Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchy and authority

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society. The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

The common justification for this is that the group with the first set of rules would not follow said rules without group B, whom under a separate set of rules should enforce them onto the first group. The issues most address at this point - regardless of whether it's actually appropriate to do so yet - is what specifically those rules would be. However it is somewhat preemptive and perhaps even masturbatory to address those points in the context of politics, especially at this point of a discussion. Issues like abortion or same sex marriage, for instance, should not be relevant at this point of a political discussion (and in the mind of an anarchist usually aren't the business of politics at all but instead ethics,) because the rules enforced by a society at any point will reflect the ethics of the majority of people, because they hold the most power. Those ethical opinions whatever they are will be put into action through whatever system is in place - it is inevitable that the opinions of the majority will be the ones that are put into action. Therefore at least at this stage politics should only be concerned with the balance of power, not the interests which said power is going to put into action.

If a single individual or group, smaller than the majority, is allowed into power, it is by the will of the majority to accept them being in that position. It is still always the majority who are really making the decisions - if the majority of people tomorrow decided to disregard government's authority, that authority would cease to exist. This gives rise to an important question: If the majority is making the decisions through this middle-man; why the need for authority on the part of the middle-man? It is commonly said that government should reflect the will of the people, but if that is true, why would government need extra 'rights' in order to organise and enforce what the majority desire? I can see a few possible reasons:

- That the government must deceive the people. That is, that the people do not know what they 'actually' want. This would be reflected in those who say we are electing 'experts' to run society. The issue I see with this is that those experts are democratically elected, so it's likely to inevitably degenerate into celebrity and deception rather than true expertise which will get someone elected.
- That people are unable to put into action their wishes without a central organizational group to do so. The problem with this is that it does not answer the question, as it does not justify the government's need for authority over the very people whose wishes it is supposedly serving. Authority by it's definition presupposes the government doing something against the wishes of the people it has authority over. For example, if people would voluntarily give to charity for a certain cause, there would be no need for an authority to take the same amount of money they would have given, and give it to charity.
- That people are by nature corrupt, or that their wishes 'on paper' are better than what they do in action. However the people in government would be subject to those same flaws, and therefore government would slowly become just as corrupt, but the corruption would be much more abstracted and difficult to deal with - the authority being granted to the corrupt group meaning the corruption would grow indefinitely.

I find none of these justifications acceptable - it is contradictory for a group to need authority over another in order to enact it's wishes.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 12:44:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society. The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

And what happens to those who actually see a government as desirable? You anarchists need to understand the reality that you're a minority, and are going against common consensus

The common justification for this is that the group with the first set of rules would not follow said rules without group B, whom under a separate set of rules should enforce them onto the first group. The issues most address at this point - regardless of whether it's actually appropriate to do so yet - is what specifically those rules would be. However it is somewhat preemptive and perhaps even masturbatory to address those points in the context of politics, especially at this point of a discussion. Issues like abortion or same sex marriage, for instance, should not be relevant at this point of a political discussion (and in the mind of an anarchist usually aren't the business of politics at all but instead ethics,) because the rules enforced by a society at any point will reflect the ethics of the majority of people, because they hold the most power. Those ethical opinions whatever they are will be put into action through whatever system is in place - it is inevitable that the opinions of the majority will be the ones that are put into action. Therefore at least at this stage politics should only be concerned with the balance of power, not the interests which said power is going to put into action.

If a single individual or group, smaller than the majority, is allowed into power, it is by the will of the majority to accept them being in that position. It is still always the majority who are really making the decisions - if the majority of people tomorrow decided to disregard government's authority, that authority would cease to exist. This gives rise to an important question: If the majority is making the decisions through this middle-man; why the need for authority on the part of the middle-man? It is commonly said that government should reflect the will of the people, but if that is true, why would government need extra 'rights' in order to organised (fixed) and enforce what the majority desire? I can see a few possible reasons:

That, that majority does not want the same system you want ...

- That the government must deceive the people. That is, that the people do not know what they 'actually' want. This would be reflected in those who say we are electing 'experts' to run society. The issue I see with this is that those experts are democratically elected, so it's likely to inevitably degenerate into celebrity and deception rather than true expertise which will get someone elected.

The fundamental assumption of democracy is that people are good and are capable of making their own decisions .. repealing that is the surest road to tyranny, and you yourself have to agree on this in order to take out the government in the first place; the ideology of self control to an all new extreme. You're just upset that those you disagree with seem to find governments desirable.
- That people are unable to put into action their wishes without a central organizational group to do so. The problem with this is that it does not answer the question, as it does not justify the government's need for authority over the very people whose wishes it is supposedly serving. Authority by it's definition presupposes the government doing something against the wishes of the people it has authority over. For example, if people would voluntarily give to charity for a certain cause, there would be no need for an authority to take the same amount of money they would have given, and give it to charity.

- That people are by nature corrupt, or that their wishes 'on paper' are better than what they do in action. However the people in government would be subject to those same flaws, and therefore government would slowly become just as corrupt, but the corruption would be much more abstracted and difficult to deal with - the authority being granted to the corrupt group meaning the corruption would grow indefinitely.

I find none of these justifications acceptable - it is contradictory for a group to need authority over another in order to enact it's wishes.

How about the democratic process and what the populist wants? Just because YOU do not like it, does not mean that society agrees with you.

See, this is what anarchists seems to forget; they just assume their right, and make observations or arguments against the state with the goal of getting rid of it. But they have NEVER asked if it's what the collective society wants. They just turn around, preach individualism and claim one persons lack of consent to the system is justification enough (it is not IMO but still) fully well knowing their a minority.

Get.over.yourself.
Thank you for voting!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 1:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
- That people are unable to put into action their wishes without a central organizational group to do so. The problem with this is that it does not answer the question, as it does not justify the government's need for authority over the very people whose wishes it is supposedly serving. Authority by it's definition presupposes the government doing something against the wishes of the people it has authority over.

The one thing that you seem to completely disregard is the fact that people do, always have, and always will disagree on various issues. A government is needed as a means of ensuring that the rules of society are that of the majority as opposed to that of those who are most feared.

Your problem is that you see government as some abstract third party entity. That is not the case. It is run by the people we put there, to make the decisions we want them to make, and only stay in their positions if we allow it. If you disagree with the laws, you are not disagreeing with some boogieman character as government is often portrayed, you are disagreeing with the society you are apart of.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 1:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

Enough said. The above statement implies:

1. The agree rules are created and enforced by those who have the power to create and enforce them.

2. #1 is a definition of governance.

3. #1 does not imply justice, equality, or any other traits which respect the rights of individuals or collections of individuals (business, etc) would be enacted.

#4. It is possible to enact standards that are not just or equal to all those under the enforcement, yet still meet the qualification that the creators/enforcers are upheld to the same standard.
- IE: The local enforcement can stop anyone who they don't recognize and question without probable cause, but since I am a member of the community they let me on my merry way. In that microsphere there are two groups with two different standards. Expand the zone to include territory I am not recognized in and it may look the standards are equal and enforced equally, but there are still different groups of enforcers who are treated different than the masses.

#5. There is no documented scientific proof that humans can function without forming social groups which aren't treated differently, other than in very small isolated groups.

Anarchy busted.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 1:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society. The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

I think you need to research anarchy. Anarchists don't want a formal government, but gangs and family ties are perfectly acceptable.

The common justification for this is that the group with the first set of rules would not follow said rules without group B, whom under a separate set of rules should enforce them onto the first group. The issues most address at this point - regardless of whether it's actually appropriate to do so yet - is what specifically those rules would be. However it is somewhat preemptive and perhaps even masturbatory to address those points in the context of politics, especially at this point of a discussion. Issues like abortion or same sex marriage, for instance, should not be relevant at this point of a political discussion (and in the mind of an anarchist usually aren't the business of politics at all but instead ethics,) because the rules enforced by a society at any point will reflect the ethics of the majority of people, because they hold the most power. Those ethical opinions whatever they are will be put into action through whatever system is in place - it is inevitable that the opinions of the majority will be the ones that are put into action. Therefore at least at this stage politics should only be concerned with the balance of power, not the interests which said power is going to put into action.

To pull out a specific sentence fragment: "...because the rules enforced by a society at any point will reflect the ethics of the majority of people, because they hold the most power."

*cough* Gay marriage and drug legalization *cough*

If a single individual or group, smaller than the majority, is allowed into power, it is by the will of the majority to accept them being in that position. It is still always the majority who are really making the decisions - if the majority of people tomorrow decided to disregard government's authority, that authority would cease to exist. This gives rise to an important question: If the majority is making the decisions through this middle-man; why the need for authority on the part of the middle-man? It is commonly said that government should reflect the will of the people, but if that is true, why would government need extra 'rights' in order to organise and enforce what the majority desire? I can see a few possible reasons:

Not in the case of monarchies.

- That the government must deceive the people. That is, that the people do not know what they 'actually' want. This would be reflected in those who say we are electing 'experts' to run society. The issue I see with this is that those experts are democratically elected, so it's likely to inevitably degenerate into celebrity and deception rather than true expertise which will get someone elected.

The government has to deceive the people in some respects. Full government transparency is bad for public safety.

- That people are unable to put into action their wishes without a central organizational group to do so. The problem with this is that it does not answer the question, as it does not justify the government's need for authority over the very people whose wishes it is supposedly serving. Authority by it's definition presupposes the government doing something against the wishes of the people it has authority over. For example, if people would voluntarily give to charity for a certain cause, there would be no need for an authority to take the same amount of money they would have given, and give it to charity.

Big money things like space programs would apply here.
- That people are by nature corrupt, or that their wishes 'on paper' are better than what they do in action. However the people in government would be subject to those same flaws, and therefore government would slowly become just as corrupt, but the corruption would be much more abstracted and difficult to deal with - the authority being granted to the corrupt group meaning the corruption would grow indefinitely.

Communism much?

I find none of these justifications acceptable - it is contradictory for a group to need authority over another in order to enact it's wishes.

F**k the police?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 1:23:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 12:44:53 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
And what happens to those who actually see a government as desirable? You anarchists need to understand the reality that you're a minority, and are going against common consensus

They can go out and make their own government to tax and oppress them all they want. Nothing is stopping them so long as they keep it to themselves and leave the rest of us alone and let those that don't consent out.

That, that majority does not want the same system you want ...

That majority also theoretically doesn't have the right to force me to do things.

The fundamental assumption of democracy is that people are good and are capable of making their own decisions .. repealing that is the surest road to tyranny, and you yourself have to agree on this in order to take out the government in the first place; the ideology of self control to an all new extreme. You're just upset that those you disagree with seem to find governments desirable.

Look around. We have tyranny now, so obviously "democracy" didn't do its job. Plus, democracy is the penultimate form of tyranny in and of itself.

How about the democratic process and what the populist wants?

Them wanting it doesn't give them the right to force us to have it too.

Just because YOU do not like it, does not mean that society agrees with you.

We get it. The nebulous concept of "society" doesn't agree with us.

See, this is what anarchists seems to forget; they just assume their [sic] right, and make observations or arguments against the state with the goal of getting rid of it. But they have NEVER asked if it's what the collective society wants.

If a bunch of people in an anarchist society want to form a government nothing is stopping them. That's the entire goddamn point of anarchy; just leave the people that don't want to be slaves out of it.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 3:02:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 1:23:13 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 11/5/2013 12:44:53 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
And what happens to those who actually see a government as desirable? You anarchists need to understand the reality that you're a minority, and are going against common consensus

They can go out and make their own government to tax and oppress them all they want. Nothing is stopping them so long as they keep it to themselves and leave the rest of us alone and let those that don't consent out.

Does not work that way. You and I both know it. The beauty about common consensus is that even though you might disagree; you're still free to disagree, but you cannot decide when you get to opt in and out of the system in the name of self interests. Doing so results in the voluntarism, selfish environment such as International Law (as a controlled experiment) and even worse coercion than what you have denounced. US foreign policy anyone? Why do you think we want governments who implement checks in society and likewise, have checks on governments?

In fact what about your doctrine of the propaganda of the deed? You denounce coercion yet your ideology praises it for violent revolution in the most militaristic sense.

That, that majority does not want the same system you want ...

That majority also theoretically doesn't have the right to force me to do things.
Yes it does. (Above) Not everyone is going to agree all the time, so as long as a majority has it, you're fvcked. Its for efficiency, and liberty.

The fundamental assumption of democracy is that people are good and are capable of making their own decisions .. repealing that is the surest road to tyranny, and you yourself have to agree on this in order to take out the government in the first place; the ideology of self control to an all new extreme. You're just upset that those you disagree with seem to find governments desirable.

Look around. We have tyranny now, so obviously "democracy" didn't do its job. Plus, democracy is the penultimate form of tyranny in and of itself.

LOL wut? Where?
Since when does the POTUS become Der Furher?
Great claims require great evidence. You have quite a bit of explaining to do boy!

How about the democratic process and what the populist wants?

Them wanting it doesn't give them the right to force us to have it too.
Yes it does (above) again bare assertion

Just because YOU do not like it, does not mean that society agrees with you.

We get it. The nebulous concept of "society" doesn't agree with us.
Good, I just want to drill it home to you. You lost and you have BOP.

See, this is what anarchists seems to forget; they just assume their [sic] right, and make observations or arguments against the state with the goal of getting rid of it. But they have NEVER asked if it's what the collective society wants.

If a bunch of people in an anarchist society want to form a government nothing is stopping them.
Yes it is, the individualist nature you're preaching wouldn't allow for it. Furthermore do you even KNOW anything about anarchy? Lets look at Spain shall we?

In revolutionary Spain where anarchism took place, they did sh!t like torch down churches. Now, even though I myself am an atheist, one could hardly call that freedom!
Anarchism literally violated several rights by doing so, indeed I would make the case that one is more "free" via civil liberties in a democratic state than an anarchist one. Such as freedom of religion, or association for instance. Just because it was "collective" they took it out, how do you say one is free when one wants to pray but cannot do so physically without fear of the very coercion you yourself avidly denounce?

PS. GET A HISTORY LESSON! You clearly know nothing of the idealism of anarchy yet you're defending it. You blatantly are misrepresenting what actually happens in anarchist cities during that time to try and glorify your ideology. Pragmatically, not all anarchists themselves agree with you, nor did it have the desired effects you claim. Not even close.

That's the entire goddamn point of anarchy; just leave the people that don't want to be slaves out of it.

And that's my entire point too: we cannot, because it lessens the efficiency of government to do the very job it was meant to do.

Say I put a gun to your head, and told you to give me your money. What would happen in anarchy? Well, maybe an arbitration if I'm caught, but I would easily look up, say "I don't consent to your sh!t monkey court" and walk out. What are you going to do? This happens all the time in the international community too due to their voluntarism ideology BTW.

In a government, good luck doing that. Justice would be served (generally speaking) so long as the rule of law is preserved even without that consent.
Thank you for voting!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:03:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 12:44:53 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society. The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

And what happens to those who actually see a government as desirable? You anarchists need to understand the reality that you're a minority, and are going against common consensus

I'm sure there are those who find it desirable for others to be subjected to it, and to reap the benefits, but give anyone the chance to be exempt from taxation and we'll see that they don't agree with that aspect. Let's say there was a tyrannical king who imposed a disastrous system on the rest of society only to benefit himself. What should happen to 'those who desire' that system? (Ie, the king.) they will be outnumbered by the majority. If the majority realise that a current system is not as beneficial as a possible other, in the case of anarchy a strictly egalitarian society, then they will endeavour to change to that system. Talking about anarchy is an attempt to convince them so, since presumably they do not realise it (or I'm wrong.) To make it sound as if anarchists are looking to force an alternate system on those who don't desire it is fallacious: it'd be like berating a murder victim for trying to get away from the murderer.

If a single individual or group, smaller than the majority, is allowed into power, it is by the will of the majority to accept them being in that position. It is still always the majority who are really making the decisions - if the majority of people tomorrow decided to disregard government's authority, that authority would cease to exist. This gives rise to an important question: If the majority is making the decisions through this middle-man; why the need for authority on the part of the middle-man? It is commonly said that government should reflect the will of the people, but if that is true, why would government need extra 'rights' in order to organised (fixed) and enforce what the majority desire? I can see a few possible reasons:

That, that majority does not want the same system you want ...

If my argument for anarchy is correct, that it would be the most beneficial to the majority (which you have not rebutted,) it is in their best interest to realise this, and I believe they will.

- That the government must deceive the people. That is, that the people do not know what they 'actually' want. This would be reflected in those who say we are electing 'experts' to run society. The issue I see with this is that those experts are democratically elected, so it's likely to inevitably degenerate into celebrity and deception rather than true expertise which will get someone elected.

The fundamental assumption of democracy is that people are good and are capable of making their own decisions .. repealing that is the surest road to tyranny, and you yourself have to agree on this in order to take out the government in the first place; the ideology of self control to an all new extreme. You're just upset that those you disagree with seem to find governments desirable.

That's why I'm on a debate site rather than out 'Che' style forcing people into the desired system. I do believe that people will reach anarchy out of self interest rather than obedience to some authority.

I find none of these justifications acceptable - it is contradictory for a group to need authority over another in order to enact it's wishes.

How about the democratic process and what the populist wants? Just because YOU do not like it, does not mean that society agrees with you.

They are misled in wanting something which is not best for them. I am arguing for anarchy as a better system. Of course if you believed everyone was already on the right track you wouldn't be here discussing politics would you? You're clearly hoping to change people's minds or improve your own, as I am.

See, this is what anarchists seems to forget; they just assume their right, and make observations or arguments against the state with the goal of getting rid of it. But they have NEVER asked if it's what the collective society wants. They just turn around, preach individualism and claim one persons lack of consent to the system is justification enough (it is not IMO but still) fully well knowing their a minority.

Get.over.yourself.

It is by definition against the wishes of the 'ruled' to have a 'ruler,' as I've argued. Therefore either the majority are misled in supporting a fundamentally flawed system, or I'm wrong. If you believe I'm wrong I'll await your exposition as to why.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:09:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

I'm going to stop you right here. You are advocating anarchy, and advocating against anarchy.
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
11/5/2013 8:11:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

sigh...essentially, what you're saying is that no one should be above the law. This is governance under a government, depending on the type of government one has. This is not anarchy.

Your advocacy is contradictory.
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: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:09:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

I'm going to stop you right here. You are advocating anarchy, and advocating against anarchy.

Anarchy does not require no rules, only no ruling class, no authority. If the rules agreed upon apply equally to everyone this fits the definition of anarchy.

The word anarchy is built from 'an' (without) and 'arkhos' (chief, ruler, leader). There can still be rules without a ruling class exempt from said rules.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:25:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:11:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

sigh...essentially, what you're saying is that no one should be above the law. This is governance under a government, depending on the type of government one has. This is not anarchy.

Your advocacy is contradictory.

Government must by definition have authority, therefore necessarily being above the law. There is no 'type of government' which is not above the law, because that organisation would not fit the definition of government.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:33:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 3:02:03 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Does not work that way. You and I both know it.

I know it doesn't. Why are you so obsessed with only talking about what is? There's no physical law that prevents society from being voluntary.

The beauty about common consensus is that even though you might disagree; you're still free to disagree, but you cannot decide when you get to opt in and out of the system in the name of self interests.

Why not? Why should the fact that I exist near you give you the right to enslave me? The system has no obligation to provide for me and I have no obligation to participate in the system for the simple fact that I'm able to choose not to.

Doing so results in the voluntarism, selfish environment such as International Law (as a controlled experiment) and even worse coercion than what you have denounced. US foreign policy anyone? Why do you think we want governments who implement checks in society and likewise, have checks on governments?

I'm pretty sure all of that coercion and those foreign policy decisions are facilitated by governments...

In fact what about your doctrine of the propaganda of the deed? You denounce coercion yet your ideology praises it for violent revolution in the most militaristic sense.

Not my ideology. If you haven't gathered I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

Yes it does. (Above) Not everyone is going to agree all the time, so as long as a majority has it, you're fvcked. Its for efficiency, and liberty.

So forcing people to do things is liberty and governments are efficient? Is that what you're trying to say right now?

LOL wut? Where?

What do you mean where? If you were a US citizen I could cite a dozen laws that allow the US government to detain you without a trial forever. I could probably look and find some agreement between Canada and the US that would allow the US to do the same to you.

Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.

Good, I just want to drill it home to you. You lost and you have BOP.

Does not follow.

Yes it is, the individualist nature you're preaching wouldn't allow for it. Furthermore do you even KNOW anything about anarchy?

Yes, and its very obvious that you don't. Just like in the last discussion we had.

In revolutionary Spain where anarchism took place, they did sh!t like torch down churches. Now, even though I myself am an atheist, one could hardly call that freedom!
Anarchism literally violated several rights by doing so, indeed I would make the case that one is more "free" via civil liberties in a democratic state than an anarchist one. Such as freedom of religion, or association for instance. Just because it was "collective" they took it out, how do you say one is free when one wants to pray but cannot do so physically without fear of the very coercion you yourself avidly denounce?

PS. GET A HISTORY LESSON! You clearly know nothing of the idealism of anarchy yet you're defending it. You blatantly are misrepresenting what actually happens in anarchist cities during that time to try and glorify your ideology. Pragmatically, not all anarchists themselves agree with you, nor did it have the desired effects you claim. Not even close.

You don't even know that anarchism means more than one thing and you're trying to say that I'm the ignorant one here? I'm not even aware if the type of anarchy I advocate (anarcho-capitalism) has even historically existed. I think I saw a thread here about how it might have existed in Ireland a thousand years ago, but that's it.

And that's my entire point too: we cannot, because it lessens the efficiency of government to do the very job it was meant to do.

Private entities are way more efficient than governments. I thought this was common knowledge.

Say I put a gun to your head, and told you to give me your money. What would happen in anarchy?

Depends on your arrangement and the gunman's arrangement with private firms. There are no concrete answers to questions like these when it comes to the type of society we advocate because of the very nature of said society.

Well, maybe an arbitration if I'm caught, but I would easily look up, say "I don't consent to your sh!t monkey court" and walk out. What are you going to do?

Depends. He may have actually consented to the court and they would forcibly contain him. Based on the evidence against him he might have forfeited his rights according to contract and other people being violent against him wouldn't violate their contracts. I can be almost 100% certain that him doing so would violate any contracts he has with firms offering protection and "law enforcement" services rendering him defenseless.

Others advocate that that man be ostracized by the community.

This happens all the time in the international community too due to their voluntarism ideology BTW.

In a government, good luck doing that. Justice would be served (generally speaking) so long as the rule of law is preserved even without that consent.

...You are aware that GOVERNMENTS are the ones doing these bad things right?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:21:36 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:09:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

I'm going to stop you right here. You are advocating anarchy, and advocating against anarchy.

Anarchy does not require no rules, only no ruling class, no authority. If the rules agreed upon apply equally to everyone this fits the definition of anarchy.

The word anarchy is built from 'an' (without) and 'arkhos' (chief, ruler, leader). There can still be rules without a ruling class exempt from said rules.

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

If rules did not need to be enforced, then those rules would not need to exist. For example, we don't need the government to make a law declaring that eating, drinking, and breathing are legal actions.

Bottom line, those rules exist precisely because there needs to be an enforcement mechanism over and beyond personal motivation to ensure compliance. The enforcing entity would be "authority".
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
11/5/2013 8:34:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:25:55 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:11:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

sigh...essentially, what you're saying is that no one should be above the law. This is governance under a government, depending on the type of government one has. This is not anarchy.

Your advocacy is contradictory.

Government must by definition have authority, therefore necessarily being above the law. There is no 'type of government' which is not above the law, because that organisation would not fit the definition of government.

The US government is sued all the time. Richard Nixon thought he was above the law...didn't work out very well for him, didn't it?

Your statements are simply false.
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
11/5/2013 8:38:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:34:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:25:55 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:11:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

sigh...essentially, what you're saying is that no one should be above the law. This is governance under a government, depending on the type of government one has. This is not anarchy.

Your advocacy is contradictory.

Government must by definition have authority, therefore necessarily being above the law. There is no 'type of government' which is not above the law, because that organisation would not fit the definition of government.

The US government is sued all the time. Richard Nixon thought he was above the law...didn't work out very well for him, didn't it?

Your statements are simply false.

Correction to the underlined:

Cases are brought against the US government all the time. The US government can't be sued unless it consents to the lawsuit.
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: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:21:36 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:09:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

I'm going to stop you right here. You are advocating anarchy, and advocating against anarchy.

Anarchy does not require no rules, only no ruling class, no authority. If the rules agreed upon apply equally to everyone this fits the definition of anarchy.

The word anarchy is built from 'an' (without) and 'arkhos' (chief, ruler, leader). There can still be rules without a ruling class exempt from said rules.

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

If rules did not need to be enforced, then those rules would not need to exist. For example, we don't need the government to make a law declaring that eating, drinking, and breathing are legal actions.

Bottom line, those rules exist precisely because there needs to be an enforcement mechanism over and beyond personal motivation to ensure compliance. The enforcing entity would be "authority".

If a thief tried to steal an old lady's purse, and a 'vigilante' came and stopped him, this vigilante would not be an authority nor a ruling class. This is because he is just as subject to the same law he enforced (he could equally be stopped if attempting to steal something,) and anyone else could equally have done the same thing he did. This is a concrete example of a rule being enforced without an authority: anarchy in action. My point is that authority is not necessary in order to enforce a law.

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:38:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:25:55 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:11:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

sigh...essentially, what you're saying is that no one should be above the law. This is governance under a government, depending on the type of government one has. This is not anarchy.

Your advocacy is contradictory.

Government must by definition have authority, therefore necessarily being above the law. There is no 'type of government' which is not above the law, because that organisation would not fit the definition of government.

The US government is sued all the time. Richard Nixon thought he was above the law...didn't work out very well for him, didn't it?

Your statements are simply false.

Correction to the underlined:

Cases are brought against the US government all the time. The US government can't be sued unless it consents to the lawsuit.

And this is supposedly an example of the state not being above the law? Whether or not there are rules about what the government can and cannot do, these rules are still different from the rest of society; there are restrictions on civilians that government is not subject to, therefore it is 'above' the laws that it imposes.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:26:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:21:36 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:09:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

I'm going to stop you right here. You are advocating anarchy, and advocating against anarchy.

Anarchy does not require no rules, only no ruling class, no authority. If the rules agreed upon apply equally to everyone this fits the definition of anarchy.

The word anarchy is built from 'an' (without) and 'arkhos' (chief, ruler, leader). There can still be rules without a ruling class exempt from said rules.

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

If rules did not need to be enforced, then those rules would not need to exist. For example, we don't need the government to make a law declaring that eating, drinking, and breathing are legal actions.

Bottom line, those rules exist precisely because there needs to be an enforcement mechanism over and beyond personal motivation to ensure compliance. The enforcing entity would be "authority".

If a thief tried to steal an old lady's purse, and a 'vigilante' came and stopped him, this vigilante would not be an authority nor a ruling class. This is because he is just as subject to the same law he enforced (he could equally be stopped if attempting to steal something,) and anyone else could equally have done the same thing he did. This is a concrete example of a rule being enforced without an authority: anarchy in action. My point is that authority is not necessary in order to enforce a law.

What if the vigilante made a mistake? Who's to say he did or didn't? What if 99% of the people thought the vigilante was right, but the 1% who didn't killed the vigilante in retaliation, due to what they thought was the "correct" interpretation of the law?

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

How would you know if the majority agreed with the decision of the arbiter without an authority to gather the opinions of the governed?
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
11/5/2013 9:30:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:15:59 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:38:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:25:55 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:11:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
The one difference is that those rules should be universal: there should be no individual or group that is not subject to the same rules that it proposes as just and enforces on the rest of society. If you believe in such universal rules, you are an anarchist, and the claim which those who disagree with anarchy should justify is that it is desirable for a society to enforce one set of regulations on a certain group of people and another set on others.

sigh...essentially, what you're saying is that no one should be above the law. This is governance under a government, depending on the type of government one has. This is not anarchy.

Your advocacy is contradictory.

Government must by definition have authority, therefore necessarily being above the law. There is no 'type of government' which is not above the law, because that organisation would not fit the definition of government.

The US government is sued all the time. Richard Nixon thought he was above the law...didn't work out very well for him, didn't it?

Your statements are simply false.

Correction to the underlined:

Cases are brought against the US government all the time. The US government can't be sued unless it consents to the lawsuit.

And this is supposedly an example of the state not being above the law? Whether or not there are rules about what the government can and cannot do, these rules are still different from the rest of society; there are restrictions on civilians that government is not subject to, therefore it is 'above' the laws that it imposes.

Well, civil lawsuits are somewhat different, I misspoke there. Civil lawsuits are private by nature, and the government is not a private entity.

Also, corporations have exemptions under the law, yet they are not "governments", nor are they "above the law".

Laws favoring disabled, elderly, minorities, etc, also have various aspects of the law that favor them, yet they are not "government", nor are they "above the law".

Please cite one of these civilian restrictions that "the government" is not subject to PER THE 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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:33:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

I will note here that the mere acceptance of the need for an arbiter is conceding that a government is absolutely necessary.

In order for anarchism to work, you'd have to make the case that an arbiter is wholly unnecessary, because as you can see from my arguments, the arbiter IS authority.
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?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:47:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 8:21:36 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:09:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

I'm going to stop you right here. You are advocating anarchy, and advocating against anarchy.

Anarchy does not require no rules, only no ruling class, no authority. If the rules agreed upon apply equally to everyone this fits the definition of anarchy.

The word anarchy is built from 'an' (without) and 'arkhos' (chief, ruler, leader). There can still be rules without a ruling class exempt from said rules.

Can only apply when 100% of a population agree to it. Which is not possible in any large group. As you said, the rules need to be AGREED UPON. To those that don't agree upon the rules, you can either have some figure capable of punishing them for breaking those rules, or not have any way to enforce the rules. If you have something that enforces rules upon those that don't agree with them, then you have a government. ta da!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:54:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:21:36 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:09:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 11:37:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
There surely couldn't be a 'government' under anarchy, because anarchy requires no authority. However, a society under anarchy would still be 'governed,' in the loose sense of the word, in that the laws of nature would still apply, and there would still be rules agreed upon and enforced by that society.

I'm going to stop you right here. You are advocating anarchy, and advocating against anarchy.

Anarchy does not require no rules, only no ruling class, no authority. If the rules agreed upon apply equally to everyone this fits the definition of anarchy.

The word anarchy is built from 'an' (without) and 'arkhos' (chief, ruler, leader). There can still be rules without a ruling class exempt from said rules.

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

If rules did not need to be enforced, then those rules would not need to exist. For example, we don't need the government to make a law declaring that eating, drinking, and breathing are legal actions.

Bottom line, those rules exist precisely because there needs to be an enforcement mechanism over and beyond personal motivation to ensure compliance. The enforcing entity would be "authority".

If a thief tried to steal an old lady's purse, and a 'vigilante' came and stopped him, this vigilante would not be an authority nor a ruling class. This is because he is just as subject to the same law he enforced (he could equally be stopped if attempting to steal something,) and anyone else could equally have done the same thing he did. This is a concrete example of a rule being enforced without an authority: anarchy in action. My point is that authority is not necessary in order to enforce a law.

In which case, you have might makes right. The person with the biggest stick has no power over them to ensure that they follow the rules of society. You get people that dislike something and go out and kill it.


As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

And if the majority doesn't? If the arbiter states that the purse belonged to that man and not the old lady? Then someone vigilante went out and stole it back himself and that arbitrator stated that by using force and violence to violate the rights of another, he has forfeited any logical argument to hold rights himself (this is actually a system that Ragnar supported) and so could be killed without consequence (since he forfeited his right to life, killing him would not be a violation of a right). And the public doesn't agree with that, whats gonna happen?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:55:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:26:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
If a thief tried to steal an old lady's purse, and a 'vigilante' came and stopped him, this vigilante would not be an authority nor a ruling class. This is because he is just as subject to the same law he enforced (he could equally be stopped if attempting to steal something,) and anyone else could equally have done the same thing he did. This is a concrete example of a rule being enforced without an authority: anarchy in action. My point is that authority is not necessary in order to enforce a law.

What if the vigilante made a mistake? Who's to say he did or didn't? What if 99% of the people thought the vigilante was right, but the 1% who didn't killed the vigilante in retaliation, due to what they thought was the "correct" interpretation of the law?

The actions of the vigilante and the person 'retaliating' would be subject to the opinions and reactions of the rest of society. These opinions could be processed in whatever way they decide, an arbiter, poll, public consensus, and so on. However there is no authority required to do so. Any group or individual enforcing a rule whom accepts that same rule being applied to itself is not an authority.

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

How would you know if the majority agreed with the decision of the arbiter without an authority to gather the opinions of the governed?

Authority is not necessary in order to gather opinions.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:04:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:30:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well, civil lawsuits are somewhat different, I misspoke there. Civil lawsuits are private by nature, and the government is not a private entity.

Also, corporations have exemptions under the law, yet they are not "governments", nor are they "above the law".

Laws favoring disabled, elderly, minorities, etc, also have various aspects of the law that favor them, yet they are not "government", nor are they "above the law".

That's right. They are not an authority simply by receiving benefits granted to them by one.

Please cite one of these civilian restrictions that "the government" is not subject to PER THE LAW.

I cannot become a policeman of my own accord and fulfil the same tasks a policeman would, unless respected as one by the government. This means there is a group with authority, because someone as part of that group can do something which I cannot, only because I am not part of that group.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:55:10 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:26:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
If a thief tried to steal an old lady's purse, and a 'vigilante' came and stopped him, this vigilante would not be an authority nor a ruling class. This is because he is just as subject to the same law he enforced (he could equally be stopped if attempting to steal something,) and anyone else could equally have done the same thing he did. This is a concrete example of a rule being enforced without an authority: anarchy in action. My point is that authority is not necessary in order to enforce a law.

What if the vigilante made a mistake? Who's to say he did or didn't? What if 99% of the people thought the vigilante was right, but the 1% who didn't killed the vigilante in retaliation, due to what they thought was the "correct" interpretation of the law?

The actions of the vigilante and the person 'retaliating' would be subject to the opinions and reactions of the rest of society. These opinions could be processed in whatever way they decide, an arbiter, poll, public consensus, and so on. However there is no authority required to do so. Any group or individual enforcing a rule whom accepts that same rule being applied to itself is not an authority.

So here we have the situation where 1% of the population acts on its own accord and carries out a brand of justice that 99% of the population do not agree with. Perhaps some portion of this 99% of the population then decides to administer their own brand of justice against this 1% which the rest do not agree on, and so on. Perhaps, due to disagreements and an absolute lack of an arbiter to put a stop to this madness, this population culls itself over one act of thievery. This is the popular conception of anarchy.

How is this preferable to having one arbiter, even if that arbiter's judgment is imperfect?

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

How would you know if the majority agreed with the decision of the arbiter without an authority to gather the opinions of the governed?

Authority is not necessary in order to gather opinions.

Ok. Regardless, refer to my comment about the mere presence of an arbiter basically being a refutation of anarchy.
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: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:09:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:33:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

I will note here that the mere acceptance of the need for an arbiter is conceding that a government is absolutely necessary.

In order for anarchism to work, you'd have to make the case that an arbiter is wholly unnecessary, because as you can see from my arguments, the arbiter IS authority.

I did not concede that an arbiter is entirely necessary, I only stated that there could be an arbiter within anarchy. The arbiter could make a decision, and the decision would be subject to the opinions of the public. If most people do not accept the decision made, that decision would hold no weight. The arbiter would simply be giving an expert opinion on the issue, for people to take into account.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:10:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 10:04:23 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:30:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well, civil lawsuits are somewhat different, I misspoke there. Civil lawsuits are private by nature, and the government is not a private entity.

Also, corporations have exemptions under the law, yet they are not "governments", nor are they "above the law".

Laws favoring disabled, elderly, minorities, etc, also have various aspects of the law that favor them, yet they are not "government", nor are they "above the law".

That's right. They are not an authority simply by receiving benefits granted to them by one.

Please cite one of these civilian restrictions that "the government" is not subject to PER THE LAW.

I cannot become a policeman of my own accord and fulfil the same tasks a policeman would, unless respected as one by the government. This means there is a group with authority, because someone as part of that group can do something which I cannot, only because I am not part of that group.

Why not? Are you barred from being a policeman by the law? Of course not...you're free to become a policeman, given that you're a competitive candidate to become one.

Regardless, by your logic here, you wouldn't be able to become a janitor mopping floors "unless respected as one by [your employer], which "means there is a group with authority" to mop floors, and this for some reason is something to complain about.
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
11/5/2013 10:11:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 10:09:27 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:33:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

I will note here that the mere acceptance of the need for an arbiter is conceding that a government is absolutely necessary.

In order for anarchism to work, you'd have to make the case that an arbiter is wholly unnecessary, because as you can see from my arguments, the arbiter IS authority.

I did not concede that an arbiter is entirely necessary, I only stated that there could be an arbiter within anarchy. The arbiter could make a decision, and the decision would be subject to the opinions of the public. If most people do not accept the decision made, that decision would hold no weight. The arbiter would simply be giving an expert opinion on the issue, for people to take into account.

That's not an arbiter then. That's just someone with an opinion.

An arbiter arbitrates. That arbitration is either respected, or if not, then the enforcement mechanism commensurate with the authority held by the arbiter kicks in.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
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?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:13:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 10:09:27 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:33:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:09:39 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/5/2013 8:34:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

sigh. And how would these "rules" be enforced? Who would be the arbiter? Why would any rulings made by such an arbiter even matter if no one cared about the results of the arbitration?

As for the arbiter, if the majority agrees with the decision of the arbiter, I see no need for authority. Such an arbiter would only need authority if making a decision which a majority of society does not agree with.

I will note here that the mere acceptance of the need for an arbiter is conceding that a government is absolutely necessary.

In order for anarchism to work, you'd have to make the case that an arbiter is wholly unnecessary, because as you can see from my arguments, the arbiter IS authority.

I did not concede that an arbiter is entirely necessary, I only stated that there could be an arbiter within anarchy. The arbiter could make a decision, and the decision would be subject to the opinions of the public. If most people do not accept the decision made, that decision would hold no weight. The arbiter would simply be giving an expert opinion on the issue, for people to take into account.

How is that any different from mob rule?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right