Anarchist Stuff

[Ar Scion]

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

Anarchism is the absence of politics.

Has to be one of the worst philosophy hacks ever.

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.

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 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.

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

Got it. My mistake was asking skeptical questions in this thread.

Nigga I didn't know this thread was your pet project. If you didn't want me to be skeptical in here all you had to do was send me a PM. "Yo let's have this discussion outside of the thread, I'm keeping the thread clean for my anarchist homeboys."

I'll send you a PM.

 

[dreamache]

-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.

Anarchism has several definitions, but I believe the one most used and referred to is the absence of rulers. That's why a lot of people attach -capitalism to it (anarcho-capitalism), or instead of calling themselves anarchists, some refer to themselves as voluntaryists.

Reason being, in the case of anarcho-capitalism, the "-capitalism" is an additional stipulation of a respect for property rights, including self ownership.

So in terms of "moral obligations", the only moral obligation a person has is to not initiate force against others in any manner, in an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society.

Unfortunately it's not something that can be achieved over night, or soon, because too many people have been propagandized into believing the state is necessary, which is a justification of the initiation of force to solve problems, since that is what the state is. So the movement towards a stateless/free/voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist society is multi-generational, and it starts with parenting our children with non-aggression in mind on every level. So if a new generation can be ushered in where violence to solve problems is absent in their vocabulary, and hierarchical authority isn't in their vocabulary, the existence of the state becomes threatened more and more.

 

[guerilla]

Got it. My mistake was asking skeptical questions in this thread.

We've had plenty of people question anarchism in this thread, and while that's not its purpose, I have humored them as I have humored you for many posts now.

Your mistake was not defining your terms, and persisting to use them without a definition.

It's just a big waste of time, and I am not interested in you carrying on the same way by PM either.

 

[JakeStratham]

Got it. My mistake was asking skeptical questions in this thread.

Nigga I didn't know this thread was your pet project. If you didn't want me to be skeptical in here all you had to do was send me a PM. "Yo let's have this discussion outside of the thread, I'm keeping the thread clean for my anarchist homeboys."

Nothing in guerilla's posts have suggested to me that he was trying to discourage skeptical questions. On the contrary, he seems to be encouraging you to participate in an honest dialogue that fleshes out ideas. Such a dialogue can be an instrument of education for others, now and down the road.

 

[Ar Scion]

Anarchism has several definitions, but I believe the one most used and referred to is the absence of rulers. That's why a lot of people attach -capitalism to it (anarcho-capitalism), or instead of calling themselves anarchists, some refer to themselves as voluntaryists.

Reason being, in the case of anarcho-capitalism, the "-capitalism" is an additional stipulation of a respect for property rights, including self ownership.

So in terms of "moral obligations", the only moral obligation a person has is to not initiate force against others in any manner, in an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society.

Unfortunately it's not something that can be achieved over night, or soon, because too many people have been propagandized into believing the state is necessary, which is a justification of the initiation of force to solve problems, since that is what the state is. So the movement towards a stateless/free/voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist society is multi-generational, and it starts with parenting our children with non-aggression in mind on every level. So if a new generation can be ushered in where violence to solve problems is absent in their vocabulary, and hierarchical authority isn't in their vocabulary, the existence of the state becomes threatened more and more.

This makes sense.

But the moral obligation you list is a purely economic one, is it not?

Can we take the example from an abstract to a concrete example? Say we had an anarchist society. Practically, we would expect that rapes, murders, robberies and other morally relevant acts to occur in it. Does force have a role to play in regulating these acts?

 

[guerilla]

So in terms of "moral obligations", the only moral obligation a person has is to not initiate force against others in any manner, in an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society.

It's not a moral obligation though. That is a very value laden term that no one wants to define explicitly.

You can't be an ancap or voluntarist if you don't accept the idea of universal ethics. That ethics are applicable to both you and to others (regardless of what the ethics are).

In this sense, the only obligation is to ideal (consistency). Which is what we'd expect from anyone trying to act rationally, rather than arbitrarily.

"Moral obligation" implies some agreement, obligation or command was issued by/with another party. For example, God creates a moral obligation (he doesn't, Abrahamic God is for free will) not to kill. He can ostensibly do this by command because he is above man. Thou shalt not kill in this context isn't because it is a universal ethic men should practice among themselves for the sake of consistency (rationality), but because God will punish them or deny them heaven if they do not do so.

This is why I was being such a stickler about these terms Ar Scion was using. They don't mean what we want to use them casually for in discussion. And less-than-precise language doesn't benefit our cause either.

Social contract is another such term. None of us have contracted socially with a collective society. Lysander Spooner does a great job of exposing that lie. But people use the term to describe some sort of obligation individuals have to others as a formal agreement with consequences when not followed thru upon.

Again, slippery notion to allow into a discussion about Voluntarism.

 

[guerilla]

But the moral obligation you list is a purely economic one, is it not?

How so?

This is why first premises and principles are essential.

Who owns your body? Who owns mine?

 

[Ar Scion]

It's not a moral obligation though. That is a very value laden term that no one wants to define explicitly.

You can't be an ancap or voluntarist if you don't accept the idea of universal ethics. That ethics are applicable to both you and to others (regardless of what the ethics are).

In this sense, the only obligation is to ideal (consistency). Which is what we'd expect from anyone trying to act rationally, rather than arbitrarily.

"Moral obligation" implies some agreement, obligation or command was issued by/with another party. For example, God creates a moral obligation (he doesn't, Abrahamic God is for free will) not to kill. He can ostensibly do this by command because he is above man. Thou shalt not kill in this context isn't because it is a universal ethic men should practice among themselves for the sake of consistency (rationality), but because God will punish them or deny them heaven if they do not do so.

This is why I was being such a stickler about these terms Ar Scion was using. They don't mean what we want to use them casually for in discussion. And less-than-precise language doesn't benefit our cause either.

Social contract is another such term. None of us have contracted socially with a collective society. Lysander Spooner does a great job of exposing that lie. But people use the term to describe some sort of obligation individuals have to others as a formal agreement with consequences when not followed thru upon.

Again, slippery notion to allow into a discussion about Voluntarism.

How do you know that it's not a moral obligation if you don't know what moral obligations are?

Don't be a child. I gave you a definition already. Fuckin read already. http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/166275-anarchist-stuff-6.html#post1923278

Moral obligations are a by-product of moral codes. If you believe morality exists, then you have something that you "ought to do". This is a moral obligation. "Because I believe it is morally wrong to cheat on my girlfriend, I have a moral obligation not to fuck Drunkslut McVag."

Before you ask "What is a moral code, I've defined that too. Read the fuckin post already.

You're a smart guy. Why do you fumble this shit?

 

[guerilla]

How do you know that it's not a moral obligation if you don't know what moral obligations are?

I know what you mean by a moral obligation. It's a nonsense idea, and you have done nothing to prove otherwise.

Don't be a child.

I am not the one using terms I won't define.

Moral obligations are a by-product of moral codes.

Where does the obligation come from?

If you believe morality exists, then you have something that you "ought to do".

I believe apples exist, does that mean I have to eat them?

Please try to make better arguments.

You're a smart guy. Why do you fumble this shit?

I like that you acknowledge that I am smart, and then assume I am making a dumb mistake.

 

[Ar Scion]

I know what you mean by a moral obligation. It's a nonsense idea, and you have done nothing to prove otherwise.


I am not the one using terms I won't define.


Where does the obligation come from?


I believe apples exist, does that mean I have to eat them?

Please try to make better arguments.


I like that you acknowledge that I am smart, and then assume I am making a dumb mistake.

I sent you a PM. You're much better in PMs.

 

[emp]

Fuck me, arguing with peasant again

Oh man...

I know I wanted to stop arguing with intellectual peasants, but you are just rubbing me the wrong way. (and I got some time to kill this morning)

First, let's go for some meta-discussion, as to what is bugging me about the type of arguing going on here from you, guerilla.

• Ignoring people and arguments
  You love doing this, especially when the thread gets a bit heated.
  Hoping stuff gets forgotten behind your walls of text.
  And it actually works a lot of the time. Congratulations.
  
• Hiding behind pseudo intellectualism
  "You need to define X" (where x = arbitrary word).
  Seriously, if this is that important to you that you are completely unable to go on with a discussion before defining a term, then FUCKING. DO. IT.
  Stop hiding.
  But yeah, that would also expose your definitions to criticism and (more likely) ridicule.
  
• Ad hominem attacks
  You are trying to introduce a political philosophy here.
  If you want to have the higher ground, attacking people on personal notes will not help your cause.
• Hiding behind author X and political philosopher Y
  I don't care what books you have read or which books you think I haven't read. Anyone I am arguing with will have read thousands of books so I just take this as a given. Simply put - I am not interested in what author X has to say in his book. I am interested in what people take away from it, how some theory translates into every day problem solving, etc... spare me the hiding, already, I am not impressed that you read some ivory tower's professor's ramblings.

<sigh>

Now on to some questions:

• How do YOU define morals, moral obligations, ethics?
  As far as I can see, anarchism is a very utopian philosophy.
  The notion that no man will harm another is very, very noble.
  So where do these ethics find their source?
  
• How do you deal with mob rule?
  I am now living in Switzerland, an (almost) direct democracy.
  While it is nice that the people can decide on a lot of issues directly, rethorically strong opion makers and mob rule are a very real problem.
  (One example would be the minaret ruling last year --> Minaret controversy in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
  
• How do you include minorities and their opinions?
  How do you include minorities whose welfare might be indifferent (gays) or even harmful to the "greater good" (care for handicapped, harmful business practics)
  
• How do you deal with violence?
  If you look at human nature, absence of violence is indeed very utopian. So how to deal with it.
  
  If you don't want to talk about physical violence, consider verbal assaults, sexual harrassment, or aggressive business tactics.
  

So stop hiding!

You pretend to be a member of the enlightened elite, but in this battle of arguments, you seem to be utterly helpless top do anything but lash out at people and hide behind very weak rhetorics.

</rant>

::emp::

 

[guerilla]

I know I wanted to stop arguing with intellectual peasants

This ^^^ is a good example of misplaced arrogance.

Ignoring people and arguments

I quote bomb. It is very rare I avoid an argument, and not because the argument scares me, but usually because the party making the argument is an idiot.

[*]Hiding behind pseudo intellectualism

Definition of terms is the baseline for good debate. If you can't define what you're talking about, why should anyone waste their time talking to you?

[*]Ad hominem attacks

I don't make ad hominem attacks. I think you confuse insult with ad hominem. They aren't the same thing.

If I call you an idiot, that's an insult. Btw, you're an idiot.

If I say your argument is wrong because you're an idiot, that's ad hominem.

Hiding behind author X and political philosopher Y

Have I hid behind anyone? Source pls.

So stop hiding!

I have more posts than anyone on this forum. I have more posts on this topic than anyone else by many factors.

The notion I am hiding is stupid for you to suggest.

but in this battle of arguments, you seem to be utterly helpless top do anything but lash out at people and hide behind very weak rhetorics.

Be specific emp. What exactly was weak rhetoric?

You make these claims, but you offer no clarity, and you refuse to be precise.

That to me, is incredibly weak rhetoric. Indeed, your entire post is a personal attack on me, not a discussion of any of my posts or positions.

It makes you look like a very small man intellectually and emotionally.

At the end of the day, if you don't like my posts, put me on ignore. I'd put you on ignore, but we can't do that to mods.

But certainly don't shift the burden of your frustration and ignorance to me. If I wasn't here, you still wouldn't be able to grasp this topic.

That's on you.

At some point, you've got to stop pointing fingers and blaming other people for your shortcomings.

Be a man. Take responsibility for what you do and do not know, what you do and do not understand.

</rant>

lmao

 

[guerilla]

Now on to some questions:
As far as I can see, anarchism is a very utopian philosophy.

That's because you're ignorant about what anarchism is. Once you put in some effort to understanding Anarchism, you'd never make that claim.

Also, that's an opinion not a question. No one cares about your opinions afaict. Stick to questions.

So where do these ethics find their source?

Property rights. Universality.

How do you deal with mob rule?

Anarchism is not a democracy. Mob rule is a non-issue. Indeed, anarchism is "without rulers", remember?

How do you include minorities and their opinions?

Their opinions, like your opinions, are irrelevant. In a private property society, they don't need political power to live their lives they way they want to.

You're still thinking like a statist. Is that because you don't understand anarchism, or because you're unable to think outside the status quo?

How do you deal with violence?

Aggression is a crime. It depends on however people want to deal with it locally. It would probably be much more civilized than today, because the focus would be on restitution rather than punishment, and of course, there would be very little of the mass murder we see today in the world, simply because such scale would be nigh impossible to create.

If you don't want to talk about physical violence, consider verbal assaults, sexual harrassment, or aggressive business tactics.

What is the harm of a verbal assault?

What is the harm of aggressive business tactics?

It's depressing you would conflate these with physical violence, but then, you are a European, so perhaps not too surprising.

I am not going to answer more of these questions. Before you follow up or ask more questions (endlessly wasting my time with material that has been covered thousands of times before), read this article;

What Libertarianism Is - Stephan Kinsella - Mises Daily

Then apply that approach to these questions. The beauty of anarchy, is that everything flows from no riulers, no aggression. You don't need a conversation or a book to understand it, if you can reason for yourself. Let's hope you can reason for yourself.

 

[emp]

So...

Since when is a number of posts on a topic an indicator for good arguments?

And you still have not defined the terms you wanted so badly.

But let's quite some other things:

Anarchism is not a democracy. Mob rule is a non-issue. Indeed, anarchism is "without rulers", remember?

Err... I remember, but I do not agree. How will you deal with mob-rule. This can be as simple as 10 people wanting one thing, and one person wanting another (build a road, pave a forest, rape a woman...)

Property rights. Universality.

Sooo... where do property rights come from?

And yes, I do not believe in universal ethics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emp
How do you deal with violence?
Aggression is a crime. It depends

Who defines "crime" and punishment?

You are runnign in circles, man.
And if you want to call me a statist, then yes. I am. I do not believe that the current form of governments are ideal, but I do believe that government is needed.

::emp::

 

[emp]

.. and yeah, I guess, just ignore my questions.

a) you are never going to answer them anyways.
b) I am sick of your condescending attitude, oh enlightened one.
c) welcome to my ignore list

::emp::

 

[guerilla]

So...

Since when is a number of posts on a topic an indicator for good arguments?

I never claimed that. I simply said your opinion that I hide, considering that I have the most posts on this forum, is obviously bullshit.

And you still have not defined the terms you wanted so badly.

No, I have not. Because I was asking someone else to define their terms, not mine.

Err... I remember, but I do not agree.

Take it up with the ancient Greeks. Anarchism is from anarch, which is an-arch. Without (an) rulers (arch).

How will you deal with mob-rule. This can be as simple as 10 people wanting one thing, and one person wanting another (build a road, pave a forest, rape a woman...)

1. It's not up to me to deal with it. That's a "planner mentality". Very Soviet.

2. Is rape the same as building a road? If not, what is the distinction?

Sooo... where do property rights come from?

Did you read the article? Apparently not. That would have required effort and thinking. Not exactly your strong suit.

And yes, I do not believe in universal ethics.

Universality is essential for ethics, so you may as well say, you don't believe in ethics.

Who defines "crime" and punishment?

In what context?

You are runnign in circles, man.

Not at all. You're the one answering very basic questions.

I do not believe that the current form of governments are ideal, but I do believe that government is needed.

Can you explain why you believe government is needed?

 

[guerilla]

.. and yeah, I guess, just ignore my questions.

It's incredibly lazy for you to not follow the thread, not research the topic, and then try to call me out for not answering your pointless and arbitrary questions which have been answered thousands of times before.

No, I am not responsible for informing you. That's your job. As an adult, you're responsible for the development of your mind.

b) I am sick of your condescending attitude, oh enlightened one.

It must seem condescending when people won't support your ignorance. I wouldn't be happy feeling or looking dumb. I'd probably do some damn research before posting, and only try to ask smart questions.

For example, you won't see me shooting off my mouth about astrophysics, or media buying. These are areas of my ignorance.

I really don't know why people assume they are expert at any topic, just because they have formed an ad hoc opinion.

c) welcome to my ignore list

While I am happy you're ignoring my posts, that won't resolve the issue with your fundamental ignorance of this topic.

I suspect however, being ignorant isn't something that bothers you enough to do something about it.

 

[learningcurve]

As someone who likes, and gets along with both posters in this little frackar, I have to say that this thread has all of a sudden jumped the shark.

emp, what we have in place now is basically mob rule. We have parties representing particular interest groups, in most cases serious lobbyists and financial institutions which want nothing more than to maintain the status quo, relevant to their own interests and requirements. This has proven not to be the most beneficial way to guarantee personal liberty, but rather, take away from said personal liberties.

I don't believe there is a universal morality for the simple reason that there isn't one - period. We see varying degrees of what people consider moral everyday, which in itself disproves the idea. Morality for all intents and purposes is a construct that is a creation of the church and adopted by governments to help keep people in line, much like the bible was intended to do.

I don't personally see what your beef with G is in this case: he asked someone to define morals, something that cannot be defined, simply because not many people have identical moral ideals.

I'd prefer if you would argue your points, forcing G to come up with answers rather than just straight up attacking him because he wants someone to define something in their own terms (in this case morality). Personally I would get more out of it if you made him work harder, not simply attempt to get his hackles up, but that's just me. I get more out of these conversations that way.

I don't claim to be an intellectual giant, especially in the present company, so I hope that makes sense. fftopic:

 

[Suspect Device]

The more I learn, read and think the more I start to realize that most of the things that people are afraid of what would Anarchy enable, are actually happening right now.

Mass murder (including women and children)? Mob rule? Selected few who control rest of the people/system? Questionable global business actions? Mass pollution? Aggression, violence and deception?

Well, a good fucking morning to you too, this is happening right now, in your own backyard. Yet people state that Anarchy will enable all above mentioned things... wake up.

 

[emp]

Alright, I am game (and bored)

Also, I have accused (and still am) guerilla of dodging the questions, so I should not do the same.

I repeat:

Guerilla, I am NOT interested in SOMEONE's take on this, I am interested in YOUR opinion. Right now, you are just being a douche about this, and just linking to some authorities.
(and fuck yeah, I think we would get along well over a beer or two - not agree, but be able to converse better than on this forum)

@suspect device
I do not think that anarchy would ENABLE these things, I think it wouldn't change anything.

As to ethics:

I do not believe in universal ethics. No code of ethics stands the test of time (applicable to all of history and future) or geography (at all places) or situation (in any situation).

Even one of the strongest moral/ethical codes humans seem to share "to not kill another human" stands all of these tests (WWII, self defense, etc...)

Morals and ethics are an evolving thing. As societies evolve above the need to provide basic necessities, they also evolve new ethical guidelines. Examples for this include, but are not limited to: Abolition of slavery, freedom of speech, gay (webmaster) rights, ethical treatment of animals, womens rights, abolition of child labour, etc, etc, etc.....

All of these (as well as freedom from bodily harm) are actually quite new to humans, a few hundred years back, a lot of these were not even thought of.

And coming back full circle... property rights are laughable as a basis for a society.

As to why I am a supporter of (some form) of government:

I think that it is impossible to get a large or very large number of humans to work together full stop.

As for "voluntary" engagement, yes, I think that works. But only for a limited number of cases and only on a small scale.
Just look at all the people whining about having to pay for public electricity, roads, etc..

And before it is brought up again " I know a very small private road where it worked, we just had to strongarm one of the people.."

Think large scale.
Highways, anyone? Are you really going to chip in for a stretch of highway going through some desert? (As such, no local involvement, etc..) also upkeep, etc..?

If your answer is "of course, yes, if it would benefit me!" Then, what is your argument against taxes again?

::emp::