Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Anarchism Can Solve Social Problems

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 4:26:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Once states get a footing, they tend to crowd out alternatives," says philosopher and La Sierra University professor Gary Chartier, author most recently of Anarchy and Legal Order. "Also, I think they tend to colonize people, ideologically."

Reason Magazine's Matt Welch caught up with Chartier at this year's Freedom Fest to discuss his extensive writings on anarchy and left-libertarianism.

Held each July in Las Vegas, Freedom Fest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks.

About 4 minutes.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 5:00:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So it starts with a generalization fallacy, which is actually what he finishes on. I suppose that is par for the course.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 5:19:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 5:00:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So it starts with a generalization fallacy, which is actually what he finishes on. I suppose that is par for the course.

Don't bother. It's too much to ask of him to post more than once on his threads.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 8:33:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll ignore the hyperbole and unsupported assertions.

However, if presented as a question, "can anarchism solve social problems?" ... then I say yes.

The path to improvement is not a direct one, however Anarchism (A) can help to "haggle up" the bargain for individual liberty and personal freedom. The norm is for civil liberties to erode over time, weakening by apathy and disillusionment, mistrust and tribalism. Anarchism reverses this mechanism, causing these very factors to cause greater, not lesser, levels of activism.

I learned that asking for more than a people hope to receive, or even want, can be useful. I demonstrated over a period of some three weeks in Taiwan, participating in actions that openly called for social unrest in demonstrations that occasionally grew quite alarming. (This was a "Black Block" uprising, long before the term was used - partially in response to the violent crackdown at Tiananmen Square. The Chinese military, uncontrolled by Taiwan, fired missiles from gunboats over the heart of the city in order to remind us that they had missiles to spare on such presentations. These missiles were easily visible from the street, although I never could spot them.)

Socially, Taiwanese society should be regarded as a modern memory of Victorian England. Profanities, odd mannerisms and eccentricities are universally treated with a level of caution that might amuse an American. Even firmly meeting the gaze of the polite Taiwanese can be unnerving to them.

Direct demands were rare in my experience. Sex was never made a subject. Repression and hints were rampant.

In this environment came Anarchists, who belligerently called for open acts of hedonism, disrespect for traditions, and defiance towards everything. They were never violent, but they were very, very shocking.

The results of all of this were exactly the same as the response to the Occupy Movement; police with AK47s suddenly became very visible. They were respectful, nearly bashful, and willing to kill anything that moved. This over-reaction triggered a widespread collapse in public support for their leadership, which led to the repeal of various offensive laws and greater tolerance for human variance.

Anarchism, by making bald-faced, unapologetic demands for the most stupid things that can be imagined, greatly advance the cause of liberty - by making the far more mundane requests of a population absolutely not shocking, and appear quite reasonable.

No autocratic police state can survive disobedience. Not criminality - mere disobedience will always topple them. The secret: Tyrants can only actually use the threat of force once, and then they are outnumbered and friendless. Anarchism will never demonstrate obedience to anything, and will never present any workable platform that can be reasonably implemented in order to placate them.

Therefore, Anarchists will always serve as an effective antibacterial disinfectant for a government.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:13:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This leaves out population size... Imagine New York without a government... Or the US in general with 315 million people and no police force/government.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:19:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 3:13:34 PM, donald.keller wrote:
This leaves out population size... Imagine New York without a government... Or the US in general with 315 million people and no police force/government.
Anarchy is not the absence of government. It means absence of a state, or a NON-voluntary government that has monopoly of force in a certain area.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:21:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 3:19:31 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/12/2013 3:13:34 PM, donald.keller wrote:
This leaves out population size... Imagine New York without a government... Or the US in general with 315 million people and no police force/government.
Anarchy is not the absence of government. It means absence of a state, or a NON-voluntary government that has monopoly of force in a certain area.

Imagine trying to run New York with that... Hah!

No. Anarchy leaves much to be desired in a large population that requires that monopoly of force to keep things together.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:29:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 3:19:31 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/12/2013 3:13:34 PM, donald.keller wrote:
This leaves out population size... Imagine New York without a government... Or the US in general with 315 million people and no police force/government.
Anarchy is not the absence of government. It means absence of a state, or a NON-voluntary government that has monopoly of force in a certain area.

Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.
Others, including most individuals who self-identify as anarchists, use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a jurisdiction level. There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[5][6] Anarchy is also a technical issue of economic science, as anarchy implies lack of coercive oversight

- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 4:11:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 3:19:31 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/12/2013 3:13:34 PM, donald.keller wrote:
This leaves out population size... Imagine New York without a government... Or the US in general with 315 million people and no police force/government.
Anarchy is not the absence of government. It means absence of a state, or a NON-voluntary government that has monopoly of force in a certain area.

If I read this correctly, then within one generation of births and deaths, any government will become "non-voluntary". I maintain that anarchism is a pipe dream.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 4:58:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Mmmmm dat slope. It's slippery.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:04:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 4:58:42 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Mmmmm dat slope. It's slippery.

That sloop is historically proven to happen.

There is a difference in making a wild claim, and one that we know will happen.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Freddy44
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...
Everything was impossible until someone did it...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:20:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.

I think, simply put, what you're describing is the consequences of a power vacuum. Monopolies of force work because there is no vacuum, no chaotic rush to fill in that vacuum.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Freddy44
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.

Well, sure there would be wannabe cult leaders out there who would love to gain power and followers, but they would not be the only ones competing in the realm of ideology and protection.
Everything was impossible until someone did it...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:20:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.

I think, simply put, what you're describing is the consequences of a power vacuum. Monopolies of force work because there is no vacuum, no chaotic rush to fill in that vacuum.

Exactly.. You don't even need there to have been a Government in the past... Just any lack of power that one person sees opportunity in...

But it's worse when the vacuum is created in an area where there used to be a power.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:25:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:21:43 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.

Well, sure there would be wannabe cult leaders out there who would love to gain power and followers, but they would not be the only ones competing in the realm of ideology and protection.

This would lead to even worse outcome.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Freddy44
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:42:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:25:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:21:43 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.

Well, sure there would be wannabe cult leaders out there who would love to gain power and followers, but they would not be the only ones competing in the realm of ideology and protection.

This would lead to even worse outcome.

I've never seen free market competition making a situation worse. We need to re-think the whole idea that I can own another human being either individually or collective. Everyone has a personal responsibility to do no harm, honor their agreements and respect their neighbor's choice (even if they disagree with the choices, as long as he's not harming or threatening someone else).
Everything was impossible until someone did it...
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:57:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:04:13 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:58:42 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Mmmmm dat slope. It's slippery.

That sloop is historically proven to happen.

There is a difference in making a wild claim, and one that we know will happen.

Historically proven? How do you figure?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 6:53:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:57:27 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:04:13 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:58:42 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Mmmmm dat slope. It's slippery.

That sloop is historically proven to happen.

There is a difference in making a wild claim, and one that we know will happen.

Historically proven? How do you figure?

Any, if not every, time a power disappears, a new one forcibly comes in. The Indus Valley civilization comes to mind, as well as Rome leaving Britannia. As soon as they left, factions arose.

When you remove one group from power, people come up to take it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 6:55:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 5:42:59 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:25:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:21:43 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.

Well, sure there would be wannabe cult leaders out there who would love to gain power and followers, but they would not be the only ones competing in the realm of ideology and protection.

This would lead to even worse outcome.

I've never seen free market competition making a situation worse. We need to re-think the whole idea that I can own another human being either individually or collective. Everyone has a personal responsibility to do no harm, honor their agreements and respect their neighbor's choice (even if they disagree with the choices, as long as he's not harming or threatening someone else).

Free Market still has a Government around that threatens it if it gets out of hand.

Free Market competition =/= Ungoverned Cult Competition.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 6:59:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 6:53:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:57:27 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:04:13 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:58:42 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Mmmmm dat slope. It's slippery.

That sloop is historically proven to happen.

There is a difference in making a wild claim, and one that we know will happen.

Historically proven? How do you figure?

Any, if not every, time a power disappears, a new one forcibly comes in. The Indus Valley civilization comes to mind, as well as Rome leaving Britannia. As soon as they left, factions arose.

When you remove one group from power, people come up to take it.

Oh, and Lot, from the bible. His large group lived without government, and was quickly took over by Sodom.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Freddy44
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 7:14:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 6:55:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:42:59 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:25:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:21:43 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:17:16 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 5:14:58 PM, Freddy44 wrote:
At 8/12/2013 4:22:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
In the end, if you have no monopoly of force, than in only a year, a rogue militia will own and likely enslave you... It's logic, especially among large populations.

Where would that militia come from? It would need support from a bunch of mercenaries, and they couldn't just print their own money, since the monopoly would be gone, and monetary values based on trust.
Plus, if the sovereign individuals are armed and/or contracting with companies that are competing against each others in the service of protection, the "militia" members would face the risk of severe led poisoning if they tried to enslave them...

Ideas... One person preaches an idea and gets followers. It's not hard to imagine, because it happened so many times in history... Mafias and gangs. Money isn't the only source of reward.

Well, sure there would be wannabe cult leaders out there who would love to gain power and followers, but they would not be the only ones competing in the realm of ideology and protection.

This would lead to even worse outcome.

I've never seen free market competition making a situation worse. We need to re-think the whole idea that I can own another human being either individually or collective. Everyone has a personal responsibility to do no harm, honor their agreements and respect their neighbor's choice (even if they disagree with the choices, as long as he's not harming or threatening someone else).

Free Market still has a Government around that threatens it if it gets out of hand.

Free Market competition =/= Ungoverned Cult Competition.

It's actually the opposite: Government still has a free market around that threatens it if it gets out of hand. Even though the State tries to make itself some sort of monopoly, it has to respect the market forces. It's a common misconception that a marketplace regulated by a government is a "free" market, but the fact of the matter is that the free market can best be described as a self-regulating eco-system where people are trading goods and services on a voluntary basis.
Everything was impossible until someone did it...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 7:19:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The State does in fact hold a monopoly of power. While many groups oppose, none can actually take it on... This stops being the case if the State is removed... All the groups, all the mobs and gangs... Cartels and power hungry leaders.... Free to compete...

You see, that's the flaw in your logic. With the State in place, there are many opposing groups, but there isn't actual competition... They may fight each other before the State takes them out, but they can't actually fight the State itself.... There is no real competition. This isn't bad either... As long as the Government is checked by the people, it's monopoly of power equals stability.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 8:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 7:19:30 PM, donald.keller wrote:
The State does in fact hold a monopoly of power. While many groups oppose, none can actually take it on... This stops being the case if the State is removed... All the groups, all the mobs and gangs... Cartels and power hungry leaders.... Free to compete...

You see, that's the flaw in your logic. With the State in place, there are many opposing groups, but there isn't actual competition... They may fight each other before the State takes them out, but they can't actually fight the State itself.... There is no real competition. This isn't bad either... As long as the Government is checked by the people, it's monopoly of power equals stability.

How can this be denied?

The entire purpose of governance is to "govern." If we would like to regress all the way back to our hunter-gatherer and agrarian origins, we can see the complete failure of free market competition versus cooperative assistance. Somewhere, some party was needed in order to prevent the strong from subjugating the weak, some agency was needed in order to coordinate talent sources, attract support and adjudicate disagreements. This agency required authority in order to do its work, and this authority eventually became a sanction to govern.

Remove this unifying authority and the result is a sudden return to the laws of the jungle; we use hunter-gathering systems to govern an information age civilization - which means chaos and bloodshed until the largest gun convinces the population to obey.

In democratic systems, the sanction to govern is tested against the popularity of that governance. This is a better system than denying sanction to the most popular form of governance, in favor of a societal cage-fight.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 9:35:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 8:33:17 PM, DeFool wrote:
I'll ignore the hyperbole and unsupported assertions.

However, if presented as a question, "can anarchism solve social problems?" ... then I say yes.

The path to improvement is not a direct one, however Anarchism (A) can help to "haggle up" the bargain for individual liberty and personal freedom. The norm is for civil liberties to erode over time, weakening by apathy and disillusionment, mistrust and tribalism. Anarchism reverses this mechanism, causing these very factors to cause greater, not lesser, levels of activism.

I learned that asking for more than a people hope to receive, or even want, can be useful. I demonstrated over a period of some three weeks in Taiwan, participating in actions that openly called for social unrest in demonstrations that occasionally grew quite alarming. (This was a "Black Block" uprising, long before the term was used - partially in response to the violent crackdown at Tiananmen Square. The Chinese military, uncontrolled by Taiwan, fired missiles from gunboats over the heart of the city in order to remind us that they had missiles to spare on such presentations. These missiles were easily visible from the street, although I never could spot them.)

Socially, Taiwanese society should be regarded as a modern memory of Victorian England. Profanities, odd mannerisms and eccentricities are universally treated with a level of caution that might amuse an American. Even firmly meeting the gaze of the polite Taiwanese can be unnerving to them.

Direct demands were rare in my experience. Sex was never made a subject. Repression and hints were rampant.

In this environment came Anarchists, who belligerently called for open acts of hedonism, disrespect for traditions, and defiance towards everything. They were never violent, but they were very, very shocking.

The results of all of this were exactly the same as the response to the Occupy Movement; police with AK47s suddenly became very visible. They were respectful, nearly bashful, and willing to kill anything that moved. This over-reaction triggered a widespread collapse in public support for their leadership, which led to the repeal of various offensive laws and greater tolerance for human variance.

Anarchism, by making bald-faced, unapologetic demands for the most stupid things that can be imagined, greatly advance the cause of liberty - by making the far more mundane requests of a population absolutely not shocking, and appear quite reasonable.

No autocratic police state can survive disobedience. Not criminality - mere disobedience will always topple them. The secret: Tyrants can only actually use the threat of force once, and then they are outnumbered and friendless. Anarchism will never demonstrate obedience to anything, and will never present any workable platform that can be reasonably implemented in order to placate them.

Therefore, Anarchists will always serve as an effective antibacterial disinfectant for a government.

This is fascinating on several levels.

At first I ignored it because tl;dr, but I'm glad I took the time to go through it eventually. While I appreciate your perspective, I do have some contentions:

What you call "anarchists" here don't seem to exactly fit the definition of a strict anarchist. They sound like social libertarians, people who simply did not see the need for government influence in most societal matters.

I also doubt that these "anarchists" were the cause of the liberalization of Taiwan, which I am assuming is the event of which you speak. I think the death of Chiang Kai-shek had much more to do with that, and that his son ushered in a lot of political reform, including the lifting of martial law, the inclusion of multiple political parties, and an actual democracy. Social liberalization would be a natural outcome following the repression inherent in martial law.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 10:40:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 9:35:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/11/2013 8:33:17 PM, DeFool wrote:
I'll ignore the hyperbole and unsupported assertions.

However, if presented as a question, "can anarchism solve social problems?" ... then I say yes.

The path to improvement is not a direct one, however Anarchism (A) can help to "haggle up" the bargain for individual liberty and personal freedom. The norm is for civil liberties to erode over time, weakening by apathy and disillusionment, mistrust and tribalism. Anarchism reverses this mechanism, causing these very factors to cause greater, not lesser, levels of activism.

I learned that asking for more than a people hope to receive, or even want, can be useful. I demonstrated over a period of some three weeks in Taiwan, participating in actions that openly called for social unrest in demonstrations that occasionally grew quite alarming. (This was a "Black Block" uprising, long before the term was used - partially in response to the violent crackdown at Tiananmen Square. The Chinese military, uncontrolled by Taiwan, fired missiles from gunboats over the heart of the city in order to remind us that they had missiles to spare on such presentations. These missiles were easily visible from the street, although I never could spot them.)

Socially, Taiwanese society should be regarded as a modern memory of Victorian England. Profanities, odd mannerisms and eccentricities are universally treated with a level of caution that might amuse an American. Even firmly meeting the gaze of the polite Taiwanese can be unnerving to them.

Direct demands were rare in my experience. Sex was never made a subject. Repression and hints were rampant.

In this environment came Anarchists, who belligerently called for open acts of hedonism, disrespect for traditions, and defiance towards everything. They were never violent, but they were very, very shocking.

The results of all of this were exactly the same as the response to the Occupy Movement; police with AK47s suddenly became very visible. They were respectful, nearly bashful, and willing to kill anything that moved. This over-reaction triggered a widespread collapse in public support for their leadership, which led to the repeal of various offensive laws and greater tolerance for human variance.

Anarchism, by making bald-faced, unapologetic demands for the most stupid things that can be imagined, greatly advance the cause of liberty - by making the far more mundane requests of a population absolutely not shocking, and appear quite reasonable.

No autocratic police state can survive disobedience. Not criminality - mere disobedience will always topple them. The secret: Tyrants can only actually use the threat of force once, and then they are outnumbered and friendless. Anarchism will never demonstrate obedience to anything, and will never present any workable platform that can be reasonably implemented in order to placate them.

Therefore, Anarchists will always serve as an effective antibacterial disinfectant for a government.

This is fascinating on several levels.

At first I ignored it because tl;dr, but I'm glad I took the time to go through it eventually. While I appreciate your perspective, I do have some contentions:

What you call "anarchists" here don't seem to exactly fit the definition of a strict anarchist. They sound like social libertarians, people who simply did not see the need for government influence in most societal matters.

I also doubt that these "anarchists" were the cause of the liberalization of Taiwan, which I am assuming is the event of which you speak. I think the death of Chiang Kai-shek had much more to do with that, and that his son ushered in a lot of political reform, including the lifting of martial law, the inclusion of multiple political parties, and an actual democracy. Social liberalization would be a natural outcome following the repression inherent in martial law.

Since Mandarin is completely impossible for me to comprehend, I had a very limited ability to communicate with most people while living in Taipei. Chiang Kai-Shek (Shanghai Jack - I am not kidding; this is what he was called) was already a revered historical figure by this time. No, the positive changes that came about during this period were much, much more minor than moving Chinese culture to a new homeland following a totalitarian takeover of the mainland. Such things are common in the nation, which has become known for fist fights among legislators.

But, these protesters were self-described Anarchists. Of that fact, there can be no doubt whatever. The hoodies and big red letter A's were missing, but these were, in every way primitivist rabble that was calling for a complete end of all governance on the island. I had many, many long talks (English) with many participants - that sound much like these threads. I will say that removing the Taiwanese state would certainly result in an invasion by the mainland; they respond that they would win the war with China. I tell them that even America would fear a full-scale Chinese assault, and they tell me that America would be easier to defeat than China.

In other words, there is no argument that will be allowed to overcome the hypotheticals for them. Just as it is here.

Incidentally, this was hardly my only personal encounter with Anarchism. I lived for some time with a temple in the mountains with monks who I regarded as Anarchists, but who would be likely to say that I am incorrect. This monastery could serve as a beautiful example of what a free life could offer to those who might be interested. To say the least, I am no Buddhist, but I am certain that few would not benefit from an encounter with this life. It may not be anarchism, but.

As a resident of Alaska, I lived for some time at a settlement (north of Fairbanks, in the center of the map) where such sentiments were perfectly echoed. Among my beloved Occupy Movement, as well -- the Black Block is very well represented. Today with the hoodies and the A's, but now with Guy Fawkes.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 10:57:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 10:40:53 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/12/2013 9:35:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/11/2013 8:33:17 PM, DeFool wrote:
I'll ignore the hyperbole and unsupported assertions.

However, if presented as a question, "can anarchism solve social problems?" ... then I say yes.

The path to improvement is not a direct one, however Anarchism (A) can help to "haggle up" the bargain for individual liberty and personal freedom. The norm is for civil liberties to erode over time, weakening by apathy and disillusionment, mistrust and tribalism. Anarchism reverses this mechanism, causing these very factors to cause greater, not lesser, levels of activism.

I learned that asking for more than a people hope to receive, or even want, can be useful. I demonstrated over a period of some three weeks in Taiwan, participating in actions that openly called for social unrest in demonstrations that occasionally grew quite alarming. (This was a "Black Block" uprising, long before the term was used - partially in response to the violent crackdown at Tiananmen Square. The Chinese military, uncontrolled by Taiwan, fired missiles from gunboats over the heart of the city in order to remind us that they had missiles to spare on such presentations. These missiles were easily visible from the street, although I never could spot them.)

Socially, Taiwanese society should be regarded as a modern memory of Victorian England. Profanities, odd mannerisms and eccentricities are universally treated with a level of caution that might amuse an American. Even firmly meeting the gaze of the polite Taiwanese can be unnerving to them.

Direct demands were rare in my experience. Sex was never made a subject. Repression and hints were rampant.

In this environment came Anarchists, who belligerently called for open acts of hedonism, disrespect for traditions, and defiance towards everything. They were never violent, but they were very, very shocking.

The results of all of this were exactly the same as the response to the Occupy Movement; police with AK47s suddenly became very visible. They were respectful, nearly bashful, and willing to kill anything that moved. This over-reaction triggered a widespread collapse in public support for their leadership, which led to the repeal of various offensive laws and greater tolerance for human variance.

Anarchism, by making bald-faced, unapologetic demands for the most stupid things that can be imagined, greatly advance the cause of liberty - by making the far more mundane requests of a population absolutely not shocking, and appear quite reasonable.

No autocratic police state can survive disobedience. Not criminality - mere disobedience will always topple them. The secret: Tyrants can only actually use the threat of force once, and then they are outnumbered and friendless. Anarchism will never demonstrate obedience to anything, and will never present any workable platform that can be reasonably implemented in order to placate them.

Therefore, Anarchists will always serve as an effective antibacterial disinfectant for a government.

This is fascinating on several levels.

At first I ignored it because tl;dr, but I'm glad I took the time to go through it eventually. While I appreciate your perspective, I do have some contentions:

What you call "anarchists" here don't seem to exactly fit the definition of a strict anarchist. They sound like social libertarians, people who simply did not see the need for government influence in most societal matters.

I also doubt that these "anarchists" were the cause of the liberalization of Taiwan, which I am assuming is the event of which you speak. I think the death of Chiang Kai-shek had much more to do with that, and that his son ushered in a lot of political reform, including the lifting of martial law, the inclusion of multiple political parties, and an actual democracy. Social liberalization would be a natural outcome following the repression inherent in martial law.

Since Mandarin is completely impossible for me to comprehend, I had a very limited ability to communicate with most people while living in Taipei. Chiang Kai-Shek (Shanghai Jack - I am not kidding; this is what he was called) was already a revered historical figure by this time. No, the positive changes that came about during this period were much, much more minor than moving Chinese culture to a new homeland following a totalitarian takeover of the mainland. Such things are common in the nation, which has become known for fist fights among legislators.

But, these protesters were self-described Anarchists. Of that fact, there can be no doubt whatever. The hoodies and big red letter A's were missing, but these were, in every way primitivist rabble that was calling for a complete end of all governance on the island. I had many, many long talks (English) with many participants - that sound much like these threads. I will say that removing the Taiwanese state would certainly result in an invasion by the mainland; they respond that they would win the war with China. I tell them that even America would fear a full-scale Chinese assault, and they tell me that America would be easier to defeat than China.

In other words, there is no argument that will be allowed to overcome the hypotheticals for them. Just as it is here.

=) Very interesting. I didn't know. I've done some research and written some papers on Taiwan at the undergraduate level, but not on anything post-martial law.

Incidentally, this was hardly my only personal encounter with Anarchism. I lived for some time with a temple in the mountains with monks who I regarded as Anarchists, but who would be likely to say that I am incorrect. This monastery could serve as a beautiful example of what a free life could offer to those who might be interested. To say the least, I am no Buddhist, but I am certain that few would not benefit from an encounter with this life. It may not be anarchism, but.

As a resident of Alaska, I lived for some time at a settlement (north of Fairbanks, in the center of the map) where such sentiments were perfectly echoed. Among my beloved Occupy Movement, as well -- the Black Block is very well represented. Today with the hoodies and the A's, but now with Guy Fawkes.

I think there's a lot to say about being comfortable without maximal pursuit of material gain. Personally I gravitate much more towards a Buffett-type lifestyle (simple living, productive pursuit), nonetheless I can respect and appreciate the sentiments you convey with these portraits of living. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?