Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

1252628303140

Posts

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    There's also the fact that his assertion that indigenous societies are better stewards of the environment is a blatant lie.

    Yeah, it seems like most of that "environmental stewardship" stems more from smaller populations than anything.

    Yes, hundreds of millions of people cause more environmental damage than an order or magnitude (or two) less. Duh. That doesn't solve the issue of who gets culled out to achieve this.

    It's also because it's really damn hard to clear cut a forest with axes, let alone ones that are made of stone. The extinction of megafauna in Australia and the new world, is pretty clear evidence of how ye old noble savages treated the resources they were able to easily exploit.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    There's also the fact that his assertion that indigenous societies are better stewards of the environment is a blatant lie.

    Yeah, it seems like most of that "environmental stewardship" stems more from smaller populations than anything.

    And from locality. An indigenous group that has to live in a particular area is likely going to take better care of that area that a group that isn't present and doesn't have to live with the consequences of a damaged environment. Dumping poison in somebody else's yard hundreds of miles away is a very different calculation than dumping it in my own yard, and it has nothing to do with being a Noble Savage.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • RozRoz Let the Storm follow Nap TimeRegistered User regular

    I'm sure they are just lovely.

    However their lifestyle can't support 7 billion people. Utopia be damned, if we tried anarchy, we'd have billions of people starve. You can enjoy that precious freedom as you wither away from hunger and preventable sickness.

    They are agricultural. Not hunter-gatherers. Agriculture can totally support that many.

    And sanstodo, uh, what? What of my characterization do you disagree with? What do you know about the Mapuche that I don't? Please enlighten me. I'm sure as hell you didn't watch that documentary... As for your "prove the assumption" thing... This isn't a math theorem. None of it can be abstractly, ex-nihilo "proved." The State can't "prove" that it's necessary, either. This is politics, which is quite a different beast. There is a sense in which I can "prove" some things, such that anarchist societies are viable. And I've given examples. Again, the problem isn't that the societies fail or are somehow unproven, it's that *you all keep fucking shooting at us.* I'd just like yall to acknowledge that, and either remain Statists and thus come out and support it, or realize it's fucked up and wrong and see us as human beings with legitimate opinions and a legitimate cause that maybe-just-maybe you never bothered to learn much about.

    Ok, seriously. Gone now... fucking wage slavery.

    The fact that you consider compensation for your labor "wage slavery" reveals an enormous amount about both your character, and your ability to critically analyze your current situation. Please feel free to read a book on slavery before you make such comparisons. I don't believe you will find your situation at all comparable with anyone even remotely acquainted with slavery.

  • Chaos TheoryChaos Theory Registered User
    ... And actually considering the nonhuman tribes of the ecological community to be just as sacred and deserving of spiritual respect as human community. But hey, let's not actually bother learning about Mapuche culture, or anything for that matter; all savages are the same, and everyone who thinks they are doing some things better than civilized folks must by the same token have some crazy untenable beliefs about how noble and angelic they were to the point of some kind of cultural and ecological infallibility (according to whose metric I dare not guess). Oh, and this applies everywhere and to all of them, so that the opponent is apparently making this claim about ALL the dark savage folk the good rationalbrained whiteman slayed back in ye olde blunderbuss tyme. As though they were the same.

    Having thought about it while at my jarb, I've decided that this whole fucking argument has exploded pointlessly due to a total neglect of the good old facts vs. values distinction. Having noticed that this anarchist is coming at you with facts and evidence of some promising applications of anarchy, apparently you all will just brush them off and won't be satisfied until I somehow "prove" my values. Well, I have absolutely nothing to say to that of course. I will just accept neither any master over me, nor will I ever aspire to be the master of others (or the nicer word we use these days: "representative"). And I will glady defend that stance with my life-- period, full stop.

    Anyway, this format is pretty frustrating, because I'm totally outnumbered. I'll be glad to speak with those who are genuinely interested via PM or whatever. I can't guarantee I'll be in the thread because I have better things to do than to contend with willful ignorance-- and with some of the responses I've gotten I really have no idea where to even begin.

    Later on. And remember: happy slaves are no excuse for slavery.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    The fact that you consider compensation for your labor "wage slavery" reveals an enormous amount about both your character, and your ability to critically analyze your current situation. Please feel free to read a book on slavery before you make such comparisons. I don't believe you will find your situation at all comparable with anyone even remotely acquainted with slavery.

    Oh dude, really. "Wage slave" is a pretty common term people use to mean "I have a shitty low-wage job that I'm currently stuck with." It's not a declaration that one wants to leg-hump the IWW, or a belief that one really is an actual slave.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    ... And actually considering the nonhuman tribes of the ecological community to be just as sacred and deserving of spiritual respect as human community. But hey, let's not actually bother learning about Mapuche culture, or anything for that matter; all savages are the same, and everyone who thinks they are doing some things better than civilized folks must by the same token have some crazy untenable beliefs about how noble and angelic they were to the point of some kind of cultural and ecological infallibility (according to whose metric I dare not guess). Oh, and this applies everywhere and to all of them, so that the opponent is apparently making this claim about ALL the dark savage folk the good rationalbrained whiteman slayed back in ye olde blunderbuss tyme. As though they were the same.

    Having thought about it while at my jarb, I've decided that this whole fucking argument has exploded pointlessly due to a total neglect of the good old facts vs. values distinction. Having noticed that this anarchist is coming at you with facts and evidence of some promising applications of anarchy, apparently you all will just brush them off and won't be satisfied until I somehow "prove" my values. Well, I have absolutely nothing to say to that of course. I will just accept neither any master over me, nor will I ever aspire to be the master of others (or the nicer word we use these days: "representative"). And I will glady defend that stance with my life-- period, full stop.

    Anyway, this format is pretty frustrating, because I'm totally outnumbered. I'll be glad to speak with those who are genuinely interested via PM or whatever. I can't guarantee I'll be in the thread because I have better things to do than to contend with willful ignorance-- and with some of the responses I've gotten I really have no idea where to even begin.

    Later on. And remember: happy slaves are no excuse for slavery.



    :bz :bz :bz

    This is debate and discourse, and you have (whether you belive it or not) chosen to uphold an illogical unpopular position that has clearly been shown to be nonfunctional; The fact that you are complaining about people coming forward to challenge the idea's that you have presented in droves shouldn't be a surprise.

    Further, you haven't shown anything of merit yet.

    Spoiler:
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    I can't guarantee I'll be in the thread because I have better things to do than to contend with willful ignorance

    Either stick the flounce and leave, or remain in the thread, but kindly don't waste everyone's time pretending to leave and then maybe not. That's even dumber than "I'm going to work! No, I'm not! Now I'm REALLY going!"

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    ... And actually considering the nonhuman tribes of the ecological community to be just as sacred and deserving of spiritual respect as human community. But hey, let's not actually bother learning about Mapuche culture, or anything for that matter; all savages are the same, and everyone who thinks they are doing some things better than civilized folks must by the same token have some crazy untenable beliefs about how noble and angelic they were to the point of some kind of cultural and ecological infallibility (according to whose metric I dare not guess). Oh, and this applies everywhere and to all of them, so that the opponent is apparently making this claim about ALL the dark savage folk the good rationalbrained whiteman slayed back in ye olde blunderbuss tyme. As though they were the same.

    Having thought about it while at my jarb, I've decided that this whole fucking argument has exploded pointlessly due to a total neglect of the good old facts vs. values distinction. Having noticed that this anarchist is coming at you with facts and evidence of some promising applications of anarchy, apparently you all will just brush them off and won't be satisfied until I somehow "prove" my values. Well, I have absolutely nothing to say to that of course. I will just accept neither any master over me, nor will I ever aspire to be the master of others (or the nicer word we use these days: "representative"). And I will glady defend that stance with my life-- period, full stop.

    Anyway, this format is pretty frustrating, because I'm totally outnumbered. I'll be glad to speak with those who are genuinely interested via PM or whatever. I can't guarantee I'll be in the thread because I have better things to do than to contend with willful ignorance-- and with some of the responses I've gotten I really have no idea where to even begin.

    Later on. And remember: happy slaves are no excuse for slavery.

    You are accusing forumers of being racist, xenophobic, and ignorant. You haven't addressed core issues (such as the primacy or non-primacy of freedom over other values) and accuse others of refusing to engage.

    I know dog piles suck but a little self-awareness would go a long way.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The free market of ideas isn't fair, because we just won't buy what he is selling.

    edit: Wait, I just read his last post, he's calling us all racists for not believing in the "Libertarian Noble Savage" myth?

    Boring7 on
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I'm sure as hell you didn't watch that documentary...

    Can you stop telling us to "read/watch/experience" this "thing i did not produce" and start telling us what you want to say?

    I mean, its not like we haven't gone over this before and
    I didn't dig through the whole thread

    Oh. Oh well that explains it.
    Having noticed that this anarchist is coming at you with facts and evidence of some promising applications of anarchy, apparently you all will just brush them off and won't be satisfied until I somehow "prove" my values.

    What facts?
    Well, I have absolutely nothing to say to that of course. I will just accept neither any master over me, nor will I ever aspire to be the master of others (or the nicer word we use these days: "representative"). And I will glady defend that stance with my life-- period, full stop.

    Anyway, this format is pretty frustrating, because I'm totally outnumbered. I'll be glad to speak with those who are genuinely interested via PM or whatever. I can't guarantee I'll be in the thread because I have better things to do than to contend with willful ignorance-- and with some of the responses I've gotten I really have no idea where to even begin.

    Yea, I will totally defend that stance with me life! But not my time. No no no; can't be bothered to defend that stance with my time.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    The free market of ideas isn't fair, because we just won't buy what he is selling.

    edit: Wait, I just read his last post, he's calling us all racists for not believing in the "Libertarian Noble Savage" myth?

    I think he's calling us racist for calling knowing what the Noble Savage myth is? Or maybe for calling him racist, when his being racist is obviously impossible because he's an anarchist?

    It's not particularly clear.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    I've lost track if that's namecalling or ad hominim. And we had just begun to scale the pyramid. It's just a wonder that we're comparing the Mapuche and that skeezy tenement next to the head shop to the majority of human history, but we don't have any proof.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Jurg wrote: »
    Yeah, it'd be pretty nice if we didn't have to worry about survival. I hear there are institutions that actually make sure people have a lot of the resources they need! They're called "states".

    Maybe not the American government, but a lot of European ones. And those that do are heavily, heavily legalistic- even further from anarchy. The thing is, they also need to be compete for limited resources, or they will not be able to provide resources to their citizens. The state is not putting a gun to people's heads and telling them, "Work, or you shall starve to death." The fact that resources are limited is.

    Also, if there is no way to put anarchy into practice, it is useless as a political philosophy.

    The American government absolutely does provide survival support services. Don't be hyperbolic. People argue about whether it provides enough of them, to a great enough extent, or in a balanced way to the correct people. I believe you probably have some sort of septic system, electrical service, transportation infrastructure and a complicated system of defenses that prevent people from raping you and taking everything you own whenever they want, though.

    I was kind of framing that around Chaos Theory's argument, which focused on things like food and welfare, and how the government is totally forcing people to work, or they'll starve. I can see how it could be understood that way though, and I apologize for not being as clear as I should have been.

    I absolutely value those systems, hence my defense of states.

    sig.gif
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    ... And actually considering the nonhuman tribes of the ecological community to be just as sacred and deserving of spiritual respect as human community. But hey, let's not actually bother learning about Mapuche culture, or anything for that matter; all savages are the same, and everyone who thinks they are doing some things better than civilized folks must by the same token have some crazy untenable beliefs about how noble and angelic they were to the point of some kind of cultural and ecological infallibility (according to whose metric I dare not guess). Oh, and this applies everywhere and to all of them, so that the opponent is apparently making this claim about ALL the dark savage folk the good rationalbrained whiteman slayed back in ye olde blunderbuss tyme. As though they were the same.

    Having thought about it while at my jarb, I've decided that this whole fucking argument has exploded pointlessly due to a total neglect of the good old facts vs. values distinction. Having noticed that this anarchist is coming at you with facts and evidence of some promising applications of anarchy, apparently you all will just brush them off and won't be satisfied until I somehow "prove" my values. Well, I have absolutely nothing to say to that of course. I will just accept neither any master over me, nor will I ever aspire to be the master of others (or the nicer word we use these days: "representative"). And I will glady defend that stance with my life-- period, full stop.

    Anyway, this format is pretty frustrating, because I'm totally outnumbered. I'll be glad to speak with those who are genuinely interested via PM or whatever. I can't guarantee I'll be in the thread because I have better things to do than to contend with willful ignorance-- and with some of the responses I've gotten I really have no idea where to even begin.

    Later on. And remember: happy slaves are no excuse for slavery.

    You mean in in the free exchange of ideas with little to no rules you're failing to achieve what you want?

    How can that be?

    PSN: allenquid
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I'm curious how anarchy is supposed to work when only a tiny, tiny minority of the population and a nonexistent portion of the wealthy population thinks it's a good idea

    If tomorrow the government was suddenly run by anarchists who dismantled the system I can assure you that people would violently oppose the anarchy and install a new government, and not anything approaching a minority of people.

    It wouldn't even get that far though! If the 3 branches of government just up and declared anarchy and stopped working, the military would immediately seize power and assume the mantle of federal government

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    Having worked in conjunction with Indian tribes before . . . they actually are way more concerned with environmental stewardship than the mainstream USA. Not to conflate them with every indigenous group out there, of course; I'm sure some indigenous groups were godawful to the environment but small enough that it didn't matter too much. But the tribes I worked with are, for example, working their asses off preparing for the changes global warming will bring, as opposed to going "global warming is a myth, bluh bluh bluh" like half the US seems to. They're also working hard to bring back / maintain salmon populations. It's not just "ho hum, salmon are neat and tasty, I guess"; this is a REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE to them.

    This doesn't mean I think libertarianism is a good idea, I just wanted to clarify that point.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    LadyM wrote: »
    Having worked in conjunction with Indian tribes before . . . they actually are way more concerned with environmental stewardship than the mainstream USA. Not to conflate them with every indigenous group out there, of course; I'm sure some indigenous groups were godawful to the environment but small enough that it didn't matter too much. But the tribes I worked with are, for example, working their asses off preparing for the changes global warming will bring, as opposed to going "global warming is a myth, bluh bluh bluh" like half the US seems to. They're also working hard to bring back / maintain salmon populations. It's not just "ho hum, salmon are neat and tasty, I guess"; this is a REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE to them.

    This doesn't mean I think libertarianism is a good idea, I just wanted to clarify that point.

    Oh sure. There's a difference between 'this group of people is careful and practices good stewardship of their environment, and they are an indigenous group' and 'any indigenous group will be good stewards of their environment.'

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    LadyM wrote: »
    Having worked in conjunction with Indian tribes before . . . they actually are way more concerned with environmental stewardship than the mainstream USA. Not to conflate them with every indigenous group out there, of course; I'm sure some indigenous groups were godawful to the environment but small enough that it didn't matter too much. But the tribes I worked with are, for example, working their asses off preparing for the changes global warming will bring, as opposed to going "global warming is a myth, bluh bluh bluh" like half the US seems to. They're also working hard to bring back / maintain salmon populations. It's not just "ho hum, salmon are neat and tasty, I guess"; this is a REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE to them.

    This doesn't mean I think libertarianism is a good idea, I just wanted to clarify that point.

    So are most competent farmers. Unfortunately the way a large percentage of the "family farm" agriculture has the dumbest kid who was unable to leave for "better things" end up being the one who inherits and continues working the land. And everyone who doesn't deal with agriculture up close and personal is either outright anti-green or labeled a damn filthy hippy.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    LadyM wrote: »
    Having worked in conjunction with Indian tribes before . . . they actually are way more concerned with environmental stewardship than the mainstream USA. Not to conflate them with every indigenous group out there, of course; I'm sure some indigenous groups were godawful to the environment but small enough that it didn't matter too much. But the tribes I worked with are, for example, working their asses off preparing for the changes global warming will bring, as opposed to going "global warming is a myth, bluh bluh bluh" like half the US seems to. They're also working hard to bring back / maintain salmon populations. It's not just "ho hum, salmon are neat and tasty, I guess"; this is a REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE to them.

    This doesn't mean I think libertarianism is a good idea, I just wanted to clarify that point.

    Oh sure. There's a difference between 'this group of people is careful and practices good stewardship of their environment, and they are an indigenous group' and 'any indigenous group will be good stewards of their environment.'

    There's also the fact that tribes who weren't good environmental stewards died out because of it. We don't hear about them much because, well, they died out. A good example is the Anasazi tribe, who destroyed their local environment with stone age tools.



    Skip to 5:20.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    But hey, let's not actually bother learning about Mapuche culture, or anything for that matter; all savages are the same, and everyone who thinks they are doing some things better than civilized folks must by the same token have some crazy untenable beliefs about how noble and angelic they were to the point of some kind of cultural and ecological infallibility (according to whose metric I dare not guess).

    "Better" is a loaded term. They're definitely doing "different" things than "civilized folk", whatever that means, but to say that they do things "better" relies upon a particular conception of what constitutes "better" things.

    I think you could make a compelling argument that alternative forms of living have their merits, and in an open and free society we would be able to discuss these alternatives in respectful ways.

    You just aren't doing that.
    Oh, and this applies everywhere and to all of them, so that the opponent is apparently making this claim about ALL the dark savage folk the good rationalbrained whiteman slayed back in ye olde blunderbuss tyme. As though they were the same.

    This tone doesn't help your cause.

    Additionally, this quote brings us back to the "better" sentiment you mentioned above. You acknowledge that the "dark savage folk" were killed off by "ye olde blunderbuss". When one group is able to kill off the other group, by means of X, how is that not somehow indicative that one group has a demonstrably "better" means of survival, where by "better" we mean "isn't the side that gets its ass kicked"?

    Or, if we don't want to claim that one group is "better", it seems like we could discern that the group with X has a higher likelihood of being the side to win in a fight.

    You've said that you don't want to deal in abstractions. Alright, let's deal with history. We exist in a world wherein the side organized as a State, equipped with guns, tends to win conflicts against the differently-organized gunless state.

    How do you deal with that, other than to seek refuge in the abstract realm wherein we speculate that this could not be the case, in some magical future?
    Having thought about it while at my jarb, I've decided that this whole fucking argument has exploded pointlessly due to a total neglect of the good old facts vs. values distinction.

    Read: People are disagreeing with me.
    Having noticed that this anarchist is coming at you with facts and evidence of some promising applications of anarchy, apparently you all will just brush them off and won't be satisfied until I somehow "prove" my values.

    This is not the case. When you make appeals to a particular historical incident, you take it to indicate X. When other people learn about the same historical incident, they take it to indicate Y.

    You: "This one time some anarchists overthrew the State."
    Us: "Yeah, but then, later, a new State overtook the anarchists."

    You take situations such as this to indicate that anarchism can work. Others take this situation to indicate that when anarchism works, it is later overcome by The State. Both sides are privileging a particular side of the conflict. However, given my understanding of the temporal duration to each side, it seems like the "States end up winning" interpretation is more accurate to the facts.

    When anarchism and The State come into conflict, the State ends up lasting for longer periods of time.

    You could argue that "lasting longer" does not entail "better". But you haven't done that yet.
    Well, I have absolutely nothing to say to that of course. I will just accept neither any master over me, nor will I ever aspire to be the master of others (or the nicer word we use these days: "representative"). And I will glady defend that stance with my life-- period, full stop.

    Is this a quote from Braveheart?
    Anyway, this format is pretty frustrating, because I'm totally outnumbered.

    "Arguments are difficult when I'm not surrounded by people who already agree with me."

    As an individual with whom the majority of the people on these boards disagree, I can tell you that defending an unpopular position is not an easy task. However, backing down does not help your cause. If anything, one's unwillingness to defend a minority opinion ends up harming the welfare of that opinion. Instead of demonstrating an ability to persevere and meet criticism head on, you end up bowing to an interpretation of, "Not only is anarchism stupid, but anarchists don't even have the conviction to argue for it!"

    If you genuinely believe that X is the case, then argue in favor of X. Don't hide in your room convinced of your own correctness and shy away from confrontation. If we're all incorrect, then fucking argue your damned point.

    If you are actually dedicated to the pursuit of truth, then you have a responsibility to try to change our minds.

    If you're just trying to piss off your parents by saying anarchist things while you aren't at work, then at least admit that you don't really believe what you're saying.
    I'll be glad to speak with those who are genuinely interested via PM or whatever. I can't guarantee I'll be in the thread because I have better things to do than to contend with willful ignorance-- and with some of the responses I've gotten I really have no idea where to even begin.

    Again, the inability to argue X in a public debate speaks to the value of X. If your position cannot be defended in rational discourse, then perhaps it is a lousy position. Alternatively, you just might be a lousy arguer.

    I don't know which is the case, of course. But backing down isn't a helpful rhetorical strategy.

    Also, let me say that I did not intend "lousy arguer" as an insult. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. Rather, I'm trying to communicate the idea that if you believe in X, then you have a duty to argue in favor of X both because you have a responsibility to try to change our minds, and because you owe it to X.

    Backing down is not rhetorically advantageous.
    Conceding the argument doesn't help your cause.
    Playing the victim enables your own victimization.

    If you don't want to argue that's fine. But recognize that by refusing to argue in favor of anarchism, you've bolstered the beliefs of everyone who disagrees with you.
    Later on. And remember: happy slaves are no excuse for slavery.

    Yeah, this is a discussion I'd actually like to have with you: What is the virtue of freedom? Why is slavery inherently bad?

    Since I think you're going to lurk for a bit, I'll toss this out in the hope that you think about it.

    Suppose a world ruled by a dictator who controls every aspect of your life. Everything you do, every action in which you engage, is controlled by this dictator. Your every act is commanded and controlled by this dictator.

    This dictator, though, also has the ability to know your thoughts, beliefs, and desires moments before you have them. If at Time-1 you desire to eat cake, the dictator knows, a moment before Time-1, that you shall desire to eat cake.

    Knowing this, the dictator only ever commands you to do what you want to do.

    The dictator commands you to eat cake as you desire to eat cake. When you want to ask a person out on a date, the dictator knows your desire and so commands you to ask the person out on a date. When you need to take a piss, the dictator already knows this, and so commands you to take a piss.

    In this scenario you have no freedom, because you are required and obligated to do what the dictator commands. However, the dictator always only ever commands you do what you want to do, when you want to do it.

    Why would this world be problematic?

    The usual undergrad response is, "Because sometimes the dictator might tell you to do something you don't want to do." But our dictator, by definition, never does that. We are always commanded / obligated to do exactly what we want to do when we want to do it in the manner we want to do it.

    The idea of the thought experiment is to focus upon this question: Is "freedom" good, or is "doing what we want to do" good?

    Because, in the scenario, those aren't the same thing.

    _J_ on
    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    I think that says something about your character. And it's pretty diabolical...
    *shrug* Noting that between two cars, one car is faster and more fuel efficient than the other is not a moral statement. Organized socities do plenty of things I don't agree with one with, but that does not magic away the fact that they do the good bits better than unorganized society. Technological advancement, production of goods, hell, environmental regulation enforced by coercive, non-voluntary, use of force is neccesary to solve the tragedy of the commons problem that arises from limited resources.

    Every example of "working anarchist groupings" provided in this thread are either bubbles that exist within the framework of organized society, drawing on the resources/benefits of organized society to sustain themselves or societal groupings that have in one way or the other succumbed to an organized society. In some particularly brilliant cases, they've done both. They live on and with the infrastructure organized society constructs and maintains (They burn nice cars in Athens if they park there over night? Call me when they build the fucking roads or form a fire-watch to guarantee that their shit doesn't burn to the ground). They rely on the services provided by organized society, while claiming to want to stand on their own legs.

    Or they fail to stand on their own legs and are overrun - culturually, economically, medically or by force.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    And there are plenty of examples of working anarchy. The organization of laborers in Barcelona and the rest of Catalonia/Aragon during the Spanish civil war is one obvious example. But you might as well take the whole history of the left-libertarian revolt against Capital. What about the Paris Commune, 1871? Anyway, off the top of my head there is also what happened after the Dec. '01 crash in Argentina: workers took over their factories and under the banner of horizontality started managing them collectively, making all their decisions in open meetings. Google "que se vayan todos" or something. Anyway, there are a lot of other examples, especially among indigenous societies, but also in various slums... I think one of you asked for an anarchist slum-- check out Symphony Way in Cape-town, which has been organizing itself horizontally and in opposition to the State (which had evicted them all from their rightful homes in the first place-- good job, States!). Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_Way_Pavement_Dwellers .

    While anarchists did participate in those movements, they were/are not actually anarchies. The CNT-FAI was part of the Catalonian Generalitat during the civil war, the Paris Commune was run by a democratically elected body, as are the pavement dwellers. If a society surrenders organizational authority to a portion of its membership, you do not, in fact, have anarchy.

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    LadyM wrote: »
    But the tribes I worked with are, for example, working their asses off preparing for the changes global warming will bring, as opposed to going "global warming is a myth, bluh bluh bluh" like half the US seems to. They're also working hard to bring back / maintain salmon populations. It's not just "ho hum, salmon are neat and tasty, I guess"; this is a REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE to them.

    Living in a very controlled urban environment means that you can't really see the changes happening in the world. If your salmon turns up neatly diced and shrink-wrapped, you don't get any feel for how climate change is affecting the ecosystem. If you have a lawn-sprinkler, you don't see a drought. Climate change denial is only possible for people who live detached from nature.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-3181857.html

  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    My understanding is that it was called the Dark Ages because the Renaissance Humanists who coined the term (Petrarch in particular, who I think coined the term) wanted to create the impression that they had rescued the world from ignorance.

    I think it would be a serious mistake to chalk up the demise of the Western Roman Empire up to any one thing. Political decay arises through a myriad of means. Chalking it up to corruption or wealth inequality seem a little weird to me, given that the Empire was always characterized by corruption and inequality.

    Thats the original origin of the name. The Dark Ages designation we know today, is because there are few written records of that age.

    The very use of The Dark Ages designation is being questioned these days though. Like people said, it was a "dark age" in European history, but it had little impact on the rest of the world. In the Arab peninsula, it was the Golden age of Islam, which carried on much of the scientific knowledge of the ancient world.

    Let's face it to most Christians any golden age for other religions is a dark age for them.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    I don't want to be rude, but I guess I'll have to be. You have better things to do than deal with willful ignorance - an assertion that's abundantly proven by your continual refusal to deal with your own, ChaosTheory. Enjoy your permanent irrelevance.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • Chaos TheoryChaos Theory Registered User
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Yea, I will totally defend that stance with me life! But not my time. No no no; can't be bothered to defend that stance with my time.

    This is probably the most annoying thing possible.

    Look: I simply don't spend time on this forum in the first place. This was literally the first time I have visited in years. I pointed that out to begin with.

    And now I'm leaving, because, as you indicate, I don't have time for this. I'm a student with two jobs and one of the most work-heavy institutions around. I don't have time to be a regular member of some online "community." There's hardly enough time just to chill with my real-world friends around here.

    If I really wanted, I could respond to every single one of your points, all of you. But you outnumber me something like ten to one and it would take a number of hours out of my weekend. Plus it'd be indefinite, because Terra Hypothetica is an infinite land.

    Why do you conclude that just because I don't want to piss away my time like that on some online forum for a video-game comic means that I won't be happy to defend my point in any public context? So you know, this is not the summit of public spheres for debate/argument. My departure has more to do with my wanting to spend my life well. Now I honestly don't mean to judge people who spend all their time on forums like this, I used to do it (when I had time in high school). But I don't have the time. As such, I can't be a regular member (in which case I'd be happy to stay in this thread indefinitely), and instead can only be an anonymous stranger among anonymous strangers (all of whom apparently DO have the time).

    Anyway, you've all been pretty rude. You aren't even the only one who accused me of bad faith *just* because I'm not sticking around. If I was a regular member that'd make perfect sense, but I'm far from it. Just a guy who wanted to check on a place he visited years ago. Then from the outset I have been supposed to prove that anarchy can work-- except this is preposterous from the beginning, because anarchism is, for one thing, a project (and an ethic) that will always be ongoing even after its successes, and you can all choose to ignore even anarchist organizing's remarkable gains just because they weren't complete and total.

    As in Spain: We're talking thousands of factories and workshops that, having been taken over, were run directly and in a federated manner; though the CNT did have an electoral presence in the de jure government, that government did not have much more than a nominal existence due to the extremely active rank-and-file of the unions, which was controlling the streets at that time: the revolt against the army was made by the people of Barcelona, not by a few people who were part of an elected office-- and as such they were in control of the situation on the ground. No police, mostly armed groups of local militias patrolling the streets (What an anarchy looks like at war, I'd say. One at peace would, you can imagine, look different). The State in Barcelona at that time could only exist nominally: the army was being dissolved since it had just tried to impose fascism. There was the Civil Guard, which had been a police force loyal to the Republican government, but they were outnumbered by the armed and rebellious masses, who were rightly suspicious of them: Later, after many of the anarchist fighters had already gone off to the front, the Civil Guard was employed by the (by then) Stalinist government to attack CNT strongholds. Only then did the anarchist's revolution get rolled back: and look at the fucking conditions, a year of total war against a fascist enemy that had the support of Mussolini and Hitler, and fending off the internal designs of a Stalinist faction of Communists. It's stupid and insulting to any observer's intelligence to say that the anarchists failed here because they were anarchists and thus anarchy fails. These were extraordinary men and women doing the best they could with a shitty situation. The point is, while the revolution was ongoing and the rank-and-file militias in the streets had power, anarchists were perfectly capable of running industry and being a productive society. Worker-control of industry is absolutely possible, it's happened, and not only in this instance. So that's proven, I mean, I don't know what else you need. Isn't the point that we acknowledge the redundancy of the bosses, executives, the rentier class, all those parasites who earn wealth just through their idle ownership of property? That's the point as far as I'm concerned: We don't need those people!

    Whether or not the free Spanish lost the war is a moot point. They would have lost it if they remained a nonrevolutionary, republican State. There are plenty who argued, the "Amigos de Durruti" group for instance, that if the revolution had been accelerated, and encouraged in the places where the public had not defeated the initial coup (that is, northern Spain-- anyone familiar with the history of the time knows how potentially revolutionary the Asturias region could have been), then the war could have been won, not as a war, but as a revolution. It just happened that within the CNT of the time there were a lot of people who cautiously decided that "war first, revolution after" was a better idea, and this was a strategic mistake but little else, and certainly not indicative of any inherent nonviability of "anarchism".

    In any case, in my very short time here I've had all kinds of slander pile on me, and people have read into me beliefs that aren't even mine, all in the vaguest, emptiest terms, such as claiming anarchists want to destroy the economy period (as in, not just the notion, but the whole physical infrastructure!) or assuming because I talk about some indigenous people that I am therefore some kind of primitivist? And on top of that seeming to imply that hierarchy (a social, metapysical thing) is necessary even for the existence of technology itself (a physical thing)-- something members of the open-source community would laugh at I'm sure. But not only this, you respond to and corroborate each other's slanders as though they were points, even though they're wildly off from what I was saying, and so amongst yourselves you continue to construct me as some horseshit straw-man. Who is apparently some kind of Joker-esque chaos-worshipper. Thanks for that.

    So yeah, considering this is apparently how yall argue here, I guess I'm just not accustomed to it, and so I'm definitely not sticking around. But accusing me of bad faith on top of it all, just because I'm departing, is the icing on the cake. Seriously? When you all distort ideas like worker self-management into destroying all infrastructure (btw, depending on how that's construed, it can be incredibly fucking offensive to working people)... when that's the kind of distortion I encounter, what the hell am I to do? Maybe if I did already spend a lot of my time here regularly, I would bother to sort out all of your bullshit. But I don't, I have a busy life, and besides I can have much better, more serious, and more illuminating political discussions around here at the university, or over dinner with friends, than I can on this board. And no, before you apply another gratuitously personal ad-hom slander, I'm not just friends with other anarchists, though a number of them have warmed up to my understanding of things after discussion.

    Anyway like I said I don't have time to come here crafting the responses that my opinions deserve, especially if I'm going to be treated like a hostile in some empty one-liner contest from the beginning. There's no reason for me to prove anarchy, it keeps proving itself when workers take over their workplaces anywhere. If anything, you all need to prove the necessity of States, since that's the positive claim; anarchism (notice: an-archism) is just a negative claim (rulers are not necessary) and thus doesn't inherently need any more explanation than "there are no gods."

    So, peace out. I'm off to get things done this weekend. If I have the time later I may eventually return, but I'll only post again if there's something substantial and not mean-spirited enough to respond to, which I doubt will be the case. This has been ridiculously mean-spirited from the beginning and there is no conceivable reason it should be. But I don't expect it to change. So as I said, I might post again but since I'm not going to be a regular here, I'm not going to somehow respond in detail to every criticism that gets leveled. There is no time in my life for it.

    Enjoy yourselves,

    - one anarchist

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    you just wrote a 1500 word post about how you don't have time to respond substantively

    this is a thing you have done

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • MurphyMurphy Registered User regular
    Did he really just pull the "I would continue to debate this with you people but I have a life" card?

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    also the point isn't that 'anarchists' 'failed' or 'succeeded' in a given instance; it's that in each example, having taken power from the state, they almost immediately set up new structures for regulating behavior and use of force

    maybe they're better structures or maybe they're worse, but either way they would seem to defeat the argument in favor of 'anarchy' as the ongoing state of affairs

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Yea, I will totally defend that stance with me life! But not my time. No no no; can't be bothered to defend that stance with my time.

    This is probably the most annoying thing possible.
    Spoiler:

    The first line pretty much describes what I felt when I saw that page of text.

    My response? tl:dr

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I like how he came out of lurk mode to voice his oppinion and then run away because we were rude, and also failed to read anything that was written in this thread from the start.

    I'm tempted to send him an e-mail to explain how much I like his positions on things.

    Spoiler:
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Small groups and indiginous people absent government are actually great stewards of the environment in most cases. Farmers take care of their land, its why we haven't had a major crisis yet re: topsoil erosion, they take it seriously

    That's not the problem though! The problem is other groups fucking everyone over. The farmer may care about his land but the oil executive sure as hell doesn't worry about it and the guy building the coal plant who doesn't believe in global warming sure as hell doesn't. Another area is long term, humans aren't very good at planning for the long term.

    There's exceptions, again people who work with the environment are more aware, but people very far removed from it, say executives of major corporations, may look at a problem ten years off and then look at next quarter's profit projections and the latter will take priority every single time. And why not? He's just one guy! His actions aren't going to destroy the environment, what's one more drop in the bucket, he has a family to take care of.

    You can see how this leads to bad places.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Look: I simply don't spend time on this forum in the first place. This was literally the first time I have visited in years. I pointed that out to begin with.

    And now I'm leaving, because, as you indicate, I don't have time for this.
    Imma call bullshit on this. And here's why:

    I'm a student with two jobs and one of the most work-heavy institutions around. I don't have time to be a regular member of some online "community." There's hardly enough time just to chill with my real-world friends around here.

    If I really wanted, I could respond to every single one of your points, all of you. But you outnumber me something like ten to one and it would take a number of hours out of my weekend. Plus it'd be indefinite, because Terra Hypothetica is an infinite land.

    Why do you conclude that just because I don't want to piss away my time like that on some online forum for a video-game comic means that I won't be happy to defend my point in any public context? So you know, this is not the summit of public spheres for debate/argument. My departure has more to do with my wanting to spend my life well. Now I honestly don't mean to judge people who spend all their time on forums like this, I used to do it (when I had time in high school). But I don't have the time. As such, I can't be a regular member (in which case I'd be happy to stay in this thread indefinitely), and instead can only be an anonymous stranger among anonymous strangers (all of whom apparently DO have the time).

    Anyway, you've all been pretty rude. You aren't even the only one who accused me of bad faith *just* because I'm not sticking around. If I was a regular member that'd make perfect sense, but I'm far from it. Just a guy who wanted to check on a place he visited years ago. Then from the outset I have been supposed to prove that anarchy can work-- except this is preposterous from the beginning, because anarchism is, for one thing, a project (and an ethic) that will always be ongoing even after its successes, and you can all choose to ignore even anarchist organizing's remarkable gains just because they weren't complete and total.

    As in Spain: We're talking thousands of factories and workshops that, having been taken over, were run directly and in a federated manner; though the CNT did have an electoral presence in the de jure government, that government did not have much more than a nominal existence due to the extremely active rank-and-file of the unions, which was controlling the streets at that time: the revolt against the army was made by the people of Barcelona, not by a few people who were part of an elected office-- and as such they were in control of the situation on the ground. No police, mostly armed groups of local militias patrolling the streets (What an anarchy looks like at war, I'd say. One at peace would, you can imagine, look different). The State in Barcelona at that time could only exist nominally: the army was being dissolved since it had just tried to impose fascism. There was the Civil Guard, which had been a police force loyal to the Republican government, but they were outnumbered by the armed and rebellious masses, who were rightly suspicious of them: Later, after many of the anarchist fighters had already gone off to the front, the Civil Guard was employed by the (by then) Stalinist government to attack CNT strongholds. Only then did the anarchist's revolution get rolled back: and look at the fucking conditions, a year of total war against a fascist enemy that had the support of Mussolini and Hitler, and fending off the internal designs of a Stalinist faction of Communists. It's stupid and insulting to any observer's intelligence to say that the anarchists failed here because they were anarchists and thus anarchy fails. These were extraordinary men and women doing the best they could with a shitty situation. The point is, while the revolution was ongoing and the rank-and-file militias in the streets had power, anarchists were perfectly capable of running industry and being a productive society. Worker-control of industry is absolutely possible, it's happened, and not only in this instance. So that's proven, I mean, I don't know what else you need. Isn't the point that we acknowledge the redundancy of the bosses, executives, the rentier class, all those parasites who earn wealth just through their idle ownership of property? That's the point as far as I'm concerned: We don't need those people!

    Whether or not the free Spanish lost the war is a moot point. They would have lost it if they remained a nonrevolutionary, republican State. There are plenty who argued, the "Amigos de Durruti" group for instance, that if the revolution had been accelerated, and encouraged in the places where the public had not defeated the initial coup (that is, northern Spain-- anyone familiar with the history of the time knows how potentially revolutionary the Asturias region could have been), then the war could have been won, not as a war, but as a revolution. It just happened that within the CNT of the time there were a lot of people who cautiously decided that "war first, revolution after" was a better idea, and this was a strategic mistake but little else, and certainly not indicative of any inherent nonviability of "anarchism".

    In any case, in my very short time here I've had all kinds of slander pile on me, and people have read into me beliefs that aren't even mine, all in the vaguest, emptiest terms, such as claiming anarchists want to destroy the economy period (as in, not just the notion, but the whole physical infrastructure!) or assuming because I talk about some indigenous people that I am therefore some kind of primitivist? And on top of that seeming to imply that hierarchy (a social, metapysical thing) is necessary even for the existence of technology itself (a physical thing)-- something members of the open-source community would laugh at I'm sure. But not only this, you respond to and corroborate each other's slanders as though they were points, even though they're wildly off from what I was saying, and so amongst yourselves you continue to construct me as some horseshit straw-man. Who is apparently some kind of Joker-esque chaos-worshipper. Thanks for that.

    So yeah, considering this is apparently how yall argue here, I guess I'm just not accustomed to it, and so I'm definitely not sticking around. But accusing me of bad faith on top of it all, just because I'm departing, is the icing on the cake. Seriously? When you all distort ideas like worker self-management into destroying all infrastructure (btw, depending on how that's construed, it can be incredibly fucking offensive to working people)... when that's the kind of distortion I encounter, what the hell am I to do? Maybe if I did already spend a lot of my time here regularly, I would bother to sort out all of your bullshit. But I don't, I have a busy life, and besides I can have much better, more serious, and more illuminating political discussions around here at the university, or over dinner with friends, than I can on this board. And no, before you apply another gratuitously personal ad-hom slander, I'm not just friends with other anarchists, though a number of them have warmed up to my understanding of things after discussion.

    Anyway like I said I don't have time to come here crafting the responses that my opinions deserve, especially if I'm going to be treated like a hostile in some empty one-liner contest from the beginning. There's no reason for me to prove anarchy, it keeps proving itself when workers take over their workplaces anywhere. If anything, you all need to prove the necessity of States, since that's the positive claim; anarchism (notice: an-archism) is just a negative claim (rulers are not necessary) and thus doesn't inherently need any more explanation than "there are no gods."

    So, peace out. I'm off to get things done this weekend. If I have the time later I may eventually return, but I'll only post again if there's something substantial and not mean-spirited enough to respond to, which I doubt will be the case. This has been ridiculously mean-spirited from the beginning and there is no conceivable reason it should be. But I don't expect it to change. So as I said, I might post again but since I'm not going to be a regular here, I'm not going to somehow respond in detail to every criticism that gets leveled. There is no time in my life for it.

    Enjoy yourselves,

    - one anarchist

    You do have time, you just don't want to deal with the fact that every single time your ideas are pointed out for the unworkable ideals they are.

    PSN: allenquid
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    If I really wanted, I could respond to every single one of your points, all of you. But you outnumber me something like ten to one and it would take a number of hours out of my weekend.

    Given that we're all saying similar things, you could respond in general to our questions / comments. Or you could respond to one thing. But so far you haven't substantially responded to anything, because you're too busy writing posts that state you are too busy to write posts.
    Why do you conclude that just because I don't want to piss away my time like that on some online forum for a video-game comic means that I won't be happy to defend my point in any public context?

    Because this is a public context, and you are not defending your points in it.
    As such, I can't be a regular member (in which case I'd be happy to stay in this thread indefinitely), and instead can only be an anonymous stranger among anonymous strangers (all of whom apparently DO have the time).

    We aren't asking you to be a member. And, as a anarchist, you wouldn't want to be a member.

    We're simply asking that you articulate your arguments in a substantial way.
    Then from the outset I have been supposed to prove that anarchy can work-- except this is preposterous from the beginning, because anarchism is, for one thing, a project (and an ethic) that will always be ongoing even after its successes, and you can all choose to ignore even anarchist organizing's remarkable gains just because they weren't complete and total.

    So, it's preposterous to prove that anarchism can work, but you maintain that it can succeed.

    I'm wondering what the difference is between "X works" and "X succeeds".
    Later, after many of the anarchist fighters had already gone off to the front, the Civil Guard was employed by the (by then) Stalinist government to attack CNT strongholds. Only then did the anarchist's revolution get rolled back:

    So, the anarchist rebellion failed.
    It's stupid and insulting to any observer's intelligence to say that the anarchists failed here because they were anarchists and thus anarchy fails.

    What, to you, constitutes failure? If "there was an anarchist assembly that was later overcome by The State" isn't failure, then what is?
    Worker-control of industry is absolutely possible, it's happened, and not only in this instance. So that's proven, I mean, I don't know what else you need.

    The question is one of sustainability.

    You are correct that there have been days, weeks, and months during which worker-control of industry has happened.

    But "it worked for a month" does not indicate that it could work for longer than a month. The United States has been around since 1787, or 1776, depending on how you want to count. Can any anarchist civilization claim to have existed for this same duration of time?
    It just happened that within the CNT of the time there were a lot of people who cautiously decided that "war first, revolution after" was a better idea, and this was a strategic mistake but little else, and certainly not indicative of any inherent nonviability of "anarchism".

    Is there any empirical evidence that, to you, would indicate that anarchism is inherently nonviable? Or have you decided, seemingly a priori, that anarchism works?
    But not only this, you respond to and corroborate each other's slanders as though they were points, even though they're wildly off from what I was saying, and so amongst yourselves you continue to construct me as some horseshit straw-man. Who is apparently some kind of Joker-esque chaos-worshipper. Thanks for that.

    In what ways were we incorrect? Why are you not willing to articulate yourself clearly and respond to our questions?

    Whenever we find fault with your argument, your recourse seems to be, "That's not what I meant!" That isn't helpful.
    But accusing me of bad faith on top of it all, just because I'm departing, is the icing on the cake.

    Given that you are not seriously arguing your points or substantiating your claims, I'm not sure what to call that other than bad faith.
    Anyway like I said I don't have time to come here crafting the responses that my opinions deserve, especially if I'm going to be treated like a hostile in some empty one-liner contest from the beginning.

    I would suggest that typing out your positions could benefit your understanding of yourself and could possibly aid you in conversations you have in real life. When we type out our thoughts, and have to structure them in substantial blocks of texts, we gain a clearer understanding of what we think.

    Mostly because, when you put words down and present them to others, you are beholden to a particular articulation of the idea. In other forms of conversation, one can continually backpeddle, change the topic, change the goalposts, etc.

    When you type out, "I believe X, for reason Y, Z, Q." your thoughts become substantial.
    There's no reason for me to prove anarchy, it keeps proving itself when workers take over their workplaces anywhere.

    Right before The State comes along and kicks their asses.
    If anything, you all need to prove the necessity of States, since that's the positive claim; anarchism (notice: an-archism) is just a negative claim (rulers are not necessary) and thus doesn't inherently need any more explanation than "there are no gods."

    No.

    There are states. We currently exist in a State. We do not have to prove that which is the case. Or, the proof that X is the case is proven by X being the case. "Hey look, a State!"

    Your claim is that X could occur in an anarchist society. That is a positive claim; you are claiming that something can be the case despite there being no historical evidence to support your claim.

    When I type, "no historical evidence" what I mean is that you cannot point to an anarchist society that has existed for 200+ years and supported 7 billion people. You can, at best, point to some pissed off workers in a steal mill that continued to run for a few months.
    If I have the time later I may eventually return, but I'll only post again if there's something substantial and not mean-spirited enough to respond to, which I doubt will be the case.

    I don't think you understand how discussion works.

    Again, when persons disagree with you, you have an obligation to try to change their minds by engaging them in argument. Running away isn't going to change our mind or help your cause.

    That's one of the problems with anarchist communes. They run away and hide themselves from society because their views are challenged.

    Anyone can sit around with agreeable people and circle jerk their way through conversations the substance of which are "Man, we're so correct." But if you genuinely cared about these issues and felt an obligation to foster their development, you would strive to articulate them in contexts within which other persons disagree.

    You aren't doing yourself any favors by avoiding conflict.
    I'm not going to somehow respond in detail to every criticism that gets leveled.

    You know how some people claim you are arguing in bad faith?

    This right here could be a significant reason for why someone would think that.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    When you all distort ideas like worker self-management into destroying all infrastructure (btw, depending on how that's construed, it can be incredibly fucking offensive to working people)...

    Except that's not always a distortion of anarchist thought, since there are spectra of the anarcho-rainbow that very much do want to destroy all infrastructure (anarcho-primitivism) to those who are mainly advocating non-hierarchical forms of running workplaces (anarcho-syndicalists).

    I'm actually quite sympathetic to the idea that workplaces should be organized in a non-hierarchical (or minimally hierarchical) fashion, however I'm skeptical on how that model of organization could be expanded outward to replace the state. A worker-run corporation could just as easily fuck over people through pollution, unsafe products, and so on. Also, how would the inevitable conflicts between businesses be resolved?

    Also, we're in an age of multinational corporations, so a shift towards effective non-hierarchical, worker-run (or heck, human-run, just to avoid any accusations of classism) companies would seem to inherently entail if not a destruction of that global trade infrastructure at least a dialing down of the scope of that infrastructure. This may or may not be problematic, but it would entail a pretty serious shift in how many people live their lives, both for better and worse.

    Lawndart on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    You do have time, you just don't want to deal with the fact that every single time your ideas are pointed out for the unworkable ideals they are.

    One of the problems could be that he is utilizing a completely different value structure to assess claims and empirical evidence. He, as of yet, has not shared this value structure.

    That's what I'd like to see. Even if he doesn't respond to criticisms, he could at least say, "By 'success' I understand...." and explain how he assesses various modes of government and why he maintains particular ideals.

    Right now, all we have is:

    1) Yey anarchism. Boo The State. (where by "State" he means "that entity which holds a monopoly on the use of force".)

    However, in his last post he wrote, "The point is, while the revolution was ongoing and the rank-and-file militias in the streets had power, anarchists were perfectly capable of running industry and being a productive society."

    So, the state is "the entity which holds the monopoly on the use of force" and in his example, the anarchist rank-and-file militias were the entity that held the monopoly on the use of force. But those anarchist militias did not constitute a State because SHUT UP THEY DIDN'T!

    2) Anarchism can work.

    Without any definition of "work" or evidence to support the claim that the lives of 7 billion people can be sustained in an anarchist world.

    3) I'm totally right and you're all totally mean and wrong.

    Again, without any substantial arguments to support the "rightness" of his claims.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber
    We are talking less about a body of theory, then, than about an attitude, or perhaps one might even say a faith: the rejection of certain types of social relations, the confidence that certain others would be much better ones on which to build a livable society, the belief that such a society could actually exist.
    This will always be where it loses me.
    Skeptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more seriously if you could give me some reason to think it would work. Can you name me a single viable example of a society which has existed without a government?
    Awesome! This is one of my arguments!
    ...accept that anarchist forms of organization would not look anything like a state. That they would involve an endless variety of communities, associations networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine, and possibly many that we can’t... ...the process of one system replacing the other will not take the form of some sudden revolutionary cataclysm—the storming of a Bastille, the seizing of a Winter Palace—but will necessarily be gradual, the creation of alternative forms of organization on a world scale, new forms of communication, new, less alienated ways of organizing life, which will, eventually, make currently existing forms of power seem stupid and beside the point. That in turn would mean that there are endless examples of viable anarchism: pretty much any form of organization would count as one, so long as it was not imposed by some higher authority, from a klezmer band to the international postal service. Unfortunately, this kind of argument does not seem to satisfy most skeptics

    I don't have confidence that one of the endless examples of viable anarchism would necessarily be utopia, or close enough to it. I don't have the capacity to put Faith in something nebulous. I thought it was a crock when I was in Catholic school, and the real world has strengthened my lack of it since then. And telling someone that the answer is an endless example of imagined and unimaginable possibilities is as lame as telling them that their reward is in Heaven.

    So far, I'm not convinced that the anarchist utopia is the next step once we drop the shackles of the state. It seems like anarchist collectives or organizations can exist within the state or even influence it though. I'd be much more willing to accept 'anarchy' if it were under those terms.

    The skeptic is unsatisfied by the answer because "endless variations that I can't describe" isn't actually a good response to "give me a single example".

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber
    We are talking less about a body of theory, then, than about an attitude, or perhaps one might even say a faith: the rejection of certain types of social relations, the confidence that certain others would be much better ones on which to build a livable society, the belief that such a society could actually exist.
    This will always be where it loses me.
    Skeptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more seriously if you could give me some reason to think it would work. Can you name me a single viable example of a society which has existed without a government?
    Awesome! This is one of my arguments!
    ...accept that anarchist forms of organization would not look anything like a state. That they would involve an endless variety of communities, associations networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine, and possibly many that we can’t... ...the process of one system replacing the other will not take the form of some sudden revolutionary cataclysm—the storming of a Bastille, the seizing of a Winter Palace—but will necessarily be gradual, the creation of alternative forms of organization on a world scale, new forms of communication, new, less alienated ways of organizing life, which will, eventually, make currently existing forms of power seem stupid and beside the point. That in turn would mean that there are endless examples of viable anarchism: pretty much any form of organization would count as one, so long as it was not imposed by some higher authority, from a klezmer band to the international postal service. Unfortunately, this kind of argument does not seem to satisfy most skeptics

    I don't have confidence that one of the endless examples of viable anarchism would necessarily be utopia, or close enough to it. I don't have the capacity to put Faith in something nebulous. I thought it was a crock when I was in Catholic school, and the real world has strengthened my lack of it since then. And telling someone that the answer is an endless example of imagined and unimaginable possibilities is as lame as telling them that their reward is in Heaven.

    So far, I'm not convinced that the anarchist utopia is the next step once we drop the shackles of the state. It seems like anarchist collectives or organizations can exist within the state or even influence it though. I'd be much more willing to accept 'anarchy' if it were under those terms.

    The skeptic is unsatisfied by the answer because "endless variations that I can't describe" isn't actually a good response to "give me a single example".

    Wait wait wait. You're telling me that baseless, unverifiable speculation isn't rhetorically compelling?

    I am shocked. "Shocked," I say!

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Also, I love how John Stossel never bothers to consider why, for example, businesses that sell food should perhaps be required by law to know how to safely prepare and store food.

    "It's the fascist war on lemonade stands!!!!...and salmonella poisoning"

Sign In or Register to comment.