Total Posts:331|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cool Comments on Anarchism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 11:32:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Debating with a statist over the fact that I don't consent to be ruled is like debating with a rapist over the fact that I don't consent to being raped. The statists force their ideas upon those who do not consent with the violent power of a coercive state, and then look at anarchists as being immoral and insane for not wanting to do this.
I wish statists would just understand that what they are advocating for isn't just their own enslavement. It'sA279; my enslavement as well.

YouTube, ebay and in general the web functions on anarcho-capitalism. That is, individuals free-associating with other organisations and individuals without a supreme authority controlling them. Anarchy does not mean withoutA279; rules, but merely without rulers. You are as valid in your "utopian" comment as a 19th century man saying that the abolition of slavery and women's rights are also a utopian dream.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 11:46:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
May I ask how anarchy would deal with the following situations:

- Natural disasters (think Hurricane Katrina - gold star if you come up with a scenario to take care of it better than Bush did)
- Global Warming, and other human effects on climate and the environment (basically getting people to clean up after themselves)
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 12:29:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You go ahead and tell a rape victim about how you compared her experience to having a government. (Just to warn you ahead of time, the cops that likely catch and punished her rapist... Government employees.)
-- 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 --
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:09:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:46:30 PM, drhead wrote:
May I ask how anarchy would deal with the following situations:

- Natural disasters (think Hurricane Katrina - gold star if you come up with a scenario to take care of it better than Bush did)
- Global Warming, and other human effects on climate and the environment (basically getting people to clean up after themselves)

Here's a (or the) fundamental problem with the statist line of thinking, in my view: People are fundamentally bad - they won't clean up after themselves if left to their own devices, because they are selfish and stupid. Therefore, we should get other humans to force humans to do good. But how do we decide which humans do the forcing? By popular vote.

The issue with this becomes clear - you're not fixing the fundamental problem of 'human evil' (which is not what I believe in), but simply spreading it around; like cleaning up a spill on the floor with a brick. But you're not only spreading it around, you're adding violence to the picture as well. Solution = problem + violence..

'Anarchy', in the abstract, will not fix those problems. It's people themselves who will deal with them, however they decide to.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:16:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:09:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:46:30 PM, drhead wrote:
May I ask how anarchy would deal with the following situations:

- Natural disasters (think Hurricane Katrina - gold star if you come up with a scenario to take care of it better than Bush did)
- Global Warming, and other human effects on climate and the environment (basically getting people to clean up after themselves)

Here's a (or the) fundamental problem with the statist line of thinking, in my view: People are fundamentally bad - they won't clean up after themselves if left to their own devices, because they are selfish and stupid. Therefore, we should get other humans to force humans to do good. But how do we decide which humans do the forcing? By popular vote.

The issue with this becomes clear - you're not fixing the fundamental problem of 'human evil' (which is not what I believe in), but simply spreading it around; like cleaning up a spill on the floor with a brick. But you're not only spreading it around, you're adding violence to the picture as well. Solution = problem + violence..

'Anarchy', in the abstract, will not fix those problems. It's people themselves who will deal with them, however they decide to.

This moral context is IMHO misguided.

The problem is that with the challenges presented by drhead, no one person can cope with the consequences of such a disaster, so they choose not to. An organization which is able to organize and compel a group of people to action however CAN deal with such a situation.

This organization is government. Coercion is irrelevant. It is akin to saying that water "coerces" the rock into becoming smooth after millions of years of erosion.
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:16:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:09:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:46:30 PM, drhead wrote:
May I ask how anarchy would deal with the following situations:

- Natural disasters (think Hurricane Katrina - gold star if you come up with a scenario to take care of it better than Bush did)
- Global Warming, and other human effects on climate and the environment (basically getting people to clean up after themselves)

Here's a (or the) fundamental problem with the statist line of thinking, in my view: People are fundamentally bad - they won't clean up after themselves if left to their own devices, because they are selfish and stupid. Therefore, we should get other humans to force humans to do good. But how do we decide which humans do the forcing? By popular vote.

The issue with this becomes clear - you're not fixing the fundamental problem of 'human evil' (which is not what I believe in), but simply spreading it around; like cleaning up a spill on the floor with a brick. But you're not only spreading it around, you're adding violence to the picture as well. Solution = problem + violence..

'Anarchy', in the abstract, will not fix those problems. It's people themselves who will deal with them, however they decide to.

This moral context is IMHO misguided.

The problem is that with the challenges presented by drhead, no one person can cope with the consequences of such a disaster, so they choose not to. An organization which is able to organize and compel a group of people to action however CAN deal with such a situation.

This organization is government. Coercion is irrelevant. It is akin to saying that water "coerces" the rock into becoming smooth after millions of years of erosion.

AnCap simply states that it'd be better for it to be a voluntary organisation, formed from donations / payment rather than taxation. Coercion is never irrelevant from government - that's its defining feature.

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:16:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:09:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:46:30 PM, drhead wrote:
May I ask how anarchy would deal with the following situations:

- Natural disasters (think Hurricane Katrina - gold star if you come up with a scenario to take care of it better than Bush did)
- Global Warming, and other human effects on climate and the environment (basically getting people to clean up after themselves)

Here's a (or the) fundamental problem with the statist line of thinking, in my view: People are fundamentally bad - they won't clean up after themselves if left to their own devices, because they are selfish and stupid. Therefore, we should get other humans to force humans to do good. But how do we decide which humans do the forcing? By popular vote.

The issue with this becomes clear - you're not fixing the fundamental problem of 'human evil' (which is not what I believe in), but simply spreading it around; like cleaning up a spill on the floor with a brick. But you're not only spreading it around, you're adding violence to the picture as well. Solution = problem + violence..

'Anarchy', in the abstract, will not fix those problems. It's people themselves who will deal with them, however they decide to.

This moral context is IMHO misguided.

The problem is that with the challenges presented by drhead, no one person can cope with the consequences of such a disaster, so they choose not to. An organization which is able to organize and compel a group of people to action however CAN deal with such a situation.

This organization is government. Coercion is irrelevant. It is akin to saying that water "coerces" the rock into becoming smooth after millions of years of erosion.

AnCap simply states that it'd be better for it to be a voluntary organisation, formed from donations / payment rather than taxation. Coercion is never irrelevant from government - that's its defining feature.

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

You make "choice" sound like it is robbed from you by the government. Even under "coercion" you still have a choice - life or death, take it or leave it. Under anarchism, you are given the same choice.
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:34:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM, sdavio wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

This is ridiculous. Without organization, one person cannot stop a flood, or build a levee to contain it.

The method of which you speak is government. Any form of organization will be government. Anarchism is "freedom from organization".
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:41:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to point out how central organization is to our daily lives:

Without organization communication would be impossible. There would be no written language, no agreed upon standard of audible tones that would equate to meaning. Transfers of knowledge of surroundings would be impossible.

So, let's say a person was cognizant of a wildfire approaching his location, and knew that there were others close-by whose houses would burn if not informed of the fire. This person cannot inform the others, because they would not be able to understand him, because of a lack of an organized, cohesive standard of communication.

Had these people banded together and combated the fire, they would have saved all of their houses. Instead, in anarchy, they all burn.
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:44:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:16:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:09:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:46:30 PM, drhead wrote:
May I ask how anarchy would deal with the following situations:

- Natural disasters (think Hurricane Katrina - gold star if you come up with a scenario to take care of it better than Bush did)
- Global Warming, and other human effects on climate and the environment (basically getting people to clean up after themselves)

Here's a (or the) fundamental problem with the statist line of thinking, in my view: People are fundamentally bad - they won't clean up after themselves if left to their own devices, because they are selfish and stupid. Therefore, we should get other humans to force humans to do good. But how do we decide which humans do the forcing? By popular vote.

The issue with this becomes clear - you're not fixing the fundamental problem of 'human evil' (which is not what I believe in), but simply spreading it around; like cleaning up a spill on the floor with a brick. But you're not only spreading it around, you're adding violence to the picture as well. Solution = problem + violence..

'Anarchy', in the abstract, will not fix those problems. It's people themselves who will deal with them, however they decide to.

This moral context is IMHO misguided.

The problem is that with the challenges presented by drhead, no one person can cope with the consequences of such a disaster, so they choose not to. An organization which is able to organize and compel a group of people to action however CAN deal with such a situation.

This organization is government. Coercion is irrelevant. It is akin to saying that water "coerces" the rock into becoming smooth after millions of years of erosion.

AnCap simply states that it'd be better for it to be a voluntary organisation, formed from donations / payment rather than taxation. Coercion is never irrelevant from government - that's its defining feature.

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

You make "choice" sound like it is robbed from you by the government. Even under "coercion" you still have a choice - life or death, take it or leave it. Under anarchism, you are given the same choice.

In the case of any issue, we can choose to solve it with violence, or without violence. The assertion here is that, we should strive to always choose the nonviolent option, except in the case that violence has been initiated. Now to say violence is irrelevant from life and death is just untrue - look at any society; the amount of 'livelihood' it has can be correlated to how much it solves it's problems with rationality, nonviolently, compared to how much it solves problems violently.

Government functions as a way of abstracting that violence.. If I was in some kind of dilemma, similar to a disaster or something, and came to my neighbor's house with a gun, demanding money to deal with this issue, most people would say that's immoral. But when this same thing basically happens, but through the abstract in the government system, it's seen as moral. Anarchism is basically looking at this big violent system, and saying 'Is it possible we could solve some of these problems nonviolently?'
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:47:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:34:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM, sdavio wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

This is ridiculous. Without organization, one person cannot stop a flood, or build a levee to contain it.

The method of which you speak is government. Any form of organization will be government. Anarchism is "freedom from organization".

Government, specifically, requires violence to be called a government. A voluntary group is not a government. And anarchy can exist with people still working together to solve problems. Anarchy is, specifically, the absence of authority.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:48:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:44:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

You make "choice" sound like it is robbed from you by the government. Even under "coercion" you still have a choice - life or death, take it or leave it. Under anarchism, you are given the same choice.

In the case of any issue, we can choose to solve it with violence, or without violence. The assertion here is that, we should strive to always choose the nonviolent option, except in the case that violence has been initiated. Now to say violence is irrelevant from life and death is just untrue - look at any society; the amount of 'livelihood' it has can be correlated to how much it solves it's problems with rationality, nonviolently, compared to how much it solves problems violently.

Your point is irrelevant. You treat violence as if it was immoral, when in essence it is amoral. Fire is "violent". Earthquakes are "violent". The moral dimension is nothing other than a figment of your imagination.

Government functions as a way of abstracting that violence.. If I was in some kind of dilemma, similar to a disaster or something, and came to my neighbor's house with a gun, demanding money to deal with this issue, most people would say that's immoral. But when this same thing basically happens, but through the abstract in the government system, it's seen as moral. Anarchism is basically looking at this big violent system, and saying 'Is it possible we could solve some of these problems nonviolently?'

What if lightning struck your neighbor's house? Is that an act of immorality? What if you didn't know about it, because there was no organization that sought to inform its citizenry of its surroundings, no organization to help deal with this disaster? Are you moral because you refuse to gather into an organization out of fear of "coercion"?
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:50:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:47:28 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:34:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM, sdavio wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

This is ridiculous. Without organization, one person cannot stop a flood, or build a levee to contain it.

The method of which you speak is government. Any form of organization will be government. Anarchism is "freedom from organization".

Government, specifically, requires violence to be called a government.

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

A voluntary group is not a government. And anarchy can exist with people still working together to solve problems. Anarchy is, specifically, the absence of authority.

Does nature choose when and where to rain? When and where an earthquake will occur? When and where a volcano will erupt? Are these "voluntary" acts of nature?

About "authority", if a boulder falls on your head and you die, does this boulder have "authority" over you?
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:57:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:48:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:44:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

You make "choice" sound like it is robbed from you by the government. Even under "coercion" you still have a choice - life or death, take it or leave it. Under anarchism, you are given the same choice.

In the case of any issue, we can choose to solve it with violence, or without violence. The assertion here is that, we should strive to always choose the nonviolent option, except in the case that violence has been initiated. Now to say violence is irrelevant from life and death is just untrue - look at any society; the amount of 'livelihood' it has can be correlated to how much it solves it's problems with rationality, nonviolently, compared to how much it solves problems violently.

Your point is irrelevant. You treat violence as if it was immoral, when in essence it is amoral. Fire is "violent". Earthquakes are "violent". The moral dimension is nothing other than a figment of your imagination.

Of course they are violent, and that fits the idea perfectly. Morality is not only a figment of my imagination, in the same way that numbers aren't - it's a way of relating concepts - specifically, in the context of human society, what is positive for increasing human life and happiness? Indeed, fire and earthquakes are negative in regard to that goal.

Government functions as a way of abstracting that violence.. If I was in some kind of dilemma, similar to a disaster or something, and came to my neighbor's house with a gun, demanding money to deal with this issue, most people would say that's immoral. But when this same thing basically happens, but through the abstract in the government system, it's seen as moral. Anarchism is basically looking at this big violent system, and saying 'Is it possible we could solve some of these problems nonviolently?'

What if lightning struck your neighbor's house? Is that an act of immorality?

If we're talking about humans, specifically, then yes. It reduces human life and happiness.

What if you didn't know about it, because there was no organization that sought to inform its citizenry of its surroundings, no organization to help deal with this disaster? Are you moral because you refuse to gather into an organization out of fear of "coercion"?

Your characterization of anarchy as against any form of social communication or organization isn't what anarchism really is. Look at almost any proposed form of anarchism and they for the most part actually involve very complex structures of society. The exception would I guess be something like Lordknukle's anarchy which is just silly.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:00:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:50:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:47:28 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:34:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM, sdavio wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

This is ridiculous. Without organization, one person cannot stop a flood, or build a levee to contain it.

The method of which you speak is government. Any form of organization will be government. Anarchism is "freedom from organization".

Government, specifically, requires violence to be called a government.

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

Yes. I still don't really get why you always point out nature being violent, as if that legitimizes humans doing the same. It's immoral when nature does it (in the context of human life), and it's immoral when humans do it, too. We should try to reduce both.

A voluntary group is not a government. And anarchy can exist with people still working together to solve problems. Anarchy is, specifically, the absence of authority.

Does nature choose when and where to rain? When and where an earthquake will occur? When and where a volcano will erupt? Are these "voluntary" acts of nature?

About "authority", if a boulder falls on your head and you die, does this boulder have "authority" over you?

The answer to all of these is yes, I think.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:24:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:57:31 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:48:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:44:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

You make "choice" sound like it is robbed from you by the government. Even under "coercion" you still have a choice - life or death, take it or leave it. Under anarchism, you are given the same choice.

In the case of any issue, we can choose to solve it with violence, or without violence. The assertion here is that, we should strive to always choose the nonviolent option, except in the case that violence has been initiated. Now to say violence is irrelevant from life and death is just untrue - look at any society; the amount of 'livelihood' it has can be correlated to how much it solves it's problems with rationality, nonviolently, compared to how much it solves problems violently.

Your point is irrelevant. You treat violence as if it was immoral, when in essence it is amoral. Fire is "violent". Earthquakes are "violent". The moral dimension is nothing other than a figment of your imagination.

Of course they are violent, and that fits the idea perfectly. Morality is not only a figment of my imagination, in the same way that numbers aren't - it's a way of relating concepts - specifically, in the context of human society, what is positive for increasing human life and happiness? Indeed, fire and earthquakes are negative in regard to that goal.

lol, so fire is immoral. I'm guessing it's immoral only when it burns someone, and when it is the reason for internal combustion you feel it is moral.

This moral quality is a figment of your imagination. Fire is fire. It is violent, but violence in and of itself is amoral.

Government functions as a way of abstracting that violence.. If I was in some kind of dilemma, similar to a disaster or something, and came to my neighbor's house with a gun, demanding money to deal with this issue, most people would say that's immoral. But when this same thing basically happens, but through the abstract in the government system, it's seen as moral. Anarchism is basically looking at this big violent system, and saying 'Is it possible we could solve some of these problems nonviolently?'

What if lightning struck your neighbor's house? Is that an act of immorality?

If we're talking about humans, specifically, then yes. It reduces human life and happiness.

We are talking about lightning striking your neighbor's house. Is this an act of immorality? Please answer the question, it was clear when I asked it, and your attempt to equivocate is unfortunately quite transparent.

What if you didn't know about it, because there was no organization that sought to inform its citizenry of its surroundings, no organization to help deal with this disaster? Are you moral because you refuse to gather into an organization out of fear of "coercion"?

Your characterization of anarchy as against any form of social communication or organization isn't what anarchism really is. Look at almost any proposed form of anarchism and they for the most part actually involve very complex structures of society. The exception would I guess be something like Lordknukle's anarchy which is just silly.

Let's say that the arrangement of symbols "murder" meant "basket of apples" to anarchist A, and "murder" to anarchist B. Anarchist A communicates to Anarchist B "I bring murder" and is carrying a basket of apples. Anarchist B promptly kills anarchist A. Without organization, it is impossible for either of these two to figure out exactly what the other is intending to do.

Without a "hierarchy of symbols" it would be impossible to develop a language. What makes a squiggly vertical "line" not a "letter" whereas "A" is a letter? It is prioritization, a hierarchy of symbology, that makes language possible. It is this hierarchy that makes any attempt at organization possible, as it prioritizes one thing or form of thing over another.

In an anarchy, such a hierarchy via "coercion" or "agreement with consequences" would not be possible...it would be forbidden. Communication would be impossible. Each person would be their own king or queen, and would die as such.
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:26:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 2:00:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:50:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:47:28 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:34:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:28:53 AM, sdavio wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

This is ridiculous. Without organization, one person cannot stop a flood, or build a levee to contain it.

The method of which you speak is government. Any form of organization will be government. Anarchism is "freedom from organization".

Government, specifically, requires violence to be called a government.

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

Yes. I still don't really get why you always point out nature being violent, as if that legitimizes humans doing the same. It's immoral when nature does it (in the context of human life), and it's immoral when humans do it, too. We should try to reduce both.

Ok, so mother nature is "government". Who is the "king"? Dirt? And the queen? Clouds? C'mon, start making sense please.

A voluntary group is not a government. And anarchy can exist with people still working together to solve problems. Anarchy is, specifically, the absence of authority.

Does nature choose when and where to rain? When and where an earthquake will occur? When and where a volcano will erupt? Are these "voluntary" acts of nature?

About "authority", if a boulder falls on your head and you die, does this boulder have "authority" over you?

The answer to all of these is yes, I think.

So this boulder, an inanimate object with no "life" of its own, is something that has brought coercion upon your head, and you have thus experienced the consequences. This boulder is "immoral". Now what?
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:29:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 2:26:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:00:42 AM, sdavio wrote:

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

Yes. I still don't really get why you always point out nature being violent, as if that legitimizes humans doing the same. It's immoral when nature does it (in the context of human life), and it's immoral when humans do it, too. We should try to reduce both.

Ok, so mother nature is "government". Who is the "king"? Dirt? And the queen? Clouds? C'mon, start making sense please.

Let me untangle this mess for you. Replace the word "government" with "evil", and your statement would make a lot more sense.

Then you would see that what you call "anarchy" is an attempt to remove evil. That's fine and all, but you propose to remove this evil by removing it. That's like saying that the solution to a problem is the solution. It's a tautology that does not convey any real meaning or purpose.

You would also realize that your arguments have absolutely zero relevance to governance in any way, shape, or form.
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:40:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 2:29:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:26:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:00:42 AM, sdavio wrote:

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

Yes. I still don't really get why you always point out nature being violent, as if that legitimizes humans doing the same. It's immoral when nature does it (in the context of human life), and it's immoral when humans do it, too. We should try to reduce both.

Ok, so mother nature is "government". Who is the "king"? Dirt? And the queen? Clouds? C'mon, start making sense please.

Let me untangle this mess for you. Replace the word "government" with "evil", and your statement would make a lot more sense.

Then you would see that what you call "anarchy" is an attempt to remove evil. That's fine and all, but you propose to remove this evil by removing it. That's like saying that the solution to a problem is the solution. It's a tautology that does not convey any real meaning or purpose.

You would also realize that your arguments have absolutely zero relevance to governance in any way, shape, or form.

Government is an authority, allowed to use violent force on citizens. In that sense, under a very broad definition, nature could be called a 'government,' I think. And because government is separated from a voluntary organisation by it's use of violence, and I find violence to be immoral, yeah, it's closely tied with being immoral. You're pretty much conceding here, if this really is your only problem with anarchy, that government is immoral. At best, maybe you believe that it's a necessary evil.

"The solution to a problem is a solution".. well there is much disagreement over whether the 'problem' really is actually a problem. If you agree that it is, then I guess you're an anarchist right?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:43:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 2:40:25 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:29:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:26:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:00:42 AM, sdavio wrote:

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

Yes. I still don't really get why you always point out nature being violent, as if that legitimizes humans doing the same. It's immoral when nature does it (in the context of human life), and it's immoral when humans do it, too. We should try to reduce both.

Ok, so mother nature is "government". Who is the "king"? Dirt? And the queen? Clouds? C'mon, start making sense please.

Let me untangle this mess for you. Replace the word "government" with "evil", and your statement would make a lot more sense.

Then you would see that what you call "anarchy" is an attempt to remove evil. That's fine and all, but you propose to remove this evil by removing it. That's like saying that the solution to a problem is the solution. It's a tautology that does not convey any real meaning or purpose.

You would also realize that your arguments have absolutely zero relevance to governance in any way, shape, or form.

Government is an authority, allowed to use violent force on citizens.

So nature is an authority, "allowed" to use violent force on "citizens"?

In that sense, under a very broad definition, nature could be called a 'government,' I think. And because government is separated from a voluntary organisation by it's use of violence, and I find violence to be immoral, yeah, it's closely tied with being immoral. You're pretty much conceding here, if this really is your only problem with anarchy, that government is immoral. At best, maybe you believe that it's a necessary evil.

What you're essentially saying is that reality (i.e. nature) is immoral, that government is reality, and you have a problem with reality and want to abolish it. This is called "fantasy" and "delusion".

"The solution to a problem is a solution".. well there is much disagreement over whether the 'problem' really is actually a problem. If you agree that it is, then I guess you're an anarchist right?
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:55:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 2:43:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:40:25 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:29:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:26:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:00:42 AM, sdavio wrote:

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

Yes. I still don't really get why you always point out nature being violent, as if that legitimizes humans doing the same. It's immoral when nature does it (in the context of human life), and it's immoral when humans do it, too. We should try to reduce both.

Ok, so mother nature is "government". Who is the "king"? Dirt? And the queen? Clouds? C'mon, start making sense please.

Let me untangle this mess for you. Replace the word "government" with "evil", and your statement would make a lot more sense.

Then you would see that what you call "anarchy" is an attempt to remove evil. That's fine and all, but you propose to remove this evil by removing it. That's like saying that the solution to a problem is the solution. It's a tautology that does not convey any real meaning or purpose.

You would also realize that your arguments have absolutely zero relevance to governance in any way, shape, or form.

Government is an authority, allowed to use violent force on citizens.

So nature is an authority, "allowed" to use violent force on "citizens"?

In that sense, under a very broad definition, nature could be called a 'government,' I think. And because government is separated from a voluntary organisation by it's use of violence, and I find violence to be immoral, yeah, it's closely tied with being immoral. You're pretty much conceding here, if this really is your only problem with anarchy, that government is immoral. At best, maybe you believe that it's a necessary evil.

What you're essentially saying is that reality (i.e. nature) is immoral, that government is reality, and you have a problem with reality and want to abolish it. This is called "fantasy" and "delusion".

Oh sneaky one, lol. You applied violence to all of nature, and now are making it look like I'm denying 'everything' because nature is such a broad term that it could apply to everything. What I'm saying is that, in any system, where there is violence involved, we should try to restructure the system in order to reduce violence. If violence is immoral, and some aspect of nature is 'violent' toward a human, it is in that case being immoral. And we should try to rectify / reduce that violence.

The word 'government' is separable from 'nature' by the fact that it's by definition violent. If it's not violent, it's not government. However nature can be violent or not violent. The violent aspects are immoral.

In the case of Government, there are functions it fulfills violently, which could also be fulfilled nonviolently. In absence of violence as a possible solution, humans resort to rationality and cooperation in order to solve that same problem.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:58:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 2:55:01 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:43:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:40:25 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:29:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:26:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:00:42 AM, sdavio wrote:

Nature is violent. Is nature a "government"? Ridiculous stipulation.

Yes. I still don't really get why you always point out nature being violent, as if that legitimizes humans doing the same. It's immoral when nature does it (in the context of human life), and it's immoral when humans do it, too. We should try to reduce both.

Ok, so mother nature is "government". Who is the "king"? Dirt? And the queen? Clouds? C'mon, start making sense please.

Let me untangle this mess for you. Replace the word "government" with "evil", and your statement would make a lot more sense.

Then you would see that what you call "anarchy" is an attempt to remove evil. That's fine and all, but you propose to remove this evil by removing it. That's like saying that the solution to a problem is the solution. It's a tautology that does not convey any real meaning or purpose.

You would also realize that your arguments have absolutely zero relevance to governance in any way, shape, or form.

Government is an authority, allowed to use violent force on citizens.

So nature is an authority, "allowed" to use violent force on "citizens"?

In that sense, under a very broad definition, nature could be called a 'government,' I think. And because government is separated from a voluntary organisation by it's use of violence, and I find violence to be immoral, yeah, it's closely tied with being immoral. You're pretty much conceding here, if this really is your only problem with anarchy, that government is immoral. At best, maybe you believe that it's a necessary evil.

What you're essentially saying is that reality (i.e. nature) is immoral, that government is reality, and you have a problem with reality and want to abolish it. This is called "fantasy" and "delusion".

Oh sneaky one, lol. You applied violence to all of nature...

Actually, I would say that YOU are the sneaky one, because you are applying all of "coercion" to government and only government.

...and now are making it look like I'm denying 'everything' because nature is such a broad term that it could apply to everything. What I'm saying is that, in any system, where there is violence involved, we should try to restructure the system in order to reduce violence. If violence is immoral, and some aspect of nature is 'violent' toward a human, it is in that case being immoral. And we should try to rectify / reduce that violence.

I find this much more acceptable than labeling any and all violent action "government".

The word 'government' is separable from 'nature' by the fact that it's by definition violent. If it's not violent, it's not government.

Sigh. So fire is government. Lightning is government. Tornadoes are government. You stopped making sense again.

However nature can be violent or not violent. The violent aspects are immoral.

In the case of Government, there are functions it fulfills violently, which could also be fulfilled nonviolently. In absence of violence as a possible solution, humans resort to rationality and cooperation in order to solve that same problem.

How is enforcement of a contract ever "non-violent", and how would contracts even exist without government?
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 3:01:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, like I've said to you before, we are violent because nature is violent. Is this violence immoral? That's like saying that gravity is immoral. Gravity is just force upon force. That's all it is. Assign morality to such an equation and you will do nothing but confuse yourself.

The proper response to gravity not working in your favor is to get it to work in your favor, which requires counter-force upon force. This is violence, and if you think that the internal combustion engine is a "moral" use of violence, then you think that violence is moral.
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 3:12:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 2:58:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Actually, I would say that YOU are the sneaky one, because you are applying all of "coercion" to government and only government.

I find this much more acceptable than labeling any and all violent action "government".

It's like fruit / apple. Fruit is not always an apple but an apple is always fruit. Violence is not always government, but government is always violent.

How is enforcement of a contract ever "non-violent", and how would contracts even exist without government?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Anyway, like I've said to you before, we are violent because nature is violent. Is this violence immoral? That's like saying that gravity is immoral. Gravity is just force upon force. That's all it is. Assign morality to such an equation and you will do nothing but confuse yourself.

Violence is antagonistic to human peace and happiness, whether committed by a human or by some other abstract part of nature. However, the thing that separates humans is our unique ability to solve problems without violence, using our rationality. An anarchist society is a society where rationality is maximized and violence is reduced to a minimum.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:09:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 3:12:41 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:58:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Actually, I would say that YOU are the sneaky one, because you are applying all of "coercion" to government and only government.

I find this much more acceptable than labeling any and all violent action "government".

It's like fruit / apple. Fruit is not always an apple but an apple is always fruit. Violence is not always government, but government is always violent.

This is a gross mischaracterization. Just because government has a monopoly on the means of violence does not mean that everything the government does IS violence. When the CBO issues a report on the budget, that is not violence. When the government issues a marriage certificate, that is not violence. When the government sends a fire truck to put out a forest fire, that IS violence, but that is welcome violence.

How is enforcement of a contract ever "non-violent", and how would contracts even exist without government?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Murray Rothbard argues that court decisions need not be enforced by the government in order to be effective. Even before the decisions of dispute resolution organizations were considered legally enforceable in government courts, merchants obeyed them to avoid the risk of ostracism and boycotts."

This is coercion. This is violence. Rothbard never advocated for the lack of coercion, only that the government not be the sole holder of such means.

Rothbard was a great economist, but a political quack. He advocated that the monopoly on violence held by the government be broken up into a "perfect competition" of violence. In the realm of security, this doesn't make sense...he is essentially advocating that there be constant competition in the realm of security, when competition in the realm of security means people getting killed and bridges being blown up.

Anyway, like I've said to you before, we are violent because nature is violent. Is this violence immoral? That's like saying that gravity is immoral. Gravity is just force upon force. That's all it is. Assign morality to such an equation and you will do nothing but confuse yourself.

Violence is antagonistic to human peace and happiness, whether committed by a human or by some other abstract part of nature. However, the thing that separates humans is our unique ability to solve problems without violence, using our rationality. An anarchist society is a society where rationality is maximized and violence is reduced to a minimum.

This is so fundamentally misguided as to be laughable. Putting out a fire requires "violence". The engine of a car undergoes a "violent" reaction in order for it to harness the requisite energy for locomotion. You require "violent" means to lift your foot off the ground to take a step forward in order to walk.

You are complaining about the laws of physics and how they are ostensibly immoral. Again, it is force upon force. Your own breathing would be immoral according to your characterization, and if you truly believed in what you were saying, you would stop immediately.
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:33:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:09:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 3:12:41 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:58:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Actually, I would say that YOU are the sneaky one, because you are applying all of "coercion" to government and only government.

I find this much more acceptable than labeling any and all violent action "government".

It's like fruit / apple. Fruit is not always an apple but an apple is always fruit. Violence is not always government, but government is always violent.

This is a gross mischaracterization. Just because government has a monopoly on the means of violence does not mean that everything the government does IS violence. When the CBO issues a report on the budget, that is not violence. When the government issues a marriage certificate, that is not violence. When the government sends a fire truck to put out a forest fire, that IS violence, but that is welcome violence.

If they're done with tax money, they're all violent, indirectly.

How is enforcement of a contract ever "non-violent", and how would contracts even exist without government?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Murray Rothbard argues that court decisions need not be enforced by the government in order to be effective. Even before the decisions of dispute resolution organizations were considered legally enforceable in government courts, merchants obeyed them to avoid the risk of ostracism and boycotts."

This is coercion. This is violence. Rothbard never advocated for the lack of coercion, only that the government not be the sole holder of such means.

Rothbard was a great economist, but a political quack. He advocated that the monopoly on violence held by the government be broken up into a "perfect competition" of violence. In the realm of security, this doesn't make sense...he is essentially advocating that there be constant competition in the realm of security, when competition in the realm of security means people getting killed and bridges being blown up.

How is a boycott violent?

Anyway, like I've said to you before, we are violent because nature is violent. Is this violence immoral? That's like saying that gravity is immoral. Gravity is just force upon force. That's all it is. Assign morality to such an equation and you will do nothing but confuse yourself.

Violence is antagonistic to human peace and happiness, whether committed by a human or by some other abstract part of nature. However, the thing that separates humans is our unique ability to solve problems without violence, using our rationality. An anarchist society is a society where rationality is maximized and violence is reduced to a minimum.

This is so fundamentally misguided as to be laughable. Putting out a fire requires "violence". The engine of a car undergoes a "violent" reaction in order for it to harness the requisite energy for locomotion. You require "violent" means to lift your foot off the ground to take a step forward in order to walk.

You are complaining about the laws of physics and how they are ostensibly immoral. Again, it is force upon force. Your own breathing would be immoral according to your characterization, and if you truly believed in what you were saying, you would stop immediately.

Hey, I do agree with you in a way, wrichcirw.. but I don't think it debunks my statements. If you believe in cause and effect, and the butterfly effect, basically everything effects everything else in the universe as well as being a product of everything else. However, that's part of how the english language works; we have some boundary around each word, which we define as much as possible, but there will always be a blurry line at the edge of the definition of any word - due to the endlessly complex nature of reality. However, you're essentially resorting to existentialism in order to argue my points - and you could use this same technique for any principle regarding morality. So what do you suggest? That everything is equally immoral / moral, and we should just give up, since everything is violence, etc etc? Can you suggest a better principle? One which cannot be expanded to be essentially meaningless by that same logic? Ie - everything causes something else, everything is one etc, so all words are basically meaningless.. Is there any statement you could make, in the form of "______ should happen instead of _____, because ______", without it falling in that same problem you see for NAP?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:53:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:33:56 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 9:09:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 3:12:41 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:58:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Actually, I would say that YOU are the sneaky one, because you are applying all of "coercion" to government and only government.

I find this much more acceptable than labeling any and all violent action "government".

It's like fruit / apple. Fruit is not always an apple but an apple is always fruit. Violence is not always government, but government is always violent.

This is a gross mischaracterization. Just because government has a monopoly on the means of violence does not mean that everything the government does IS violence. When the CBO issues a report on the budget, that is not violence. When the government issues a marriage certificate, that is not violence. When the government sends a fire truck to put out a forest fire, that IS violence, but that is welcome violence.

If they're done with tax money, they're all violent, indirectly.

So is your breathing.

How is enforcement of a contract ever "non-violent", and how would contracts even exist without government?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Murray Rothbard argues that court decisions need not be enforced by the government in order to be effective. Even before the decisions of dispute resolution organizations were considered legally enforceable in government courts, merchants obeyed them to avoid the risk of ostracism and boycotts."

This is coercion. This is violence. Rothbard never advocated for the lack of coercion, only that the government not be the sole holder of such means.

Rothbard was a great economist, but a political quack. He advocated that the monopoly on violence held by the government be broken up into a "perfect competition" of violence. In the realm of security, this doesn't make sense...he is essentially advocating that there be constant competition in the realm of security, when competition in the realm of security means people getting killed and bridges being blown up.

How is a boycott violent?

When you, a consumer, are dissatisfied with the behavior of a corporate entity, you THREATEN that corporation with a boycott in order to FORCIBLY CHANGE that corporation's behavior.

C'mon man. I'm not citing rocket science here. I shouldn't have to point out such mundane details.

Anyway, like I've said to you before, we are violent because nature is violent. Is this violence immoral? That's like saying that gravity is immoral. Gravity is just force upon force. That's all it is. Assign morality to such an equation and you will do nothing but confuse yourself.

Violence is antagonistic to human peace and happiness, whether committed by a human or by some other abstract part of nature. However, the thing that separates humans is our unique ability to solve problems without violence, using our rationality. An anarchist society is a society where rationality is maximized and violence is reduced to a minimum.

This is so fundamentally misguided as to be laughable. Putting out a fire requires "violence". The engine of a car undergoes a "violent" reaction in order for it to harness the requisite energy for locomotion. You require "violent" means to lift your foot off the ground to take a step forward in order to walk.

You are complaining about the laws of physics and how they are ostensibly immoral. Again, it is force upon force. Your own breathing would be immoral according to your characterization, and if you truly believed in what you were saying, you would stop immediately.

Hey, I do agree with you in a way, wrichcirw.. but I don't think it debunks my statements.

It does, actually. You state you believe in a specific principle. I outline how you are not adhering to this principle (you are breathing). You agree my assessment is correct. You, an advocate of your principle, demonstrably are incapable of following it, or of pointing to a living example of how to follow it and why to follow it.

If you believe in cause and effect, and the butterfly effect, basically everything effects everything else in the universe as well as being a product of everything else. However, that's part of how the english language works; we have some boundary around each word, which we define as much as possible, but there will always be a blurry line at the edge of the definition of any word - due to the endlessly complex nature of reality. However, you're essentially resorting to existentialism in order to argue my points - and you could use this same technique for any principle regarding morality. So what do you suggest? That everything is equally immoral / moral, and we should just give up, since everything is violence, etc etc? Can you suggest a better principle? One which cannot be expanded to be essentially meaningless by that same logic?

I've already suggested a principle. Given the rules of gravity, to effect such rules to your own advantage, apply counter-force to force. Take a deep breath. Put out that forest fire. Enact "violence" upon the world.

Ie - everything causes something else, everything is one etc, so all words are basically meaningless.. Is there any statement you could make, in the form of "______ should happen instead of _____, because ______", without it falling in that same problem you see for NAP?

This is not my argument.

I'm pretty sure that at the core, we are probably very close to full agreement. However, your statements are IMHO extremely inaccurate, and the inaccuracies come from over-generalizations that are subject to this form of attack.

I agree that governments are violent, but that such violence is not immoral.

You seem to be thinking that government action is unjust action, but fail to take into consideration that many, many actions outside of government action are also unjust, and that government is an active attempt by humanity to ameliorate these various forms of injustices. This is where we disagree.

Your charge of "existentialism" is disingenuous, when YOU are the one applying such "existential" accusations against an organization (government) that is not necessarily deserving of such treatment.

You've dropped a LOT of my points at this juncture. It's difficult for me to explain my point further, when IMHO I have already explained my point and rebutted most, if not all, of your arguments.
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?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 10:26:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:53:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 9:33:56 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 9:09:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 3:12:41 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 2:58:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Actually, I would say that YOU are the sneaky one, because you are applying all of "coercion" to government and only government.

I find this much more acceptable than labeling any and all violent action "government".

It's like fruit / apple. Fruit is not always an apple but an apple is always fruit. Violence is not always government, but government is always violent.

This is a gross mischaracterization. Just because government has a monopoly on the means of violence does not mean that everything the government does IS violence. When the CBO issues a report on the budget, that is not violence. When the government issues a marriage certificate, that is not violence. When the government sends a fire truck to put out a forest fire, that IS violence, but that is welcome violence.

If they're done with tax money, they're all violent, indirectly.

So is your breathing.

If you can demonstrate and prove that my breathing is violent, that might be noteworthy. However, as it stands you're just invoking determinism, which basically nullifies any principle at all, as well as all human language. The purpose is relational, that is, to communicate concepts in relation to things we understand, while it will always be at some level inaccurate.

The definition of violence, as I use it, is referencing force within a certain level of separation, beyond which it becomes impractical to measure. It's not realistic to figure out how my breathing is effecting everything else in the universe. We can, however, understand what government is, how it is violent, etc.

This is the same method we use for any other idea. We say, it is better to give someone a hug than punch them in the face, even though we don't know if perhaps the hug might lead to an atomic bomb being dropped on France and the punch might lead to world peace. We simply use language in relation to what we do understand.

I can really conceptualize how government features, which are currently enacted violently, could be enacted nonviolently. If I could conceptualize how my breathing would lead to more pain/suffering than not breathing, I might take that into account.

How is enforcement of a contract ever "non-violent", and how would contracts even exist without government?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Murray Rothbard argues that court decisions need not be enforced by the government in order to be effective. Even before the decisions of dispute resolution organizations were considered legally enforceable in government courts, merchants obeyed them to avoid the risk of ostracism and boycotts."

This is coercion. This is violence. Rothbard never advocated for the lack of coercion, only that the government not be the sole holder of such means.

Rothbard was a great economist, but a political quack. He advocated that the monopoly on violence held by the government be broken up into a "perfect competition" of violence. In the realm of security, this doesn't make sense...he is essentially advocating that there be constant competition in the realm of security, when competition in the realm of security means people getting killed and bridges being blown up.

How is a boycott violent?

When you, a consumer, are dissatisfied with the behavior of a corporate entity, you THREATEN that corporation with a boycott in order to FORCIBLY CHANGE that corporation's behavior.

C'mon man. I'm not citing rocket science here. I shouldn't have to point out such mundane details.

That is not violence, not buying something is not violence.

Anyway, like I've said to you before, we are violent because nature is violent. Is this violence immoral? That's like saying that gravity is immoral. Gravity is just force upon force. That's all it is. Assign morality to such an equation and you will do nothing but confuse yourself.

Violence is antagonistic to human peace and happiness, whether committed by a human or by some other abstract part of nature. However, the thing that separates humans is our unique ability to solve problems without violence, using our rationality. An anarchist society is a society where rationality is maximized and violence is reduced to a minimum.

This is so fundamentally misguided as to be laughable. Putting out a fire requires "violence". The engine of a car undergoes a "violent" reaction in order for it to harness the requisite energy for locomotion. You require "violent" means to lift your foot off the ground to take a step forward in order to walk.

You are complaining about the laws of physics and how they are ostensibly immoral. Again, it is force upon force. Your own breathing would be immoral according to your characterization, and if you truly believed in what you were saying, you would stop immediately.

Hey, I do agree with you in a way, wrichcirw.. but I don't think it debunks my statements.

It does, actually. You state you believe in a specific principle. I outline how you are not adhering to this principle (you are breathing). You agree my assessment is correct. You, an advocate of your principle, demonstrably are incapable of following it, or of pointing to a living example of how to follow it and why to follow it.

I've already suggested a principle. Given the rules of gravity, to effect such rules to your own advantage, apply counter-force to force. Take a deep breath. Put out that forest fire. Enact "violence" upon the world.

That is your principle? So violence is the good, or violence is the means to good? If violence is the means, what is the good which we should use violence to move toward?

To be honest I think this is a cop-out, since you just parodied my statements rather than suggest any principle of your own, because you know it'd be vulnerable to the same criticisms.

You've dropped a LOT of my points at this juncture. It's difficult for me to explain my point further, when IMHO I have already explained my point and rebutted most, if not all, of your arguments.

Which points did I drop? I didn't mean to drop any.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 10:30:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:48:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:44:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think it's pretty likely that - in the case of a disaster - people would not just scatter and decide not to deal with it, in absence of government. There would be huge incentive, for them to form some method to deal with the problem. We don't need to force them to.

You make "choice" sound like it is robbed from you by the government. Even under "coercion" you still have a choice - life or death, take it or leave it. Under anarchism, you are given the same choice.

In the case of any issue, we can choose to solve it with violence, or without violence. The assertion here is that, we should strive to always choose the nonviolent option, except in the case that violence has been initiated. Now to say violence is irrelevant from life and death is just untrue - look at any society; the amount of 'livelihood' it has can be correlated to how much it solves it's problems with rationality, nonviolently, compared to how much it solves problems violently.

Your point is irrelevant. You treat violence as if it was immoral, when in essence it is amoral. Fire is "violent". Earthquakes are "violent". The moral dimension is nothing other than a figment of your imagination.

Government functions as a way of abstracting that violence.. If I was in some kind of dilemma, similar to a disaster or something, and came to my neighbor's house with a gun, demanding money to deal with this issue, most people would say that's immoral. But when this same thing basically happens, but through the abstract in the government system, it's seen as moral. Anarchism is basically looking at this big violent system, and saying 'Is it possible we could solve some of these problems nonviolently?'

What if lightning struck your neighbor's house? Is that an act of immorality? What if you didn't know about it, because there was no organization that sought to inform its citizenry of its surroundings, no organization to help deal with this disaster? Are you moral because you refuse to gather into an organization out of fear of "coercion"?

Well, what is it that we can control? Can we control the environment? Not really. Can we control the way we choose to conduct ourselves as individuals so as to reduce violence and our trivialization of it? Absolutely.
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
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 11:46:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:32:53 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Debating with a statist over the fact that I don't consent to be ruled is like debating with a rapist over the fact that I don't consent to being raped. The statists force their ideas upon those who do not consent with the violent power of a coercive state, and then look at anarchists as being immoral and insane for not wanting to do this.
I wish statists would just understand that what they are advocating for isn't just their own enslavement. It'sA279; my enslavement as well.

YouTube, ebay and in general the web functions on anarcho-capitalism. That is, individuals free-associating with other organisations and individuals without a supreme authority controlling them. Anarchy does not mean withoutA279; rules, but merely without rulers. You are as valid in your "utopian" comment as a 19th century man saying that the abolition of slavery and women's rights are also a utopian dream.

Dumbest analogy ever....

because...you know...being ruled by a government in today's society equates to being raped alright. What psychological issues do you suffer from as a result of your pre-supposed trauma's of the state? You can live under a government and be perfectly fine. Get raped, and you are psychologically damaged.

This is not one in the same, and I hope someone who has been raped will see this, and give you a proper SMACK.
Thank you for voting!