Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchist Society cannot provide...

LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:14:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Would you like an answer in paragraph form, or can I answer your question by providing links to essays by other people?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:15:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:14:18 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Would you like an answer in paragraph form, or can I answer your question by providing links to essays by other people?

Either or. Although I would like people's personal opinions rather just Hoppe links.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 4:23:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:12:59 PM, TPF wrote:
For the common defense against foreign state aggression.

Refute.

Presumably private individuals could just take up their arms and cobble together some form of militia. Of course due to the moral development required for a viable anarchist state and the complete lack of heavy industry guns may be in short supply.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 4:33:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:12:59 PM, TPF wrote:
For the common defense against foreign state aggression.

Refute.

There's never been an Anarchist society larger than a city. If it were large enough then sure it could.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 6:03:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 4:33:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:12:59 PM, TPF wrote:
For the common defense against foreign state aggression.

Refute.

There's never been an Anarchist society larger than a city. If it were large enough then sure it could.

How?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 6:56:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'll let LF get this, as usual.

Instead I'll ask, why would anyone attack an anarchist society? There are many examples of little very wealthy countries without militararies. Monaco.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 7:28:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 6:56:41 AM, Sieben wrote:
I'll let LF get this, as usual.

Instead I'll ask, why would anyone attack an anarchist society? There are many examples of little very wealthy countries without militararies. Monaco.
First of all, that begs the question. It is not about "why" but "what if."

Second of all, the defense of Monaco lies in the hands of France, just as the defense of Andorra lies in the hands of Spain and France altogether. Furthermore, we have the UN to recognize the sovereignty of nations. An anarchist does not believe in the UN, and the UN would probably not intervene with anything that happens in an anarchist society.

A dictatorship could easily invade an anarchist society and turn it into whatever it wants. The anarchists would be able to defend with a raised white flag.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 7:37:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 7:28:02 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2010 6:56:41 AM, Sieben wrote:
I'll let LF get this, as usual.

Instead I'll ask, why would anyone attack an anarchist society? There are many examples of little very wealthy countries without militararies. Monaco.
First of all, that begs the question. It is not about "why" but "what if."

Second of all, the defense of Monaco lies in the hands of France, just as the defense of Andorra lies in the hands of Spain and France altogether.

The point is that military defense doesn't always matter for small countries.

Furthermore, we have the UN to recognize the sovereignty of nations. An anarchist does not believe in the UN, and the UN would probably not intervene with anything that happens in an anarchist society.

The UN is only one political entity.

A dictatorship could easily invade an anarchist society and turn it into whatever it wants. The anarchists would be able to defend with a raised white flag.
A dictatorship cannot invade Monaco. What if Monaco were anarchist? Your objection is more geographic than political.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 7:44:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 7:37:32 AM, Sieben wrote:
The point is that military defense doesn't always matter for small countries.
No, your point was that military is not needed, and you used Monaco as an example. Monaco's sovereignty is defended by France.

The UN is only one political entity.
And what does that change? An anarchist society would mean nothing to it.

A dictatorship cannot invade Monaco.
No, it would not right now.

What if Monaco were anarchist?
Yes, then it would have 0% national defense both internally and externally.

Your objection is more geographic than political.
Not true. Monaco is not an anarchist society. It has a certain type of government and has ties with other nations, particularly France, which is also there to defend it against any threats. An anarchist society, however, would have no allies to defend it, no political recognition as a sovereign nation (since there is no government), and any country that would invade an anarchist "area" would have every right to, especially if the UN gets abolished. Comparing Monaco to any anarchist nation is absurd. Monaco has governmental ties and external military defense.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:10:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 7:44:45 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2010 7:37:32 AM, Sieben wrote:
The point is that military defense doesn't always matter for small countries.
No, your point was that military is not needed, and you used Monaco as an example. Monaco's sovereignty is defended by France.

So? Why can't an anarchist society's sovereignty be defended by a country?

The UN is only one political entity.
And what does that change? An anarchist society would mean nothing to it.

The point is that the UN is not the end-all-be-all of geopolitics.

A dictatorship cannot invade Monaco.
No, it would not right now.
If Monaco got rid of its 5,000 troops, nothing would happen. But I'm not even claiming that an anarchist society would have zero military. EVEN IF an anarchist society had no way to defend itself, that doesn't automatically mean it gets taken over.

What if Monaco were anarchist?
Yes, then it would have 0% national defense both internally and externally.

Why would they have zero.

You don't know anything about anarchism. You shouldn't be so brazen.

Your objection is more geographic than political.
An anarchist society, however, would have no allies to defend it, no political recognition as a sovereign nation (since there is no government), and any country that would invade an anarchist "area" would have every right to, especially if the UN gets abolished. Comparing Monaco to any anarchist nation is absurd. Monaco has governmental ties and external military defense.

First, just because you have an anarchist society doesn't mean you don't have organization. The government of monaco is just ONE type of organization. Another type could easily have ties with and communicate with France.

When we say "anarchy", you imagine a bunch of people squatting around a campfire. That's a straw man. As I said before, you argue from a position of ignorance. We support anarchy because it is MORE civilized and economically productive, has MORE order than state societies.

At this point I have to ask you to define a state, just so we can see how ridiculous your political philosophy is.
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
10/5/2010 8:26:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here is a list of countries by number of troops. You can see many of them have less than 1000. Some of them have military agreements with the USA or other strong countries, like iceland, but others have no such agreement and are slugging it it in very questionable parts of the world, often neighboring dictatorships.

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

The "total war" theory of government is a complete myth. Risk does not model real life guys.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:33:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:10:37 AM, Sieben wrote:
So? Why can't an anarchist society's sovereignty be defended by a country?
It can, but there is no political promise for that. Furthermore, the chances that a nation goes to war against other nations (with which it may have political and economical ties) due to an uncontrolled society are minimal.

The point is that the UN is not the end-all-be-all of geopolitics.
No, but it plays a role when it comes to defending nations or preserving peace within them.

If Monaco got rid of its 5,000 troops, nothing would happen.
That is because it remains a governmental society and has military ties with France. It is internationally recognized as a sovereign nation with a government.

But I'm not even claiming that an anarchist society would have zero military.
It definitely would, just not one you would wish to see. Or two, three, four, fives, six, seven. . . military forces you would not wish to see.

EVEN IF an anarchist society had no way to defend itself, that doesn't automatically mean it gets taken over.
No, but should an aggression be on its way, it would simply not be able to defend successfully.

Why would they have zero.
Because it would have no way of getting a main military, and if it did, it would not be anarchist. It would eventually turn militaristic. The political ties would be cut (hereby with France) because they are political, and that word is out of an anarchist society.

You don't know anything about anarchism. You shouldn't be so brazen.
Please refrain from using insult right now. Save them for later.

First, just because you have an anarchist society doesn't mean you don't have organization.
Did I claim that?

The government of monaco is just ONE type of organization.
It is the main type of organization that is capable of having control of a society. An anarchist society cannot, by definition, have such an organization.

Another type could easily have ties with and communicate with France.
The main government is responsible for such things. Why would France have ties with any anarchist organization? You do know that it would eventually turn into a governmental society, right? Furthermore, the different organizations of military forces in an anarchist society would fight each other non-stop. Some psychopathic gangs would not mind taking over a society and turning people into slaves.

When we say "anarchy", you imagine a bunch of people squatting around a campfire. That's a straw man.
That is "untrue."

As I said before, you argue from a position of ignorance.
Good for you.

We support anarchy because it is MORE civilized and economically productive, has MORE order than state societies.
That is nonsensical and outrageous. A civilized society where gangs control your life? Who is going to stop them? And what kind of an order are you talking about? An order where the robber will have free access to your goods? Is that "more order?"

At this point I have to ask you to define a state, just so we can see how ridiculous your political philosophy is.
A political system or unit that is supreme within sovereign borders. Analyze it for me.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:36:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:26:55 AM, Sieben wrote:
Here is a list of countries by number of troops. You can see many of them have less than 1000. Some of them have military agreements with the USA or other strong countries, like iceland, but others have no such agreement and are slugging it it in very questionable parts of the world, often neighboring dictatorships.

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

The "total war" theory of government is a complete myth. Risk does not model real life guys.
http://www.un.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:53:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:14:18 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Would you like an answer in paragraph form, or can I answer your question by providing links to essays by other people?

This is what people find annoying and monotonous. If we wanted to read essays by other people we'd do our homework instead of spend time on DDO. Lrn 2 paraphrase.
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:59:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:33:30 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:10:37 AM, Sieben wrote:
So? Why can't an anarchist society's sovereignty be defended by a country?
It can, but there is no political promise for that.
There are no political promises for ANY country, anarchist or no.

Furthermore, the chances that a nation goes to war against other nations (with which it may have political and economical ties) due to an uncontrolled society are minimal.
On a superficial level, states are just as uncontrolled as anarchies. I argue that the incentive structure of states is distorted by taxation, so that they are actually more likely to go to war.

The point is that the UN is not the end-all-be-all of geopolitics.
No, but it plays a role when it comes to defending nations or preserving peace within them.

A role, not all the roles. Okay /issue.

If Monaco got rid of its 5,000 troops, nothing would happen.
That is because it remains a governmental society and has military ties with France. It is internationally recognized as a sovereign nation with a government.

So? You haven't done anything to prove why France would just say "stfu monaco because you do not have a formal government".

But I'm not even claiming that an anarchist society would have zero military.
It definitely would, just not one you would wish to see. Or two, three, four, fives, six, seven. . . military forces you would not wish to see.
*Yawn* more hot air. You don't have a theory about how anarchic society functions, probably because you are dealing with a straw man.

EVEN IF an anarchist society had no way to defend itself, that doesn't automatically mean it gets taken over.
No, but should an aggression be on its way, it would simply not be able to defend successfully.
So? Just because you CAN attack someone and win doesn't mean you automatically do it. Ethics aside, there are good economic reasons to not go beating everyone up. Again, its the Risk theory of geopolitics. Ronald Reagan would be proud.

Why would they have zero.
Because it would have no way of getting a main military, and if it did, it would not be anarchist.
So you think an anarchist society cannot have organization. Good straw man.

It would eventually turn militaristic. The political ties would be cut (hereby with France) because they are political, and that word is out of an anarchist society.

All political ties would be "cut"? Really? I mean the ties would cease to be political by definition, but the ties themselves wouldn't just dissipate.

First, just because you have an anarchist society doesn't mean you don't have organization.
Did I claim that?
You seem to be. You haven't ever clarified any of your statements about anarchism.
The government of monaco is just ONE type of organization.
It is the main type of organization that is capable of having control of a society. An anarchist society cannot, by definition, have such an organization.

So if I organize a lot of people, that's a government...

Another type could easily have ties with and communicate with France.
The main government is responsible for such things. Why would France have ties with any anarchist organization?
Probably for the same reasons it does now - economic. France doesn't sit around saying "oh how jolly it is we are both governments!".

You do know that it would eventually turn into a governmental society, right?
Unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, the different organizations of military forces in an anarchist society would fight each other non-stop. Some psychopathic gangs would not mind taking over a society and turning people into slaves.

Violence is less likely under anarchy because individual actors bear their own costs of action. They cannot externalize onto a captive group of taxpayers. That's why governments went to war all the time.

Also consider that there are more private security guards than public police, and that police spend a lot of their time fighting the drug war. So that would seem to mean that far more than 50% of real crime in the USA is already prevented privately.

As I said before, you argue from a position of ignorance.
Good for you.
The proposition is about you, actually.
We support anarchy because it is MORE civilized and economically productive, has MORE order than state societies.
That is nonsensical and outrageous. A civilized society where gangs control your life? Who is going to stop them? And what kind of an order are you talking about? An order where the robber will have free access to your goods? Is that "more order?"
First, this is all just rhetoric. "Gangs" have historically provided very good law and order in society. Except they aren't called Gangs. They're usually called Friendly Societies, Fraternal Organizations, or Clans.

There is rich history on how these organizations, or "gangs" as you call them, provided great law and order in society. http://www.daviddfriedman.com... http://mises.org... http://libertariannation.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
etc etc.

In fact, Anglo Saxon Common Law, developed outside state legal systems, was co opted by state courts. Britain and the USA didn't even have public law enforcement until the 1850s, when public drunkenness offended the sensibilities of some Victorian elites who used tax dollars to start beating up irish people (talk about a gang huh). Before then, private enforcement of law was *at least* as good as the public police that replaced them, except the state uses public police to maintain its position of power and get away with all sorts of crap. http://www.daviddfriedman.com...

Privateers were also superior to Royal navies (both in power, and in conduct) http://www.independent.org...

At this point I have to ask you to define a state, just so we can see how ridiculous your political philosophy is.
A political system or unit that is supreme within sovereign borders. Analyze it for me.
Circular definition - Political implies government.

And: http://www.un.org......

Wow I know war exists. The question is WHY it exists. Obviously war occurs between countries regardless of how large their military is.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:45:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is getting absurd. How absurd and nonsensical.

At 10/5/2010 8:59:19 AM, Sieben wrote:
There are no political promises for ANY country, anarchist or no.
NATO? UN? US-South Korea relations? No political promises of defense, perhaps?

On a superficial level, states are just as uncontrolled as anarchies. I argue that the incentive structure of states is distorted by taxation, so that they are actually more likely to go to war.
Please look at Saudi Arabia on taxation. Furthermore, yes, states can be very uncontrolled, but with a good government they can be controlled effectively to prevent chaos and offer defense to people. Anarchies can do none.

A role, not all the roles. Okay /issue.
Did I ever say it plays all the roles?

So?
Your point got refuted.

You haven't done anything to prove why France would just say "stfu monaco because you do not have a formal government".
No nation defends another nation, except due to political ties of some sort. Serbia is not going to defend Monaco if Germany attacks it. There are no political ties. However, there will also be none if Monaco turns anarchist. The French government will have no ties to one main organization. It would have no interest in going to war against Germany due to an anarchist society that chose to abolish political ties. It knows better than that.

*Yawn* more hot air. You don't have a theory about how anarchic society functions, probably because you are dealing with a straw man.
Please come with refutations or simply do not make me waste time replying to such nonsense. I can assure you that groups would be formed, they would fight each other with weaponry, and always try to take recruits and control. Nothing would prevent that from occurring.

So? Just because you CAN attack someone and win doesn't mean you automatically do it.
I did not say it. Please the OP's questions and my earlier responses.

Ethics aside, there are good economic reasons to not go beating everyone up. Again, its the Risk theory of geopolitics. Ronald Reagan would be proud.
Read my first post in this thread, please.

Because it would have no way of getting a main military, and if it did, it would not be anarchist.
So you think an anarchist society cannot have organization. Good straw man.
Re-read and tell me how that statement implied that "an anarchist society cannot have organization." It can. It will if it ever starts existing for once. However, it would not have a main military organization. And if it did, nothing would prevent it from turning the anarchist society into a militaristic one.

All political ties would be "cut"? Really?
Yes.

I mean the ties would cease to be political by definition, but the ties themselves wouldn't just dissipate.
Not "just" in the sense that it would happen in a matter of days, but the different organizations would hold different opinions on different matters, they would disagree over whether or not the society should have any external ties, and so forth. France, or any other properly-functioning nation in the world would never choose to defend an anarchist society from aggression because there are no ties. They cannot contradict political logic and defend a society that they have no relations to in preference to a nation that is very important for economical reasons etc.

You seem to be. You haven't ever clarified any of your statements about anarchism.
No, it just cannot have a main organization. Also, you have not been here for long.

So if I organize a lot of people, that's a government...
If it is the main one, is internationally recognized, has main power of law, etc., then yes, it is a government. Having that would turn anarchy into a governmental society.

Probably for the same reasons it does now - economic. France doesn't sit around saying "oh how jolly it is we are both governments!".
It would either not risk having economical ties with an anarchist society, or it would impose strict rules. Furthermore, that is no reason for France to keep defending it.

Unsubstantiated.
Why would it not be able to?

Violence is less likely under anarchy because individual actors bear their own costs of action.
That is such an illogical statement. In every single coordinate in the world the individual bears his own cost of action. It just happens that in an anarchist society, he will not feel bad about negative deeds, but feel good and keep doing them.

They cannot externalize onto a captive group of taxpayers. That's why governments went to war all the time.
Yes, perhaps there is no government in the world that cannot function without taxation? Saudi Arabia is liberal in that.

Also consider that there are more private security guards than public police, and that police spend a lot of their time fighting the drug war. So that would seem to mean that far more than 50% of real crime in the USA is already prevented privately.
The "private security guards" also need protection. It is not any difficulty for an organized gang group to watch out for the doorman and eventually end his process of life, and then enter a house to do whatever they wish to the people within.

The proposition is about you, actually.
It is still good for you.

That is nonsensical and outrageous. A civilized society where gangs control your life? Who is going to stop them? And what kind of an order are you talking about? An order where the robber will have free access to your goods? Is that "more order?"
First, this is all just rhetoric. "Gangs" have historically provided very good law and order in society. Except they aren't called Gangs. They're usually called Friendly Societies, Fraternal Organizations, or Clans.
Please answer the questions. "Gangs" I am referring to are not the good clans that you seem to is take them with. I am talking about groups that form in order to control people and use them as slaves for their own good. In an anarchist society where people seek to find security for their lives, there is no doubt that gangs would recruit people as their shields.

There is rich history on how these organizations, or "gangs" as you call them, provided great law and order in society. http://www.daviddfriedman.com... http://mises.org... http://libertariannation.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
etc etc.
MS-13 is different. Murder could never easily be prevented if they were in an anarchist society. Please recognize what I am talking about. I am clearly referring to "gangs" not "pacifist clans."

In fact, Anglo Saxon Common Law, developed outside state legal systems, was co opted by state courts. Britain and the USA didn't even have public law enforcement until the 1850s, when public drunkenness offended the sensibilities of some Victorian elites who used tax dollars to start beating up irish people (talk about a gang huh). Before then, private enforcement of law was *at least* as good as the public police that replaced them, except the state uses public police to maintain its position of power and get away with all sorts of crap. http://www.daviddfriedman.com...

Privateers were also superior to Royal navies (both in power, and in conduct) http://www.independent.org...
Thank you, address my point please.

Circular definition - Political implies government.
What did I refer to?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:48:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:59:19 AM, Sieben wrote:
And: http://www.un.org......

Wow I know war exists. The question is WHY it exists. Obviously war occurs between countries regardless of how large their military is.
No, please see what that was a response to. You wonder why no country attacks the non-military organized ones. How about no interest in geographical location? Lack of useful resources? And then, as I implied, there is the UN to
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:52:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 9:48:18 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:59:19 AM, Sieben wrote:
And: http://www.un.org......

Wow I know war exists. The question is WHY it exists. Obviously war occurs between countries regardless of how large their military is.
No, please see what that was a response to. You wonder why no country attacks the non-military organized ones. How about no interest in geographical location? Lack of useful resources? And then, as I implied, there is the UN to
That vanished.

... there is the UN to preserve peace and recognize the sovereignty of a society.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 10:43:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 6:56:41 AM, Sieben wrote:
I'll let LF get this, as usual.

Instead I'll ask, why would anyone attack an anarchist society? There are many examples of little very wealthy countries without militararies. Monaco.

Actual Monaco has a token military but more importantly is under the protection of france.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 2:07:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The discussion is not about whether or not an anarchist society would or would not be attacked by states. I don't want to be a d!ck but please stay on topic.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 2:12:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 2:07:08 PM, TPF wrote:
The discussion is not about whether or not an anarchist society would or would not be attacked by states. I don't want to be a d!ck but please stay on topic.

I'm still working on it. I'll post something tomorrow.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 2:58:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When we say "anarchy", you imagine a bunch of people squatting around a campfire.:

I don't. But when you start organizing people, delegating specific duties, and instituting laws, then you have a government. That's the crux of it; it's ultimately self-defeating. You're just changing the hand of power, not eradicating it.

We support anarchy because it is MORE civilized and economically productive, has MORE order than state societies.:

That all remains to be seen. Anarchism is entirely theoretical.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 7:24:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 2:58:09 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
When we say "anarchy", you imagine a bunch of people squatting around a campfire.:

I don't. But when you start organizing people, delegating specific duties, and instituting laws, then you have a government. That's the crux of it; it's ultimately self-defeating. You're just changing the hand of power, not eradicating it.

1) So you don't see a difference between aggressive and non aggressive institutions?

2) Pizza Hut delegates specific duties and institutes laws (company policy, rules). It is not a government :(

We support anarchy because it is MORE civilized and economically productive, has MORE order than state societies.:

That all remains to be seen. Anarchism is entirely theoretical.

If you can't externalize the costs of violence off onto a captive body of taxpayers, you can't wage war very easily. If you can't monopolize the money supply, your life gets even harder. I can't think of a war that hasn't been financed by inflation.
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
10/5/2010 7:45:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Because I have extra energy and want to prove the second law of thermodynamics - as energy is expended, a portion of it is irreversibly wasted.
Things that are so interesting:

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