills, that it's the only conceptual method of interpersonal governance, etc.). Ober's interestingly naive presupposition regarding anarchism in the above quote is just a single example of this.

Can you explain to me how, at it's core, anarchism isn't just everyman for himself? I just see anarchism as too big a chance: it could work, or it could be total chaos. Statism seems safer.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 11,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 1:12:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 1:03:16 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:58:24 AM, socialpinko wrote:

Who said everyone for himself?

On another note (not directed at you, more about you lol), it's fun to talk with people who's exposure to anarchist theory is minimal. From what I've seen it seems to lend credence to Jat's thesis that opposition to anarchism/reverence for the State is largely a matter of ontological confusion i.e., people holding baseless assumptions about anarchism (that it's everyone for himself, that there are no rules, etc. etc.) and statism (that it's some magic wand way to eradicate social ills, that it's the only conceptual method of interpersonal governance, etc.). Ober's interestingly naive presupposition regarding anarchism in the above quote is just a single example of this.

Can you explain to me how, at it's core, anarchism isn't just everyman for himself?

A better methodology would be to examine where that assumption even comes from. Why does one just assume that a unitary, coercive institution is the only way for society to function? Why is giving a single institution power to coerce, steal the only way to protect people from coercion, theft?

If you want to get into the nitty, gritty of anarchist social theory, there are various plausible theories for justice in a stateless society, from overlapping judiciaries (http://mises.org...) to communalist approaches (AnCom, collectivist anarchism). Just ignoring the entirety of anarchist theory and saying "I don't get it" isn't really an argument.

I just see anarchism as too big a chance: it could work, or it could be total chaos.

You could get hit by a bus tomorrow. That doesn't mean hiding inside is the only tenable option. You're just throwing out conjecture here.

Statism seems safer.

Safer in what way? In relation to institutionalized theft and coercion, mass genocide, etc., Statism seems pretty dangerous.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 1:24:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 9:33:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This is why I tend to lol at statist-atheists who employ these types of arguments. The cognitive dissonance is just too obvious.

There really is negligible difference in the belief in government and the belief in religion.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 1:35:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 1:03:16 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Can you explain to me how, at it's core, anarchism isn't just everyman for himself? I just see anarchism as too big a chance: it could work, or it could be total chaos. Statism seems safer.

Statism seems safer?! The worst atrocities in human history did not come from people operating outside of law, government, or statism. The greatest atrocities in human history were committed by enforcers of law, serving a government. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao all used the enforcers of government to commit their atrocities. You are more likely to be killed by a police officer in this country than by a mass shooter, a terrorist, and a bomber combined.

Ask yourself two questions:
1) Do I use initiatory violence in my every day life when dealing with people?
2) Do I value the safety of myself, my family, and my possessions?

If you are like most people, you'd answer no to the first question and yes to the second. That means that you use voluntary mechanisms for resolving disputes, because you're like most people: not a giant assh*le. You pay for your hamburger instead of pulling a knife on the manager of McDonalds until he gives you food. With the second question, you basically solve the problem of protection. Your valuing the protection means that there is a market demand for protection, a market demand that is a huge profit opportunity for a rights enforcement agency to act on your behalf for defending you, your family, and your property. If two rights enforcement agencies are involved in conflicting situation X, the most likely scenario is that they go to a 3rd party arbitrator (judge) to resolve the dispute, as hazard pay, new weapons/armor, and training new employees is cost prohibitive.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.