Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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

1293032343540

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    That doesn't work very well. Voting with your wallet however, that would be interesting. I would love to see voluntary taxes.

    Have you ever had one of those pizza parties where it's time to collect the money and it comes up short somehow? And everybody swears they put in their share, but somehow you're off several bucks and you don't have enough for the tip? Welcome to a small preview of what "voluntary taxes" would be like.

    Hell, we NOW have a situation where people simultaneously complain about cuts to government services (that affect them) and complain that taxes are too high. People insist they "don't get government benefits" when they receive all kinds of welfare. I see no reason to assume people would be any more honest or logical in an anarchist collective.
    >Have you ever had one of those pizza parties where it's time to collect the money and it comes up short somehow? And everybody swears they put in their share, but somehow you're off several bucks and you don't have enough for the tip? Welcome to a small preview of what "voluntary taxes" would be like.

    That's the point, people wouldn't pay for things they don't want or don't use.

    How do you solve a collective action problem?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Astaereth wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >A monopoly of what?

    On violence and justice. The state makes all the laws and is the only one allowed to use violence to enforce them in most cases. Of course you COULD try to run your own courts and police as a community, this has been tried before, but is usually stopped by the state. The state does give permits to security forces, but the security force is required to call the police to handle a situation except in extreme situations involving life or death.

    This is inaccurate. While it is sometimes the case, it isn't in the case of modern democracies. People have willingly delegated that power to elected officials/judges/juries/law enforcement officers. "Running our own courts and police" is what our society is doing right now. As a society, we can't all vote for every law, so we've elected officials to vote laws in/out. We can't all enforce those laws, so we've delegated that responsibility to law enforcement. We can't participate in every ruling so we've appointed judges and juries to do so.

    Our current system has been (and still is) shaped by a never-ending, iterative process. It didn't spring up from nothingness. You can't simply scrap the concept of state and start over because A, B and C aren't working fine, while disregarding everything it's doing right, and all that it was doing wrong but has been fixed/improved over the ages.
    The wars with Vietnam or the Middle East would be replaced with wars of offense or defense with neighboring communities over resources.

    A state government didn't prevent the Toledo war. If people feel the only recourse is to fight, there's nothing to prevent it.
    Astaereth wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    I would like to have seen them take the mines for themselves. If the company hired mercenaries, I would like to see the miners get outside reinforcements. I don't know if they would have fought to the very last, but if they did then they fought for their freedom, and were going to die in the mines anyways had they done nothing. What would you have them do?
    Lobby their government representatives to improve regulations. Which is what American workers eventually did do. And it worked!

    Far better than them getting a bunch of people killed only to fail to superior power ever did.
    >What prevents a minority from seizing power and using force to take advantage of everyone else with their advantage?

    Society. People who don't like what they are doing and taking up arms to stop them.
    But they're more powerful than them. They seized power and now have the advantage. The guy with the gun is now in charge. How is he to be stopped?
    Coercion isn't always bad. It certainly is when it's used to keep a monopoly on violence and justice.

    But not when it's just a bunch of "communities" slaughtering each other?
    rayofash wrote: »
    Then what would the problem be in an anarchist society when the majority feel that oppressing minorities is wrong?

    You claimed a democracy would not prevent a majority from abusing a minority. But this is false. America prevents this with the government. Even if the majority loathes a minority, they can do nothing about it without going up against the state protecting minority rights. In America majorities are routinely prevented from abusing minorities. This is because of the state. Even if a majority group wants to eliminate a far weaker minority, the state prevents them from doing so.

    In your anarchy there's nothing to prevent the far stronger majority. Nothing. When you're the minority unless you have some advantage, you're at the mercy of the majority when there's no government.

    >Lobby their government representatives to improve regulations. Which is what American workers eventually did do. And it worked!

    And the Jews should have petitioned their government, and the victims of the Gulags should have done the same. It works so well doesn't it? The Virginia coal miners didn't start the fight, the coal company came in with a frikkin' tank and started slaughtering their families. There was a massive build up, all kinds of things were tried to get a better working environment. They didn't just up and grab guns.

    Rayofash, what right did the miners have to forcibly take the company's property from them? What about "tank beats a bunch of guys with shovels" do you expect to play out differently in an anarchist society?
    >Rayofash, what right did the miners have to forcibly take the company's property from them?

    When they didn't provide a safe working environment and when they started killing them for forming a union, that's when they gave up their right.

    rayofash on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I like the assumption that the person shorting the pizza fund naturally "didn't want" or "didn't use" the pizza.

    Because it's never somebody who ate their share of the pizza, and is either broke or a dick.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    That doesn't work very well. Voting with your wallet however, that would be interesting. I would love to see voluntary taxes.

    Have you ever had one of those pizza parties where it's time to collect the money and it comes up short somehow? And everybody swears they put in their share, but somehow you're off several bucks and you don't have enough for the tip? Welcome to a small preview of what "voluntary taxes" would be like.

    Hell, we NOW have a situation where people simultaneously complain about cuts to government services (that affect them) and complain that taxes are too high. People insist they "don't get government benefits" when they receive all kinds of welfare. I see no reason to assume people would be any more honest or logical in an anarchist collective.
    >Have you ever had one of those pizza parties where it's time to collect the money and it comes up short somehow? And everybody swears they put in their share, but somehow you're off several bucks and you don't have enough for the tip? Welcome to a small preview of what "voluntary taxes" would be like.

    That's the point, people wouldn't pay for things they don't want or don't use.

    So farewell to any kind of social safety net, I suppose.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I like the assumption that the person shorting the pizza fund naturally "didn't want" or "didn't use" the pizza.

    Because it's never somebody who ate their share of the pizza, and is either broke or a dick.

    The comparison isn't good because government services are not pizza.

  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    That doesn't work very well. Voting with your wallet however, that would be interesting. I would love to see voluntary taxes.

    Have you ever had one of those pizza parties where it's time to collect the money and it comes up short somehow? And everybody swears they put in their share, but somehow you're off several bucks and you don't have enough for the tip? Welcome to a small preview of what "voluntary taxes" would be like.

    Hell, we NOW have a situation where people simultaneously complain about cuts to government services (that affect them) and complain that taxes are too high. People insist they "don't get government benefits" when they receive all kinds of welfare. I see no reason to assume people would be any more honest or logical in an anarchist collective.
    >Have you ever had one of those pizza parties where it's time to collect the money and it comes up short somehow? And everybody swears they put in their share, but somehow you're off several bucks and you don't have enough for the tip? Welcome to a small preview of what "voluntary taxes" would be like.

    That's the point, people wouldn't pay for things they don't want or don't use.

    THis is all very well and good for stuff people can easily know they need (like armed protection), but what about unsavoury things, like sewers, or wages for regulation enforcers? I can't see a lot of people volunteering to give enough money to keep a working sewage system going, despite it being absolutely necessary.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    And the Jews should have petitioned their government, and the victims of the Gulags should have done the same. It works so well doesn't it?
    More than anarchy ever achieved.

    For example:
    The Virginia coal miners didn't start the fight, the coal company came in with a frikkin' tank and started slaughtering their families.

    This is how anarchy works. This is what you're suggesting we return to. When two groups disagree over resources, slaughter.
    This is all democracy is. Why do you think we have so many checks and balances? The founding fathers knew this would be a problem, they knew it would be a huge problem, but they couldn't think of a better way to do it so they just said 'please don't form factions! For the love of god don't form factions!' Of course now there are better systems but we can't get them in place without changing the constitution, which we can't do because our government has been corrupted to the point where it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to try and get enough congressmen in.
    You haven't shown a single workable system. Not one. You have proposed ideas, but none of them actually prevent a party from taking power and then creating yet another state beyond "the communities would stop them". Yet no group of communities with no ties to each other have ever done this successfully over a long term. Ever.
    This isn't the case at all. The state has been gamed to the point where it easily enables majority rule.
    This is, once again, blatantly false.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaughlin_v._Florida
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

    All of those are instances where the majority is overruled by the state for the sake of minorities.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I like the assumption that the person shorting the pizza fund naturally "didn't want" or "didn't use" the pizza.

    Because it's never somebody who ate their share of the pizza, and is either broke or a dick.

    The comparison isn't good because government services are not pizza.

    And yet given the option people are more than happy to enjoy the benefits of either one without paying for them. And some government services (or "community" services) aren't exactly easy to exclude people from.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    A state government didn't prevent the Toledo war. If people feel the only recourse is to fight, there's nothing to prevent it.

    We just went over this! They did in your example! A war was stopped by the government coming in and stopping it.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Damn you, eidetic memory! Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    That's the point, people wouldn't pay for things they don't want or don't use.
    And the point is people can't be trusted to decide what they don't 'want' or 'use,' because people on average are short-sighted and dumb, and have great difficulty thinking beyond themselves. Like that case a year and a half ago down near Kansas (iirc) where people in the rural part of a county had buy-in fire coverage, because they were so far out that they weren't covered by the FD of any nearby community, and opposed the expense of establishing a local PD. Then some dude's house burned down, and he was _pissed_ that he couldn't get a fire department to come and put it out.

    Or anytime some douchebags whines about having to pay to taxes for schools when they don't have any kids.

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I like the assumption that the person shorting the pizza fund naturally "didn't want" or "didn't use" the pizza.

    Because it's never somebody who ate their share of the pizza, and is either broke or a dick.

    The comparison isn't good because government services are not pizza.

    They're far more important.

    So now people are dying in the streets because Douchebag McGee didn't want to pay his fair share.

    PSN: allenquid
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    >This is how anarchy works. This is what you're suggesting we return to. When two groups disagree over resources, slaughter.

    Really? All disagreements devolve into slaughters? Wow, remind me never go to a buffet with you.

    >You have proposed ideas, but none of them actually prevent a party from taking power and then creating yet another state beyond "the communities would stop them".

    What you're talking is psychological. Are you familiar with The Third Wave? The only way to prevent this kind of take over is vigilance, know what it is and stop it before it gets a chance to grow.

    >This is, once again, blatantly false.

    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument. Just look at the Democrats and Republicans, we either get Right or Far Right, almost none of the liberals are represented though they make up a large amount of voters. We need Mixed-Member Proportional Representation.

    rayofash on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A state government didn't prevent the Toledo war. If people feel the only recourse is to fight, there's nothing to prevent it.

    We just went over this! They did in your example! A war was stopped by the government coming in and stopping it.

    Ray.... buddy... pal...

    You got to stop posting examples to support your position that disprove the point you are trying to make.

    This is the third time I think.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A state government didn't prevent the Toledo war. If people feel the only recourse is to fight, there's nothing to prevent it.

    We just went over this! They did in your example! A war was stopped by the government coming in and stopping it.
    I said prevent.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Right now, there are people who use government services and want government services who complain about how they do not use government services and do not want to pay taxes for those services they do want.

    The well off have no specific need for welfare or education services even though it benefits society as a whole and every individual in it to have an educated population that is not on the brink of starvation and destitution.

    Yeah enlightenedbum I think I was being overtly optimistic about the education thing.

    Void Slayer on
    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A state government didn't prevent the Toledo war. If people feel the only recourse is to fight, there's nothing to prevent it.

    We just went over this! They did in your example! A war was stopped by the government coming in and stopping it.

    Ray.... buddy... pal...

    You got to stop posting examples to support your position that disprove the point you are trying to make.

    This is the third time I think.

    I didn't. Preventing a war is different from stopping a war. You don't need a state to stop a war.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument.

    Ok.

    What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Because it seems like you are saying, "Anarchism works in principle", and every time someone offers an argument against it, or a historical example of anarchism failing, your reponse is, "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't really anarchy" or "something".

    Are you actually open to the possibility that anarchism is a silly, childish notion? or is it simply awesome in principle, and nothing anyone says, ever, and nothing that could ever empirically occur in the world, ever, is proof against that?

    Because that answer will greatly influence how this discussion plays out.

    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.
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Damn you, eidetic memory! Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    So farewell to any kind of social safety net, I suppose.
    Which is absolutely hilarious if that other poster who said they knew ash was correct, and ash survives on full disability from the government.

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    That's the point, people wouldn't pay for things they don't want or don't use.

    The point is that people will try to get away with paying less than they should for things they do want and do use. You wouldn't come up short otherwise, because you wouldn't be asking those people to pay, and they wouldn't be asking for pizza.

    In terms of government services, since you profess an inability to understand the analogy, it's very simple: people don't want to pay for things if they don't have to. You understand what "free rider" means, I hope?

    Re ancient Canaan, surely you can point out where in the video this information appears? Because what I'm seeing is a description of a "long period of decline and upheaval" of the existing Canaanite city-state system around 1200 BCE, which opened up opportunities for other social and ethnic groups to get out from under that existing system and form their own....well, state. (Protip: citing a long video in the hopes that nobody will bother to watch it to fact-check you, or citing "I kind of remember this TV show once" as evidence, is not going to get you far here.)

    If this is going to be one of those discussions where you respond to counterpoints with non sequiturs and handwaving, might as well say so now and save everybody a lot of time.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument.

    Ok.

    What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Because it seems like you are saying, "Anarchism works in principle", and every time someone offers an argument against it, or a historical example of anarchism failing, your reponse is, "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't really anarchy" or "something".

    Are you actually open to the possibility that anarchism is a silly, childish notion? or is it simply awesome in principle, and nothing anyone says, ever, and nothing that could ever empirically occur in the world, ever, is proof against that?

    Because that answer will greatly influence how this discussion plays out.

    I have offered evidence where anarchism has worked in history. There are plenty of examples where it didn't work because a stronger nation invaded and took them over, but that has also happened in early democracies. Should democracy have been ignored when founding the US because it hadn't worked before that?

    Of course I am open to the possibility that anarchism is silly, but I am convinced that isn't the case.

    >What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Since anarchism hasn't been tried on the scale I'm suggesting, there is none that I can think of.

    rayofash on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Really? All disagreements devolve into slaughters? Wow, remind me never go to a buffet with you.
    It is when two parties disagree over resources necessary for survival.
    What you're talking is psychological. Are you familiar with The Third Wave? The only way to prevent this kind of take over is vigilance, know what it is and stop it before it gets a chance to grow.
    Which no anarchistic entity has ever done over a long period of time. Ever.
    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument. Just look at the Democrats and Republicans, we either get Right or Far Right, almost none of the liberals are represented though they make up a large amount of voters. We need Mixed-Member Proportional Representation.

    Yes, actually, it does. You claimed the state doesn't protect minorities from majorities. Yet the state has routinely protected minorities even when the majority didn't desire it to. You were wrong.
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A state government didn't prevent the Toledo war. If people feel the only recourse is to fight, there's nothing to prevent it.

    We just went over this! They did in your example! A war was stopped by the government coming in and stopping it.
    I said prevent.

    They prevented further fighting.

    Had there been none the number of dead would have easily crested the thousands. That did not happen though because the government prevented war from continuing.

    Quid on
    PSN: allenquid
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    So farewell to any kind of social safety net, I suppose.
    Which is absolutely hilarious if that other poster who said they knew ash was correct, and ash survives on full disability from the government.

    I would like to see welfare reformed, and I personally would pay into it if given the chance. Currently I live with my parents.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    >Yes, actually, it does. You claimed the state doesn't protect minorities from majorities. Yet the state has routinely protected minorities even when the majority didn't desire it to. You were wrong.

    And there are examples where it hasn't. Yes, sometimes the state works, we've been over this.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument.

    Ok.

    What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Because it seems like you are saying, "Anarchism works in principle", and every time someone offers an argument against it, or a historical example of anarchism failing, your reponse is, "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't really anarchy" or "something".

    Are you actually open to the possibility that anarchism is a silly, childish notion? or is it simply awesome in principle, and nothing anyone says, ever, and nothing that could ever empirically occur in the world, ever, is proof against that?

    Because that answer will greatly influence how this discussion plays out.

    I have offered evidence where anarchism has worked in history. There are plenty of examples where it didn't work because a stronger nation invaded and took them over, but that has also happened in early democracies. Should democracy have been ignored when founding the US because it hadn't worked before that?

    Of course I am open to the possibility that anarchism is silly, but I am convinced that isn't the case.

    >What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Since anarchism hasn't been tried on the scale I'm suggesting, there is none that I can think of.

    There are many other cases where democratic nations stood their ground successfully.

    There is no case of an anarchistic entity doing so over any sustained period ever.

    PSN: allenquid
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument.

    Ok.

    What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Because it seems like you are saying, "Anarchism works in principle", and every time someone offers an argument against it, or a historical example of anarchism failing, your reponse is, "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't really anarchy" or "something".

    Are you actually open to the possibility that anarchism is a silly, childish notion? or is it simply awesome in principle, and nothing anyone says, ever, and nothing that could ever empirically occur in the world, ever, is proof against that?

    Because that answer will greatly influence how this discussion plays out.

    I have offered evidence where anarchism has worked in history. There are plenty of examples where it didn't work because a stronger nation invaded and took them over, but that has also happened in early democracies. Should democracy have been ignored when founding the US because it hadn't worked before that?

    Of course I am open to the possibility that anarchism is silly, but I am convinced that isn't the case.

    >What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Since anarchism hasn't been tried on the scale I'm suggesting, there is none that I can think of.

    There are many other cases where democratic nations stood their ground successfully.

    There is no case of an anarchistic entity doing so over any sustained period ever.
    You're right, I apologize. Anarchy is a proven failure and it should never be tried again ever. I withdraw my position and will stop posting here, you guys have bested me. I will go now and pay penance for my ignorance.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    >If it went away, then it didn't work.

    Err, Democracy went away too.

    Once upon a time there was a democratic society. It existed until an empire came in and kicked its ass.

    Empire > Democracy.

    rayofash on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument.

    Ok.

    What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Because it seems like you are saying, "Anarchism works in principle", and every time someone offers an argument against it, or a historical example of anarchism failing, your reponse is, "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't really anarchy" or "something".

    Are you actually open to the possibility that anarchism is a silly, childish notion? or is it simply awesome in principle, and nothing anyone says, ever, and nothing that could ever empirically occur in the world, ever, is proof against that?

    Because that answer will greatly influence how this discussion plays out.

    I have offered evidence where anarchism has worked in history. There are plenty of examples where it didn't work because a stronger nation invaded and took them over, but that has also happened in early democracies. Should democracy have been ignored when founding the US because it hadn't worked before that?

    Of course I am open to the possibility that anarchism is silly, but I am convinced that isn't the case.


    Here's the problem: "I have offerred evidence where anarchism has worked in history." If it went away, then it didn't work.

    Once upon a time there was an anarchist society. It existed until a State came in and kicked its ass.

    That indicates State > Anarchy.

    I feel like it wouldn't be helpful to ask you to define "work". So, instead, can you at least respond to my statement that "If X went away, then X did not work"?

    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.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >Yes, actually, it does. You claimed the state doesn't protect minorities from majorities. Yet the state has routinely protected minorities even when the majority didn't desire it to. You were wrong.

    And there are examples where it hasn't. Yes, sometimes the state works, we've been over this.

    You said it didn't. You did not say it sometimes didn't. In fact, your exact words were:
    This isn't the case at all.

    So now that we've established that the state does protect minorities against the majority, how does an anarchy do it? There's no state so there's no entity that the minority can appeal to for help against the majority. What do they do?

    PSN: allenquid
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »

    Because it seems like you are saying, "Anarchism works in principle", and every time someone offers an argument against it, or a historical example of anarchism failing, your reponse is, "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't really anarchy" or "something".

    Are you actually open to the possibility that anarchism is a silly, childish notion? or is it simply awesome in principle, and nothing anyone says, ever, and nothing that could ever empirically occur in the world, ever, is proof against that?

    Because that answer will greatly influence how this discussion plays out.

    Even most who advocate democracy(at least in observing this forum) will admit that it's quite flawed in various aspects.

    I mean, star trek has story arcs dedicated to exposing the holes in their utopian future. They also ran under the presumption that human beings had socially 'evolved' to a state of overall consistent rational thinking and altruism. Rayofash seems to be running with this presumption as well.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    A few examples against it does not refute the examples that support my argument.

    Ok.

    What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Because it seems like you are saying, "Anarchism works in principle", and every time someone offers an argument against it, or a historical example of anarchism failing, your reponse is, "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't really anarchy" or "something".

    Are you actually open to the possibility that anarchism is a silly, childish notion? or is it simply awesome in principle, and nothing anyone says, ever, and nothing that could ever empirically occur in the world, ever, is proof against that?

    Because that answer will greatly influence how this discussion plays out.

    I have offered evidence where anarchism has worked in history. There are plenty of examples where it didn't work because a stronger nation invaded and took them over, but that has also happened in early democracies. Should democracy have been ignored when founding the US because it hadn't worked before that?

    Of course I am open to the possibility that anarchism is silly, but I am convinced that isn't the case.

    >What would constitute evidence against your position?

    Since anarchism hasn't been tried on the scale I'm suggesting, there is none that I can think of.

    There are many other cases where democratic nations stood their ground successfully.

    There is no case of an anarchistic entity doing so over any sustained period ever.
    You're right, I apologize. Anarchy is a proven failure and it should never be tried again ever. I withdraw my position and will stop posting here, you guys have bested me. I will go now and pay penance for my ignorance.

    Huzzah!

    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.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >If it went away, then it didn't work.

    Err, Democracy went away too.

    Once upon a time there was a democratic society. It existed until an empire came in and kicked its ass.

    Empire > Democracy.

    This has only happened to some states, not all.

    It is what happened to every anarchy ever.

    This literally puts organized states at infinity times more successful than any anarchy ever.

    PSN: allenquid
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    >If it went away, then it didn't work.

    Err, Democracy went away too.

    Once upon a time there was a democratic society. It existed until an empire came in and kicked its ass.

    Empire > Democracy.

    And then a Democratic society kicked the ass of the Empire.

    Democracy > Empire > Anarchism


    Edit: To give a more significant reply, "Democracy" did not go away. A particular democracy went away. A particular democracy, a particular empire.

    The difference I would point to is that while empires and democracies come and go, they seem to be sustainable for longer periods of time than any anarchist society ever has been. I cannot think of any anarchist society that has existed for a significant span of time, in our modern era, that was of a significant size. Have we ever had an anarchist country the size of, say, Germany?

    I am happy to grant that an anarchist commune of a few hundred people can live in the slums of a modernized city and eat from its dumpsters.

    But that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing for.

    _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.
  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    @Rayofash are you so disconnected from society that you think, if a disagreement escalates to a point of conflict, that the most human solution is to let them kill the living shit out of one another? Because your solution to the miners example is utter horseshit. There is no reason for the loss of lives when society as a whole would much rather have a stop to the bloodshed, and when the democratically elected government stepped in, it was a good thing. Oh, and these 'coercive actions' that you're so up against? What do you call a company bringing in mercenaries to solve their problem with the miners, 'just hashing out the details?'.

    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >If it went away, then it didn't work.

    Err, Democracy went away too.

    Once upon a time there was a democratic society. It existed until an empire came in and kicked its ass.

    Empire > Democracy.

    And then a Democratic society kicked the ass of the Empire.

    Democracy > Empire > Anarchism

    This is the dumbest dumb that's ever dumbed.

    The value of a social organization cannot be cashed out in who's ass it can kick. This is seriously "my social system can beat up your system"

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Ray is like a broken record of "No True Scotsman".

    Its literally all he has to offer as an argument for his anarchist ideals.

    As for his stance on states and government... whats the opposite of No True Scotsman? Trying to claim that all the times states and democracies worked, does not count because it was really people doing it and not the government. True Welshman? Or True Irish? True Indian?

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >If it went away, then it didn't work.

    Err, Democracy went away too.

    Once upon a time there was a democratic society. It existed until an empire came in and kicked its ass.

    Empire > Democracy.

    And then a Democratic society kicked the ass of the Empire.

    Democracy > Empire > Anarchism

    This is the dumbest dumb that's ever dumbed.

    The value of a social organization cannot be cashed out in who's ass it can kick. This is seriously "my social system can beat up your system"

    It's pretty valuable in determining which one can actually continue to exist and care for its people.

    PSN: allenquid
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »

    >So you would have preferred they kept fighting? To what end? The company hiring mercenaries to kill the miners?

    I would like to have seen them take the mines for themselves. If the company hired mercenaries, I would like to see the miners get outside reinforcements. I don't know if they would have fought to the very last, but if they did then they fought for their freedom, and were going to die in the mines anyways had they done nothing. What would you have them do?

    But what if the miners lost? And furthermore what prevents them from losing? You seem to be implying that the minorities/weaker people simply cannot lose these fights in an anarchy, whereas we are presupposing that in an anarchy, the stronger group will tend to prevail.
    Coercion isn't always bad. It certainly is when it's used to keep a monopoly on violence and justice.

    Why is a monopoly on violence and justice bad if the justice is just and the violence is sparse?
    rayofash wrote: »
    Then what would the problem be in an anarchist society when the majority feel that oppressing minorities is wrong?

    In an anarchist society, the minorities could seek help from others just as they could seek help from the state today. The difference is that individuals would be far more efficient than the state, and they don't have to wait for the state to come up with the laws that support them.


    If individuals are more efficient than the State then how does the State dominate individuals into doing what they want?

    rayofash wrote: »
    >Have you ever had one of those pizza parties where it's time to collect the money and it comes up short somehow? And everybody swears they put in their share, but somehow you're off several bucks and you don't have enough for the tip? Welcome to a small preview of what "voluntary taxes" would be like.

    That's the point, people wouldn't pay for things they don't want or don't use.

    You must have never been to a pizza party; because, let me tell you, we finished the fuck out of that pizza.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I like the assumption that the person shorting the pizza fund naturally "didn't want" or "didn't use" the pizza.

    Because it's never somebody who ate their share of the pizza, and is either broke or a dick.

    The comparison isn't good because government services are not pizza.

    So you're saying that if forcible taxation was replaced by voluntary subscription to services, no one would be either too poor to afford their share or too much of a dick to pay after using the service? If we use the example of sewage, the service providers must go ahead and do it anyway; not clearing out sewage leads to unsanitary conditions that hurt everyone.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    The value of a social organization cannot be cashed out in who's ass it can kick. This is seriously "my social system can beat up your system"

    I'm not sure what you mean by "value".

    But in terms of sustainability, with respect to self defense and the ability to persevere through conflict with external sources? I think that's the best rubric to use.

    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.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I have offered evidence where anarchism has worked in history.

    Your "evidence", as to ancient Canaan and England, appears to be complete horseshit.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
Sign In or Register to comment.