Anarchist Stuff

[guerilla]

I watched the video and I ordered the ebook just now.
Thanks for the tip!

Awesome to see you around after so many years old friend.

 

[Ar Scion]

You didn't actually answer any of my questions.

This presumes politics and social contract theory. I am asking you to explain those premises first.

What ethical obligations do we have now? Where did they come from?

I don't think you've yet proven that a social contract is a sensible notion. But, let's check this assertion about moral codes.

Why couldn't we "escape" them?

That's not the question though. How can I obligate myself?

Rational is simply, "means congruent with ends, as the means are able to be understood"

I am asking you why anything has to be an end, specifically, a "moral obligation".

That's an opinion. I am looking for the facts you base your opinion on.

So far, you've avoided saying anything substantive beyond assertion, abstraction and opinion. I am happy to keep going, but let's please try to make some real progress.

Your question was "If we don't know specifically where morality comes from, how can it create an obligation?"

I refrained from answering this question because it commits the genetic fallacy. It suggests that if we don't know the origin or source of morality, it ought not to create an obligation.

But we see that things work as they do regardless of whether we can explain their origins. A mango tastes just as sweet even if we don't know that mangoes come from trees.

Your real problem here seems to be the act of being obliged by what you perceive to be an external force. Am I right?



You also brought up some objections based on explicit consent. I thought they were valid objections insofar as contracts are concerned.

But social contracts are not merely about contracts. They are also shaped by natural limitations. Our given names are not consented to. The genetic data in your fertilized embryo you did not consent to. We do not consent to be born or to die (usually).

Contractual consent of this type is thus not a natural component of the human experience.

To see whether contractual consent is an essential component of humanity, we look at the state of nature. The state of nature is, at its most basic, the state of being outside of government. Thus it doesn't matter which social contract theory or political theory you subscribe to, if you subscribe to any.

Whatever you believe, you have the brute, objective, descriptive fact that there exists "the state of nature", where one can conceivably be wholly outside the rule of government.

Are we on the same page so far?

 

[guerilla]

I refrained from answering this question because it commits the genetic fallacy. It suggests that if we don't know the origin or source of morality, it ought not to create an obligation.

I am making the point that you cannot prove the origin of the obligation.

Your real problem here seems to be the act of being obliged by what you perceive to be an external force. Am I right?

You claim there is a moral obligation. If you believe this is true, prove it. Don't assert it, prove the obligation by fact and evidence.

But social contracts are not merely about contracts. They are also shaped by natural limitations. Our given names are not consented to. The genetic data in your fertilized embryo you did not consent to. We do not consent to be born or to die (usually).

Again, you're skipping the origin of the social contract, and going back (quite unsuccessfully I might add) to trying to justify a social contract.

Contractual consent of this type is thus not a natural component of the human experience.

Of what type?

To see whether contractual consent is an essential component of humanity, we look at the state of nature. The state of nature is, at its most basic, the state of being outside of government. Thus it doesn't matter which social contract theory or political theory you subscribe to, if you subscribe to any.

Whatever you believe, you have the brute, objective, descriptive fact that there exists "the state of nature", where one can conceivably be wholly outside the rule of government.

Are we on the same page so far?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I am concerned you are also having the same problem.



Can you explain the origin of a social contract and/or moral obligation, yes or no?

Can you tell me why I am subject to these contracts or obligations without my consent, yes or no?

If yes to either of the above, can you provide proof to substantiate your answer?


-

 

[Ar Scion]

The origin of a moral obligation is irrelevant to the question of its existence. If you want to know what I think are the three most popular explanations of the origin of morality go over my previous post in this thread.

If you are questioning the existence of moral obligations and want evidence for its existence, look at your very own posts on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. When a skeptic of moral obligations implies the existence of moral obligations thats some evidence.

I get the feeling you are looking for a specific answer and will play switcheroo if you get an answer you dont like. Confirmation bias.

Why not just come out and tell me what it is you believe? Are you skeptical of morality? Are you a moral nihilist?

 

[Ar Scion]

Just as an aside, Im not talking with you to try and prove you wrong or debate you or trick you into defining yoursekf into a self contradiction or anything of the sort.

I assume we are having a good faith discussion where we are both trying to do the same thing- find out whether there can be a sound rational foundation for Anarchy given whT we hold to be true.

 

[guerilla]

The origin of a moral obligation is irrelevant to the question of its existence.

I never claimed it was.

If you want to know what I think are the three most popular explanations of the origin of morality go over my previous post in this thread.

Those are opinions, not facts. I am interested in facts only pls.

If you are questioning the existence of moral obligations...

All I am asking you to do is to prove that moral obligations exist.

I get the feeling you are looking for a specific answer and will play switcheroo if you get an answer you dont like. Confirmation bias.

If what you believe is grounded in a reality I must accept as objective, than demonstrate that.

Why not just come out and tell me what it is you believe?

Because that is irrelevant to your claims about a social contract and moral obligations. Even if I was never born, you'd still have to support your beliefs with some sort of facts and evidence, would you not?

 

[guerilla]

I assume we are having a good faith discussion where we are both trying to do the same thing- find out whether there can be a sound rational foundation for Anarchy given whT we hold to be true.

This discussion won't go anywhere until you reduce your ideas to simple premises you can articulate and defend with facts and evidence.

Let me know when you want to talk about anarchy. I am always happy to do so.

 

[drave]

This discussion won't go anywhere until you reduce your ideas to simple premises you can articulate and defend with facts and evidence.

Let me know when you want to talk about anarchy. I am always happy to do so.

guerilla, i don't understand why you waste your mind on this forum. i'd understand a passing fancy, but 10k posts? arguing the same topics over & over again? how are you not bored out of your skull at repeatedly defending the same positions?

 

[knukk]

Awesome to see you around after so many years old friend.

Thanks. I'm glad to see that you're still around as well.

I have a public confession to make, and that is that I've been intellectually lazy about politics and morals for the last few years. You may recall that I was a limited government/laissez-faire supporter. I held strong believes in that system. Over the time my views have been diluted, and I've been careless enough to let the changes pass by. It's time to face my intellectual struggles.

I received my ebook from Marc Stevens, and here's the reply I gave to him (I've corrected a few spelling mistakes) which pretty much explains it:

Thanks.

I watched your video Marc Stevens: Delusions on Vimeo and ordered the book right after having finished the video.

There are extremely few people in Norway that would be open to challenging the idea of a state, rule of law, etc. Or, perhaps more precisely, there are extremely few people who think they are open to it - and more people that actually are open to it without knowing it. I guess that's the standing elsewhere. Norwegians are happy with that they often are labelled "the best country in the world", and noone is really challenging the accepted truths (there are a few people that do this, but they never have any media coverage, so they're practically non-exisiting).

I'm reading your book as part of an intellectual journey I'm travelling. I first won against obesity with philosophy. The turning point was when I asked myself what my mind's role was in my existence. The last few years I've had an intellectual struggle with myself, though. I originally have a background as a limited government laissez-faire supporter, which were thoughts I developed during senior high and my first few years at college. I was very much "satisfied" (I'm not sure if "satisfied" is the correct word to describe it) with the Objectivist views I held. The whole philosophical system was the most logical consistent system I had ever discovered.

As time passed by, and I don't know the cause of this, my views started to detoriate in the sense that I gradually accepted feelings and other arbitrary elements into my "ideology". As an example, I accepted the following thought: well, if police should be a function of government, and if a goal of government is to reduce criminal activity, and if certain welfare state functions such as social security etc can reduce certain criminal activity, then those welfare state functions are legitimate substitutes for police. Now, there are certain assumptions behind that line of argument that can be attacked, which is one of the things I'm currently working on. For example, I assume the presence of government and a state. Why do I do that? What is a "state", does it even exist and why do I support the idea of it? When asked by others or even myself why I support government, I've had the following reply: "because the alternative is anarchy". Now, that is true - but I never asked myself the question: what is really anarchy? And perhaps the primary question is: do I believe there is right and that there is wrong, and if so, what is right and what is wrong?

A few people realize that all laws by government are threats of violence. I've been aware of that presence of threat of violence for a long time now. Politics is in practise how one manages the monopoly of violence. That is a view most people are not aware of, in my experience. I have often used the violence argument in political discussions. For example, in this one online discussion about legalizing brothels, I pulled the violence card and said to my opponent that I didn't want to use violence against adults who wanted to practise voluntary sex. That put the discussion to an end quickly (he didn't accept my view, though). After I graduated from college last spring, I started working for the tax authorities which is my current employer. I was never a tax idealist, but I was offered a job in which I could do things that I enjoy, such as financial analysis. I was and I am fully aware that taxation and tax laws are violence and a threat thereof, but back then I held the proposition that "the alternative is anarchy" and that the ultimate goal would have to be to "minimize use of violence" (the irony, right? To enforce violence under the view that the use of violence should be minimized). Now, the irony in all of this is that while I've pulled the violence card on everyone else, I've never pulled it on myself by asking: "You think that threats of violence are wrong, but you support the government - an institution of violence. Why? Is that right?"

I've also started to question why I support laissez-faire in the first place. Yes, it was the most logically consistent system I had been exposed to a few years ago. But could it be that I support it because of THAT reason and not what is right and wrong? I.e. do I support it because my mind is really seeking for a logically consistent and morally sound system and all other systems I have been exposed to so far have been less consistent than laissez-faire/Objectivism?

What is certain is that the bloated/diluted politics and morals I've "supported" the last few years is just an illusion. It's nothing I sincerely believe in. I will go back to the roots of my philosophy and ideas, challenge them and seek for right and wrong. And I'm looking for a new job.

 

[Ar Scion]

I never claimed it was.


Those are opinions, not facts. I am interested in facts only pls.


All I am asking you to do is to prove that moral obligations exist.


If what you believe is grounded in a reality I must accept as objective, than demonstrate that.


Because that is irrelevant to your claims about a social contract and moral obligations. Even if I was never born, you'd still have to support your beliefs with some sort of facts and evidence, would you not?

Guerilla, I've answered these questions before. Go back and read the answers to your questions that I have already provided.

The new objection you have made that I haven't responded to:

Factually, the three most plausible explanations for the origin of morality are the ones provided to you. That's a factual fact of a factual nature, possessing an optimal level of factuality, being 100% fact.

Simply repeating your questions won't make this productive.

Take a step back and go over my posts. Look for answers to your other questions. Specifically the evidence for moral obligations' existence.

Now I'm going to repeat my questions that you haven't answered yet. Please answer them for my curiosity: Do you believe in the existence of morality? Are you a moral realist or an anti-realist? A moral objectivist or subjectivist? How do you define what is moral versus what is immoral?

These are fair questions, I think. Let's hear your answers to them.

 

[nomak]

Here's one of the best documentaries I've seen in a while, with professor Noam Chomsky, an anarchist that I'm sure some of you already know. It's pretty long but it's worth it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44"]Noam Chomsky Manufacturing Consent - YouTube[/ame]

 

[guerilla]

Factually, the three most plausible explanations for the origin of morality are the ones provided to you.

Those are opinions, and now you're trying to lend authority with "plausible".

Look, even if one was right, the other two must necessarily be wrong. So how can you say it is a fact?

And even assuming that one is right, which one is it? If it is a fact, then you should be able to say which one is objectively correct and be able to prove it.

The deeper problem here, is that you like many people, have never had to critically think. And it's hard if you can make it to adulthood without having developed the habits of logic and consistent reason.

It's tough. Like watching someone learn to walk again after having shattered their hips in an accident. That said, if you are unable to recognize that what you're saying is illogical and unsubstantiated, we're going to have a very hard time of making progress in this discussion.

Going forward, only say what you can prove or at the very least, provide some train of causality for.

Specifically the evidence for moral obligations' existence.

That is what I have been asking you to prove. The objective existence of moral obligations.

You haven't. You brought up a social contract. You haven't explained that either.

If you don't want to talk about these concepts, then withdraw them and we can move on.

That said, I am not going to answer personal questions because by doing so, this conversation becomes emotional, not rational. It is completely unproductive, and frankly I am disappointed that you keep trying to go there. It's very sloppy argumentation.

Now we've gone about a good half dozen posts, and you still haven't defined clearly what you started talking about.

If you're not able to, then let me know you want to drop it. If you can define them, do so.

If you persist in claiming things you can't prove, this conversation is over.

Let's skip the origin.

What is a moral obligation?

What is a social contract?

 

[Ar Scion]

Those are opinions, and now you're trying to lend authority with "plausible".

Look, even if one was right, the other two must necessarily be wrong. So how can you say it is a fact?

And even assuming that one is right, which one is it? If it is a fact, then you should be able to say which one is objectively correct and be able to prove it.

The deeper problem here, is that you like many people, have never had to critically think. And it's hard if you can make it to adulthood without having developed the habits of logic and consistent reason.

It's tough. Like watching someone learn to walk again after having shattered their hips in an accident. That said, if you are unable to recognize that what you're saying is illogical and unsubstantiated, we're going to have a very hard time of making progress in this discussion.

Going forward, only say what you can prove or at the very least, provide some train of causality for.

That is what I have been asking you to prove. The objective existence of moral obligations.

You haven't. You brought up a social contract. You haven't explained that either.

If you don't want to talk about these concepts, then withdraw them and we can move on.

That said, I am not going to answer personal questions because by doing so, this conversation becomes emotional, not rational. It is completely unproductive, and frankly I am disappointed that you keep trying to go there. It's very sloppy argumentation.

Now we've gone about a good half dozen posts, and you still haven't defined clearly what you started talking about.

If you're not able to, then let me know you want to drop it. If you can define them, do so.

If you persist in claiming things you can't prove, this conversation is over.

Let's skip the origin.

What is a moral obligation?

What is a social contract?

You made me laugh.

It took me a while, but I finally got it.

Holy shit, that was hilarious. You had me going for so long. Like three whole days.

I had to read your post like three times before I realized it.

Damn.

If you're wondering when I got tipped off, it was when I pointed out that your own posts on the Israel-Palestine issue reflected moral judgements, and implied a moral obligation on Israel that their government/people didn't meet, forcing you to conclude that moral obligations exist. And you totally ignored that and kept asking me to prove the existence of moral obligations.

That's what tipped me off. You made it too obvious, bro.

But that was good. Damn.

 

[guerilla]

Tipped off to what?

You come on strong, want to contest the validity of anarchism, claim we don't discuss rationally, but rather emotionally, then drop some arbitrary stuff about moral obligations and social contracts. When asked to explain them, you wiggle and avoid for several posts.

Now you claim to have figured something out and it's funny.

I'd love you to figure out what social contracts and moral obligations are and explain them to us. I'm sort of hoping you'll be able to start building a case for government, since you seem to favor it. We're all still waiting for you to start discussing in a rational, adult manner.

It's hard to take someone's thinking seriously when they won't communicate in good faith.

 

[guerilla]

how are you not bored out of your skull at repeatedly defending the same positions?

How is Kobe Bryant not bored practicing his free throws?

Read Chapter 14 - Conscious Schizophrenia

.

 

[guerilla]

If you're wondering when I got tipped off, it was when I pointed out that your own posts on the Israel-Palestine issue reflected moral judgements

I have never denied the existence of morality (or the absence of it).

and implied a moral obligation on Israel that their government/people didn't meet

Israel is a delusion. It has no moral obligation because moral obligations do not exist. Israel, as a delusion and an aggregation/abstraction is unable to act. Only individuals act.

forcing you to conclude that moral obligations exist.

They do not exist. You claim they do however, and I have been patiently waiting for you to prove it.

And for what seems like the 8th, or 9th post, you still have avoided doing so.

It makes you look pretty silly after you tried to call out other people as non-serious when discussing these topics.

And you totally ignored that and kept asking me to prove the existence of moral obligations.

Because you used the term, not me.

You've now resorted to finding ways to shift the discussion to some sleight of hand on my part. One which is wholly untrue.

And all because, either consciously or subconsciously, you know you cannot explain what a moral obligation is. That you really don't understand, or believe in the idea of a social contract.

I think before the next time you try to call other people out as not-serious, you might be wise to invest some time in exploring your own beliefs and ideas, because what you've done in this thread would be embarrassing to any man who claims to be a critical thinker.

 

[emp]

Guerilla - read up on the "biological leash" if you want to know about the source and reason for several of our ethics and moral standards.

::emp::

 

[Ar Scion]

Tipped off to what?

You come on strong, want to contest the validity of anarchism, claim we don't discuss rationally, but rather emotionally, then drop some arbitrary stuff about moral obligations and social contracts. When asked to explain them, you wiggle and avoid for several posts.

Now you claim to have figured something out and it's funny.

I'd love you to figure out what social contracts and moral obligations are and explain them to us. I'm sort of hoping you'll be able to start building a case for government, since you seem to favor it. We're all still waiting for you to start discussing in a rational, adult manner.

It's hard to take someone's thinking seriously when they won't communicate in good faith.

Now I see what's up. You took it personally, as if I was attacking your belief system. I wasn't. Let me lay out my position:

-I'm not beefing about rationality of anarchism. Anarchism could possibly be the most sound philosophical position in all of political philosophy. I'm open to it. Heck Edward Feser (Author: Edward-Feser) is my favorite political philosopher right now and he's about as close to anarchism as philosophers get without "kooking out".

-My beef is with the specific video and the spokespeople for anarchism that I came across. They took for granted the premise that government is necessarily evil, or some variation thereof. I don't buy this premise yet. It's not an intuitively obvious truth. This in itself is going to make some people rage. "How dare you see some conceivable positive outcomes of government, you white devil!" Well screw you too. My problem is not with the people or the position. It's with the premise that I think is not sufficiently supported.

-I'm also wondering how anarchism disposes of social contracts and how moral obligations are restructured. It's my impression that in order for anarchism to be able to coexist with morality as we know it, it needs to be restructured, at least according to my understanding.

I don't see this as an attack on you or your anarchism. So let's get over the beef. I'm sick of all the defensiveness.

I see myself as doing you a favor here.

 

[hehejo]

-My beef is with the specific video and the spokespeople for anarchism that I came across. They took for granted the premise that government is necessarily evil, or some variation thereof. I don't buy this premise yet. It's not an intuitively obvious truth. This in itself is going to make some people rage. "How dare you see some conceivable positive outcomes of government, you white devil!" Well screw you too. My problem is not with the people or the position. It's with the premise that I think is not sufficiently supported.

Government is evil because it initiates aggression against people. What it actually does with the money that it stole does not change that fact that it is evil. Government is evil by definition.

It sounds like you think that the end justifies the means. Anarchists don't agree with that.

So if you want to argue about anything, I would start at the question if the end justifies the means.

 

[guerilla]

Now I see what's up. You took it personally, as if I was attacking your belief system. I wasn't.

I haven't taken anything personally except for the fact you're shitting up my thread and wasting my time.

-I'm not beefing about rationality of anarchism. Anarchism could possibly be the most sound philosophical position in all of political philosophy.

Anarchism is the absence of politics.

Heck Edward Feser

Has to be one of the worst philosophy hacks ever.

-My beef is with the specific video and the spokespeople for anarchism that I came across.

I don't think anyone cares to defend that particular work. This thread is about the idea of anarchism, specifically as a resource for interested parties.

-I'm also wondering how anarchism disposes of social contracts and how moral obligations are restructured.

Since you can't define these terms (I will assume because you're ignorant, not dishonest), you should stop using them if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I don't see this as an attack on you or your anarchism. So let's get over the beef. I'm sick of all the defensiveness.

I am not being defensive. I want to discuss anarchism with honest intelligent people. My beef is that you're shitting up something I have put a lot of work in to.

I see myself as doing you a favor here.

This doesn't surprise me since you've made a strong case that you're delusional.