Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Looking for a debate

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 8:17:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hi all. I'm new here. I have a couple of other debates going but its a bit slow for my liking. Rather than simply start up another topic and hope someone is opposed to it, I'm want to argue on something that the debate.org community might care about.

I'm anarcho capitalist ish, so that should provide a lot of ground for clash.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 8:43:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 8:17:31 AM, Sieben wrote:

I'm anarcho capitalist ish, so that should provide a lot of ground for clash.

I felt the same way when I first got here.

Can you elaborate on what an anarcho-capitalist is? Because, technically, that phrase dentoes a society with an infrastructure entirely based on the economy. If that's the case, then my reply is:

That's the way things are. Personally, I do disagree with that, given that the large-scale economy is out of most people's hands, particularly those who contribute most, and it's success is based on rather amoral means.

In my opinion, with the degree of intelligence humans have evolved to develop, it is rather ugly to resign to selfish and parasitic behavior when it's no longer necessary.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 8:47:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 8:43:12 AM, Ren wrote:

In my opinion, with the degree of intelligence humans have evolved to develop, it is rather ugly to resign to selfish and parasitic behavior when it's no longer necessary.

Do you think that the more intelligence that is acquired will mean more virtue as well?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 9:13:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 8:47:42 AM, innomen wrote:

Do you think that the more intelligence that is acquired will mean more virtue as well?

Yes.

I've come to realize that virtue is rather logical.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 9:48:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
>>> Can you elaborate on what an anarcho-capitalist is? Because, technically, that phrase dentoes a society with an infrastructure entirely based on the economy. If that's the case, then my reply is:

Anarcho capitalism (ancap) is simply the respect of self ownership and homesteading rights. Typically when people hear capitalism they think "big business and greed", but ancap is compatible with socialism/communism so long as those associations don't violate ancap rights.

So you could live in a commune and have whatever pot smoking barter economy, so long as you don't go and try to attack other people doing peaceful things.

I'm happy to have a debate about anarchism with you. I would suggest you read up on it first so you don't mistakenly straw man me.

http://mises.org...
http://www.lewrockwell.com...
And everyone should watch this. It blew my mind. http://vimeo.com...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 9:53:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 9:13:54 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/23/2010 8:47:42 AM, innomen wrote:

Do you think that the more intelligence that is acquired will mean more virtue as well?

Yes.

I've come to realize that virtue is rather logical.

Sacrificing many to save one is still considered virtuous (sometimes heroic), but it is illogical.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 9:57:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, what exactly are you looking to debate? Whether that's "right?"

I mean, I don't know, it could be right for you. It certainly isn't right for me.

It depends on your values.

For instance. I like having a computer, watching movies, listening to music, etc. Furthermore, it doesn't appear as though weed is that difficult to procure, particularly in certain areas, without completely rejecting the society we already have. Living on a commune with some sort of barter system based on trading some sort of crop just sounds so painfully Amish. Stoned or not, I do not want to live like the Amish.

That said, we still kind of have a system like that, but it's a bit more advanced. Rather than communes, we have states, but otherwise, the rules pretty much apply.

Anarchy is in no way compatible with communism or socialism, both of which rely on a central government.

As far as rejecting a government is concerned, I don't think I'm entirely ready to do that yet. People clearly need to be supervised and organized, given that they will not do everything necessary to maintain otherwise. Though humanity is dependent on the collective, its selfishness makes its individuals incorrigibly self-consumed.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:01:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 9:53:07 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/23/2010 9:13:54 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/23/2010 8:47:42 AM, innomen wrote:

Do you think that the more intelligence that is acquired will mean more virtue as well?

Yes.

I've come to realize that virtue is rather logical.

Sacrificing many to save one is still considered virtuous (sometimes heroic), but it is illogical.

I cannot come up with any examples in which sacrificing many to save one was considered heroic or virtuous.

In fact, forgive my density, but I can't really come up with a situation in which many were sacrificed to save one. Give me some examples?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:05:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
>>> I mean, I don't know, it could be right for you. It certainly isn't right for me.

Is your personal freedom "right for you"? I probably wouldn't debate whether it is subjectively better for every single person. Anarchy is probably not the best plan for middle eastern monarchs. The current debate I'm having is that anarchism is more "humanitarian", so higher standard of living, more just, etc.

>>> For instance. I like having a computer, watching movies, listening to music, etc. Furthermore, it doesn't appear as though weed is that difficult to procure,
particularly in certain areas, without completely rejecting the society we already have. Living on a commune with some sort of barter system based on trading some sort of crop just sounds so painfully Amish. Stoned or not, I do not want to live like the Amish.

... I didn't say you had to. I said that things considered by mainstream to be "communistic" can actually be "capitalistic" under the rights-based definition I provided.

>>> That said, we still kind of have a system like that, but it's a bit more advanced. Rather than communes, we have states, but otherwise, the rules pretty much apply.

You did not bother to read the De Soto paper.

>>> Anarchy is in no way compatible with communism or socialism, both of which rely on a central government.

Its incompatible with state-communism and state-socialists. But worker co-ops and common ownership of property are attainable under ancap.

>>>As far as rejecting a government is concerned, I don't think I'm entirely ready to do that yet. People clearly need to be supervised and organized, given that they will not do everything necessary to maintain otherwise. Though humanity is dependent on the collective, its selfishness makes its individuals incorrigibly self-consumed.

I'll be blunt. I'm not stupid. Academic anarchists are not stupid. We have anticipated whatever objections fly off the top of your head, and we have answers. If we debate now, you will almost certainly lose because you are not familiar with ancap.

I would prefer to have a debate with someone who knew what they were getting into.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:10:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd like to debate

Anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:12:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 10:12:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
What do you think is the definition of both terms.

That's what I wanted to debate.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:13:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not interested in semantics. When I say I am an anarcho capitalist I mean I am in favor of self ownership and respect for homesteading rights.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:14:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 10:13:54 AM, Sieben wrote:
I'm not interested in semantics. When I say I am an anarcho capitalist I mean I am in favor of self ownership and respect for homesteading rights.

And I say that you should stop calling yourself a capitalist because it is historically inaccurate and tactically harmful.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:16:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Most of the reasons why "what I advocate" ought to be considered capitalistic is because I rely on free market economic logic to make large parts of my case.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:17:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 10:16:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
Most of the reasons why "what I advocate" ought to be considered capitalistic is because I rely on free market economic logic to make large parts of my case.

I'd really like to debate this.

I guess we should define Anarcho-Capitalism though.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 10:25:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You did not bother to read the De Soto paper.

No, I didn't. Are you serious, guy? Am I asking you to read Plato's Republic, Paine's Common Sense, Fannon's The Wretched of the Earth, or Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival? I understand that there is doctrine that lay the foundation for your views. I'm willing to accept you drawing information from that, but a debate is based on logic, not preaching.

Its incompatible with state-communism and state-socialists. But worker co-ops and common ownership of property are attainable under ancap.

Alright, so what I'm getting here is a that you've read up on a bunch of scholars who see benefit in implementing communistic or socialistic concepts in our capitalistic economic construct, but are afraid to give it an accurate name because they may be demonized.

I don't blame them and I have to say that I largely agree with that premise.

I'll be blunt. I'm not stupid. Academic anarchists are not stupid. We have anticipated whatever objections fly off the top of your head, and we have answers. If we debate now, you will almost certainly lose because you are not familiar with ancap.

Tranquilo.

So, as far as I can tell, either this has nothing to do with anarchy and we mostly agree or you're not including any of the anarchistic dogma that comprises your position, so I'm not quite getting how it applies.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 11:06:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 10:01:22 AM, Ren wrote:

Sacrificing many to save one is still considered virtuous (sometimes heroic), but it is illogical.

I cannot come up with any examples in which sacrificing many to save one was considered heroic or virtuous.

In fact, forgive my density, but I can't really come up with a situation in which many were sacrificed to save one. Give me some examples?

Any war where people defended the King/Queen?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 12:12:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
>>> Reasoning: I'd really like to debate this. I guess we should define Anarcho-Capitalism though.

Now that I've thought about it, I don't know how comfortable I feel about setting up a formal debate on this. I don't know what possible ground you could have, and a debate about branding is pretty uninteresting to me.

Maybe if you lay out what kinds of arguments you might make I could be convinced of the productivity of a debate.

So far as I can see, all common definitions of capitalism include a "private ownership of the means of production" clause. http://mw1.m-w.com... The difference between ancap and minarchism is the privatization of security and law... more private=more capitalist. I don't know of any minarchists who even dispute that.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 12:16:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 12:12:06 PM, Sieben wrote:
>>> Reasoning: I'd really like to debate this. I guess we should define Anarcho-Capitalism though.

Now that I've thought about it, I don't know how comfortable I feel about setting up a formal debate on this. I don't know what possible ground you could have, and a debate about branding is pretty uninteresting to me.

I completely understand. I've been wanting to do this kind of debate for awhile but it has yet to happen. Perhaps I should make my round 1 argument and then just put it up for open debate.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 12:19:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, I didn't. Are you serious, guy? Am I asking you to read Plato's Republic, Paine's Common Sense, Fannon's The Wretched of the Earth, or Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival? I understand that there is doctrine that lay the foundation for your views. I'm willing to accept you drawing information from that, but a debate is based on logic, not preaching.

Well, that's fine if you don't want to read it. But your criticisms of anarcho capitalism are probably going to fail. The reason I want you to read it is so I have a more informed opponent.

If you think I am ignorant of your political positions, you can link me some of your articles. Try to keep them brief as I did... I apologize for not being able to find more succinct pieces.

Alright, so what I'm getting here is a that you've read up on a bunch of scholars who see benefit in implementing communistic or socialistic concepts in our capitalistic economic construct, but are afraid to give it an accurate name because they may be demonized.

I don't blame them and I have to say that I largely agree with that premise.

No not at all. You have badly misunderstood my example. Anarcho Capitalist scholars think that even voluntary communism/socialism will fail. I am merely pointing out that you can have socialist groups inside anarcho capitalist society in order to get you to think about anarcho capitalism as a very diverse and flexible system, rather than just an extension of boss-ism traditionally associated with capitalism.

So, as far as I can tell, either this has nothing to do with anarchy and we mostly agree or you're not including any of the anarchistic dogma that comprises your position, so I'm not quite getting how it applies.

I'm actually starting to think that you and Reasoning have very different views of anarchism than I do. I am aware there are all these *other* anarchist schools and most of them are socialists, but demolishing the state apparatus does not automatically mean socialism.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 12:20:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I completely understand. I've been wanting to do this kind of debate for awhile but it has yet to happen. Perhaps I should make my round 1 argument and then just put it up for open debate.

Sure. I'll definitely look into joining if I think it will be worthwhile.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 1:54:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 12:20:08 PM, Sieben wrote:
I completely understand. I've been wanting to do this kind of debate for awhile but it has yet to happen. Perhaps I should make my round 1 argument and then just put it up for open debate.

Sure. I'll definitely look into joining if I think it will be worthwhile.

http://www.debate.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 2:59:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 1:54:30 PM, Reasoning wrote: http://www.debate.org...

Looks like someone else is already interested. I hope they're worth their salt.

I've experienced a lot of "branding" conversations on ancap forums. Some people try to say we should call ourselves "voluntarists" or "classical liberals" etc... The truth is that no one ever comes away convinced. There are good (or a lack of good) points on each side. I hope the debate turns out well.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...