Anarchist Stuff

[REIMktg]

What do the AnCaps say to the following:

1. No Man is consistently good.
2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term.
3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.

 

[Napolean]

1. No Man is consistently good.

Lets empower a few men to rule over all.

2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term.

Lets delegate all important decisions to a few men with little experience in the matters they find long term solutions for.

3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.

And that mechanism will be run by men, and we will arm those men.

The response to all three of these is, no one man knows what is best for all living and all future men. The only man who knows what is best for himself, is himself. The only reasonable conclusion to this is, the only person who has the credentials to make a decision to better ones life is yourself.

 

[guerilla]

I'm not sure of the point you're making here, to be honest. Could you elaborate a bit further?

As I understood it, you were saying to manipulate the political process.

My point was that doing that will taint any man.

Immortal. And to clarify, I am right in saying you meant your original quote in a sense of "will live forever" rather than "not being mortal"? 99% sure you meant the first one, but just wanted to double-check.

That was totally my mistake. I meant immorality. Stupid typo. Sorry.

What do the AnCaps say to the following:

1. No Man is consistently good.
2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term.
3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.

Napoleon's answer is great, but I think I can add a little.

1. This is why we dare not give any man, or small group of men control over all men. Regardless of the process by which we choose them, if you believe man is flawed, then putting men in charge of other men is just a compound error.

Not to mention, it's silly to think that flawed people can elect their keepers.

2. I use rational in the praxeological sense. Most people do not. They use rational as a proxy for "objectively correct".

There is no such thing as "objectively correct" behavior in the sense that man's knowledge is always imperfect, and all values (we hold) are subjective.

Then there is the economic argument. Short and long term horizons, or high and low time preferences should and do reflect the environment of the moment. They aren't fixed. A man's perspective has to change based on what is happening, rather than stay in one mode regardless of circumstances.

3. You can't protect (absolute surety) man from himself. You can only try to build a system to protect men from other men. That system is the market.

As soon as you assume control for your brother as his keeper, you've taken away his freedom. What starts off as a good intention, ends up being very malicious. I like Jesus' take. He tolerated everyone, even those who did not believe in him, his morals, etc.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Indeed. Which is why I continue to stay in the realm of ideas, not in the realm of [sic] solutions.

You'll notice many people don't want to address ideas, and prefer to make appeals to "solutions".

First, you seem to imply people seeking solutions to existing problems is a bad thing.

Regardless, then I have to ask, why do you strongly advocate destroying 5000 years of progress on the concept of government, when you yourself have basically acknowledged that anarchy only exists within the realm of ideas, and real-world application of it in modern day society would fail?

 

[guerilla]

First, you seem to imply people seeking solutions to existing problems is a bad thing.

Not all solutions are equal. Not all ways of finding solutions are equal.

Being fixated on the solution, but not the method, or the consequences to others, is problematic for obvious reasons. This is how people reach conclusions like, Jews caused the economic problems in Germany so we should annhilate their race. That was ironically called, "The Final Solution".

Regardless, then I have to ask, why do you strongly advocate destroying 5000 years of progress on the concept of government

That's like someone saying that abolitionists were trying to destroy 5,000 years of economic progress through the concept of slavery.

when you yourself have basically acknowledged that anarchy only exists within the realm of ideas

I never said it only exists within the realm of ideas, it requires the realm of ideas to become the dominant paradigm.

Violence doesn't require ideas. It only requires fear.

Animals organize packs through violence. We're capable of better.

and real-world application of it in modern day society would fail?

Anarchistic relationships happen all around us, all the time. For some reason, what I call "exception making", we rationalize the government as a necessary exception to the basic social rules most of us obey instinctively.

I can't kill, but if I put on a government uniform, I can. That's an exception to the rule, "don't kill"

I can't take your money from you, but if I put on a government uniform, I can. That's an exception to the rule, "do not steal".

Why do these exceptions exist? Why can government do things I can't do, if government is supposedly an expression of my will?

You might say, it's some abstract and arbitrary (you wouldn't say that, but it's what you would be arguing) "collective will".

But then you would be saying it is wrong for one man to murder, but ok for many men to murder.

Which also doesn't really make much sense.

To remind you, the burden of proof for government is on you, not me. I only have to defend a system of non-aggression as economically and morally superior, which I am happy to do any time.

Also, I've ignored your last 5 or so posts, but I was curious to see what this one was about, so you get a reply. Don't expect it to be a habit, you just repeat yourself over and over, and it's very unproductive.

 

[Moxie]

the crisis in Argentina a few years back

"Argentina's many years of military dictatorship (alternating with weak, short-lived democratic governments) have caused significant economic problems."


So government was steering the ship, government helped decide how many lifeboats to have on that ship, it ran into an iceberg, people got violent over lifeboats, government couldn't stop much of that violence, but that is why government has to be in control of all boats on planet earth?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

So government was steering the ship, government helped decide how many lifeboats to have on that ship, it ran into an iceberg, people got violent over lifeboats, government couldn't stop much of that violence, but that is why government has to be in control of all boats on planet earth?

 

[REIMktg]

What do the AnCaps say to the following:

1. No Man is consistently good.
2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term
3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.

I edited the quote below to give relation to the quote above and responses below.

1. Lets empower a few men to rule over all.
2. Lets delegate all important decisions to a few men with little experience in the matters they find long term solutions for.
3. And that mechanism will be run by men, and we will arm those men.

a) The response to all three of these is, no one man knows what is best for all living and all future men. b)The only man who knows what is best for himself, is himself. c)The only reasonable conclusion to this is, the only person who has the credentials to make a decision to better ones life is yourself.

1. Are we then in agreement that “No Man is consistently good?” or do we need to define “good”?
2. The is hardly a serious answer and implies not only poor selection but also a gross generality that I am surprised was looked at as serious. Had I said such a thing I would have been chastised.
3. Statist and AnCap systems both have armed men chosen by Men who are not good. Assuming we agree to #1. Both systems have Men who are authorized to violate others in the enforcement of their respective systems.. Is that even under debate? Because it is a clear fact within both systems.

a) Who would make that claim? I have not.
b) This statement is clearly wrong. Do you really believe this? You can argue for Free Market Sovereignty, but you cannot say that Man always knows what is best for himself. Not only that, you cannot say that Man acts in a way that is consistent with what even believes is best for Himself.
c) The premises are not valid. The conclusion is not either. You can argue that Man is Sovereign and therefore can make His own decisions, but you cannot say he “knows” nor will “act” in a way to “better” Himself, unless you define “better” as relative and inclusive of advancement toward an end that many would consider “worse”.

I edited only to try to make easier to follow.
1. This is why we dare not give any man, or small group of men control over all men. Regardless of the process by which we choose them, if you believe man is flawed, then putting men in charge of other men is just a compound error.
Not to mention, it's silly to think that flawed people can elect their keepers.

2. I use rational in the praxeological sense. Most people do not. They use rational as a proxy for "objectively correct". There is no such thing as "objectively correct" behavior in the sense that man's knowledge is always imperfect, and all values (we hold) are subjective.
…...edited out.....

3. You can't protect (absolute surety) man from himself. You can only try to build a system to protect men from other men. That system is the market.

a) As soon as you assume control for your brother as his keeper, you've taken away his freedom. b) What starts off as a good intention, ends up being very malicious. c) I like Jesus' take. He tolerated everyone, even those who did not believe in him, his morals, etc.

1. I disagree, but I want to save that clarification for the progression of this line of thought. For now, are we in agreement that Man is not good?
2. I too was using it in the praxeological sense and I agree that the definition of “rational” is relative especially if Man is Sovereign. Are we in agreement with my second statement?
3. While you cannot provide absolute surety, you can protect Man against many actions should those actions be under duress, distress, or from a poor decision something not within AnCap.

a) You are correct, but I am moving toward the idea that absolute freedom is not the ideal.
b) First, this is a logical conclusion that you may find obvious, but once again you would not allow me to get away with it.
c) I am doing my best to leave religion out of this. Jesus tolerated everyones' intentional Sovereign decisions to be separate from God. When I say say Sovereign in the religious sense it should be understood appropriately. When man derives morality from himself he is separating Himself from God. But that is for a different thread.

 

[pfgannon]

On human nature:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCsbudHoWw]Genes, Nature, Nurture and The Freedom of Self-Knowledge (HD) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[-joe-]

As I understood it, you were saying to manipulate the political process.

My point was that doing that will taint any man.

Depends. How do you define the political process? The political process in the majority of countries is for candidates to spread their views, and then people vote on who they want in power. In this system, there would be one "candidate", who would be stating the benefits and negatives of anarchy, people would be totally free to consider any further negatives or positives, and then they'd vote on whether they wanted the system changed. If they didn't, then a full statist election could go ahead.

That was totally my mistake. I meant immorality. Stupid typo. Sorry.

Ah, got it. Wasn't sure if that was what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. In which case, it would be up to the new, possibly temporary "king" to be moral; and to convince the people of his/her morality. Someone with that kind of wealth would most likely be used to power, although obviously not on that scale. Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?

 

[pfgannon]

Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?

Nobody would be able to handle power on that scale. You'd have to sell your soul to even get into such a position to begin with.

Who would be in charge of this electoral process? Things get very messy very fast when you start heading down this path.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a free society, and let people choose to be ruled in a decentralized fashion, if they so choose?

 

[kingofsp]

Ah, got it. Wasn't sure if that was what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. In which case, it would be up to the new, possibly temporary "king" to be moral; and to convince the people of his/her morality. Someone with that kind of wealth would most likely be used to power, although obviously not on that scale. Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?

Without initiating force to enforce his bidding, the king would not have any power. Without the threat of violence, the people wouldn't necessarily be inclined to pay taxes or live by whatever the king's rules are, and the king would more or less be useless. Someone has to provide for the chicks that feed him grapes, after all.

 

[-joe-]

Nobody would be able to handle power on that scale. You'd have to sell your soul to even get into such a position to begin with.

Who would be in charge of this electoral process? Things get very messy very fast when you start heading down this path.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a free society, and let people choose to be ruled in a decentralized fashion, if they so choose?

Until Anarchy comes in (or doesn't) - you, you can employ people. And yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, but without the need for some violent revolution or anything.

Without initiating force to enforce his bidding, the king would not have any power. Without the threat of violence, the people wouldn't necessarily be inclined to pay taxes or live by whatever the king's rules are, and the king would more or less be useless. Someone has to provide for the chicks that feed him grapes, after all.

I'm not suggesting levying taxes, setting rules, etc. (at least not new ones) It would be a full Statist system until the vote has been cast, and once it had been, the government would be dissolved (although the "king" would still be the one to organise the voting as to whether to keep anarchy, "5" years later (I put that in quotes because it's a random number I plucked out of thin air before) - if the people vote for anarchy to stay, fine, you step down from power. If not, then you can have a go at staying in power and helping the island back to the old system, but since it's a $10m island (I'm not suggesting this for anyone under the $100m wealth bracket, at the bare minimum) if you're in danger for your life by returning, then you class the experiment as a failure.

 

[Kosher]

fuck that arab cunt obama. Romney all the way

 

[guerilla]

1. I disagree, but I want to save that clarification for the progression of this line of thought.

I don't see how you can disagree without providing a lot more information to support your claim.

It's a non sequitur to go, "man is not good, therefore government". I could just as easily say, "man is not good, therefore no government".

These are assertions. They need to be substantiated.

For now, are we in agreement that Man is not good?

You really need to break that down. Good is a very value laden term. It means all sorts of things, and in all sorts of different ways, to different people.

If you mean original sin, then no, I don't believe that.

2. I too was using it in the praxeological sense and I agree that the definition of “rational” is relative especially if Man is Sovereign. Are we in agreement with my second statement?

I don't think you were using it in the praxeological sense, because man is always rational in praxeology (unless he is suffering some mental derangement or affliction).

It has nothing to do with sovereignty.

I agree with your statement, but again, it implies a value. Long term thinking is irrational when faced with short term crisis or opportunity. What you're basically saying is, "man can adapt", and I agree and I believe and he should do so.

3. While you cannot provide absolute surety, you can protect Man against many actions should those actions be under duress, distress, or from a poor decision something not within AnCap.

It's irrational to do so.

Since we can't actually make it work in any objective sense, the next question is, what moral authority does one man have to direct the life of another man? What cause and justification?

a) You are correct, but I am moving toward the idea that absolute freedom is not the ideal.

Performative contradiction. Without absolute freedom, you don't have the freedom to reject absolute freedom.

Be careful what you move towards. It sounds like you're still trying to confirm your pre-existing bias than to break it down and justify it.

b) First, this is a logical conclusion that you may find obvious, but once again you would not allow me to get away with it.

It wasn't a statement of fact. It was an observation. What we see, and what is real, are not always the same thing because there is a gap between our ability to perceive and process, and the nature of reality.

That's WHY we use logic. To make sure our observations are not arbitrary, but at the least, are congruent with one another.

c) I am doing my best to leave religion out of this. Jesus tolerated everyones' intentional Sovereign decisions to be separate from God. When I say say Sovereign in the religious sense it should be understood appropriately. When man derives morality from himself he is separating Himself from God. But that is for a different thread.

Don't leave religion out. Those are your values. I have values. We shouldn't be afraid to square our ideas with our values. If we are, then there is something very wrong with either our values, our ideas or both.

Jesus was very tolerant. He kept the company of people who did not believe as he did. He did not try to use force to get anyone to act any way.

Jesus believed in free will. Christians, by extension, should also respect free will IMO.

 

[guerilla]

Depends. How do you define the political process? The political process in the majority of countries is for candidates to spread their views, and then people vote on who they want in power. In this system, there would be one "candidate", who would be stating the benefits and negatives of anarchy, people would be totally free to consider any further negatives or positives, and then they'd vote on whether they wanted the system changed. If they didn't, then a full statist election could go ahead.

The system doesn't change by voting though. Anarchism shouldn't be dependent on a majority vote.

If people want to be anarchists, they should be allowed to be anarchists. They don't need to engage in a process of permissioning themselves.

That's sort of like you taking a vote before you decide what to eat. You're the only voter who matters!

I am ok with people running for office as anarchists, but they will get as much traction as a nun in a whorehouse. The failing of Ron Paul is that he actually got elected, and so to maintain his platform, he had to make small compromises that the system forced him to make, but he wouldn't have had to make if he had been outside the system.

Ah, got it. Wasn't sure if that was what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. In which case, it would be up to the new, possibly temporary "king" to be moral; and to convince the people of his/her morality.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but why would we need a temporary king? If you get anarchism and you want to live that way, just do it. You shouldn't need to engage in the delusion of having a faux government.

This is why minarchists are actually worse than marxists. They refuse to address the fundamental error in establishing a state, instead thinking that if they fiddle around the margins and with the size, they can make something wrong, right.

Marxists on the other hand hate everything political, but they think that they have to exploit politics to destroy it.

A lot of libertarians are former Marxists who come to realize you don't have to destroy politics to get rid of it. You just have to reject it outright.

Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?

This is sort of like a liar who believes in telling the truth. lol

No man can handle power on that scale, which is precisely why government is irrational (unless your ends are to dominate, hurt and loot people)

 

[Napolean]

1. Are we then in agreement that “No Man is consistently good?” or do we need to define “good”?

We are not in agreement and we do not need to define "good", only because neither or us could possibly make such an assertion with absolute certainty.

There could be thousands or millions of perfectly good men who were never written about in history. A single person doing good throughout their lives doesn't automatically change the world, and is a lot less likely to be noticed than a person who has only done one wrong thing in their life.

2. The is hardly a serious answer and implies not only poor selection but also a gross generality that I am surprised was looked at as serious. Had I said such a thing I would have been chastised.

No, it is a serious answer.

If I am reading your response correctly, then you are saying that I am wrong to assume that the wrong people would be chosen for appropriate long term planning. If this is what you meant, can you show me where my scenario is not a rampant problem with today's policy makers?

3. Statist and AnCap systems both have armed men chosen by Men who are not good. Assuming we agree to #1. Both systems have Men who are authorized to violate others in the enforcement of their respective systems.. Is that even under debate? Because it is a clear fact within both systems.

Statist systems have armed men who have only one purpose, which is to violate others, whether they consent or not. In a voluntary society you get what you dish out in terms of violence. If you don't initiate aggression against others, then you will not be dealing with aggression, except in the case of self-defense.

a) Who would make that claim? I have not.

Was your post not a criticism of AnCap/Voluntarism/Anarchism?

If everyone agreed that no man knew what was best for all living and future men, then nobody would find a constitution necessary, nobody would find government necessary.

b) This statement is clearly wrong. Do you really believe this? You can argue for Free Market Sovereignty, but you cannot say that Man always knows what is best for himself. Not only that, you cannot say that Man acts in a way that is consistent with what even believes is best for Himself.

I'd rather make my own mistakes, then let someone else make my mistakes for me. At least I have an idea of how to fix my mistakes when I make them.

It's human nature to test the boundaries of what you should do, and what you should not do. When you continuously do the wrong thing for yourself, we actually have biological mechanisms in place that alert us to this (anxiety). When that pressure becomes too great, we are compelled to change our actions for the better.

When you leave it to somebody else to solve your problems, they still have these same boundaries but in respect to what is best for you, when they know they are doing the wrong thing for you, they at best feel guilt. Guilt alone is not enough pressure to alter actions to improve somebody else's situation. They don't feel anxiety until they have ruined enough lives to put their own job in jeopardy.

c) The premises are not valid. The conclusion is not either. You can argue that Man is Sovereign and therefore can make His own decisions, but you cannot say he “knows” nor will “act” in a way to “better” Himself, unless you define “better” as relative and inclusive of advancement toward an end that many would consider “worse”.

I can argue that man is sovereign and that alone would be valid, but that wasn't my argument. My argument is everything you have presented falls into circular logic that should immediately show you that your thinking is flawed.

 

[p0ck3taces]

No, I addressed your security concerns. I pointed the implicit things you have to buy in to, in order to satisfy your need for infinite security.

Also, ethics are important, because that's what separates us from animals. If you can't have an ethical discussion with me, you're yielding the high ground. You're basically admitting, that I can't treat you with, or expect, rational behavior from you.

That's a pretty huge deal.

Am I?

Living purely by ethics = living rationally?

All of you guys arguing that ethics aren't a primary concern, then what your position means is

* There is no right and wrong (ex. anything we do for security is implicitly right, such as rationalizing the shoving of Jews into ovens as security for the Aryan race)
* There is no concept of humanity (man is just an animal, the strongest animal, but an animal just the same)
* There is no possibility for good behavior based on values, only violence (we're fundamentally incapable of getting along in the absence of violence, and all of our peaceful relationships are only the result of violence. Our wives and children love us because they know we will kick their ass if they don't)

Life really works like this? In complete absolutes?

Or does it work more like balancing a scale and choosing the lesser of two evils?

Were the statists not eventually spurred to action from the horrors they saw? But surely statists did not understand right or wrong since they were willing to live under the state?

Without values and first principles, "man" is no different than an animal.

You're welcome to disagree. I'd love to hear what makes a man a man, rather than an animal in your opinion.

Really? Interesting. So man developed "values" and this is what set him apart from animals?

I thought the simple difference was consciousness, anything past that is purely speculation.

Why would he need to require his own people to do anything?

What kind of threats would he have to make to get his people to fight, that weren't already presented by the invading force?

Take a second and look what happened to the indians. Their tribes were picked off one by one. People have a tendency to care locally.

Their logic follows "to protect us from outside threats we must have inside threats", and its insane that they don't see there isn't a difference between either.

Again, do we live in absolutes or do we decide based on a scale?

People currently see the threats from inside the state as less threatening then the threats from outside the state, simple as that.

So again, if you don't like my posts, don't read my fucking thread. We, and the world around us, will get on just fine without you.

Like I said, playing the devils advocate to attack your tact.

It's fun to argue with absolutes, but is that how humans make decisions?

Should it be?

Guerilla, you seem to be stating choosing to live purely by ethical values is living rationally, anything else is irrational behavior.

You currently live in the state and therefore support the state. Your ethics tell you this is wrong. What keeps you here? Is it irrational behavior that keeps you here? OR are you here because you have weighed your options rationally and decided even though you do not agree with the laws forced upon you by the state, it is not plausible or advantageous for you to live outside the state?

Did you not make ethics a secondary concern when making this decision?

Was your decision then irrational because of this?

Which brings me to why I argued to have you focus more on people's issues with security (or focusing on whatever people's issues may be). If we agree people make decisions based off choosing the lesser of two evils in a given situation, rather then absolutes, then we must attack what makes our side of the scale lower in the eyes of those we wish to influence - whatever this may be for whoever we may wish to influence.

 

[p0ck3taces]

Just like it would be a waste of time for me to argue ethics with you (guerilla) in trying to influence you to leave the US and stop supporting the state (as you obviously already intimately know the ethics behind the decision you're making and have decided based on other reasons) - so it is a waste of time for you to argue ethics to anyone else who this isn't their prime concern/reason.

If ethics isn't even a primary concern for you, how can you expect it to be the primary concern held by others?

I believe many here are able to easily see ethics as a pro on the anarchy's side of the scale - it's what's on the state's side of the scale you must focus on (whatever that might be for whoever you are talking to).

 

[Napolean]

You currently live in the state and therefore support the state. Your ethics tell you this is wrong. What keeps you here?

Gravity.