Anarchist Stuff
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
(O_o)
H̨̼̩͐̑͆̀̚&
I realize you are into sophisticated posting
What if the word "commercial organizations" is used instead of corporations?
Lets say anarchy came into effect right this moment. In that case, all the corporations wouldn't cease to exist. They would just not be bound to state charter anymore.
Dear Statists:
The purpose of this thread was not for more argument. You can find an argument thread about anarchy in STS almost every day. This one is, as labeled and talked about in the OP, a place for anarchists to dump our stuff so in the future we can point those curious about anarchy to it.
No one posed an argument to you here.
If you feel some irrational need to respond to it, It would be far more appropriate for you to go and start a new thread entitled "Statist stuff."
For you to continue to come in here and troll us with sad arguments to why YOU think anarchy can't work only makes us more vigilant in gathering our resources and getting organized in general.
So stay and learn if you want, but for the sake of all that is good and righteous, please stop the asinine arguments here. Just the once, ok?
The purpose of this thread was not for more argument. You can find an argument thread about anarchy in STS almost every day. This one is, as labeled and talked about in the OP, a place for anarchists to dump our stuff so in the future we can point those curious about anarchy to it.
No one posed an argument to you here.
If you feel some irrational need to respond to it, It would be far more appropriate for you to go and start a new thread entitled "Statist stuff."
For you to continue to come in here and troll us with sad arguments to why YOU think anarchy can't work only makes us more vigilant in gathering our resources and getting organized in general.
So stay and learn if you want, but for the sake of all that is good and righteous, please stop the asinine arguments here. Just the once, ok?
That's what happens when people who don't know what they are talking about, and don't have habits of critical thinking, hop into a serious discussion.
Not much we can do about it, in a public thread, anyone can say anything, regardless of how stupid or unsubstantiated it is.
Private property rights protects the environment. There is a great interview with Walter Block talking about it many years ago (while at the Fraser Institute) on Youtube.
This was an issue for me when I was on the verge of becoming an anarchist. How will we do "X"? Funny enough, it was stupidly "Who will build the roads" which is the most cliche argument against anarchy. Anyway, I realized, if people value something, there is profit in it. And in a society where people can freely pursue profit opportunities (anarchy) if people value the environment, there will be a market in protecting land, animals and resources.
A related example is Ducks Unlimited. A private organization doing (very successfully) what people assume government should do.
Another example (for those who don't watch the Block interview) is, the buffalo almost went extinct. Cows never came close. Why? Cows were always property, Buffaloes were not.
I think people in the future will look back on now, with the same disgust we have for the dark ages. So yeah, I agree.
This is hard for people to understand. I wrote a week or so ago, most people don't understand causal relationships. That corporations come from somewhere. Something makes them a corporation.
Since most people don't understand cause and effect, even less have any interest in history or law.
No state, no corporations. If they tried to function like corporations in the absence of the state, they would have massive costs trying to maintain limited liability in the same manner. I don't think they could maintain fictional personhood at all.
You're 100% right, but I will say, that some of these posts are so bad, that they give great opportunities to go into more depth on the topic.
I feel that laying out a chain of logically consistent reasoning is always better than the bad posts. To the casual reader finding this thread, the statists aren't making (and indeed, cannot make imo) a good argument for their position.
On the contrary, they are making very bad arguments that make Anarchism look good.
As great as some of these guys think the state is, I find it an interesting phenomenon that no one makes "Government is great" threads here.
Almost every thread here about government, whether started by an anarchist or not, holds the government in some amount of contempt.
The thing I have realized about statists, taking from a Bob Higgs quote I put in another thread, is that the burden of proof is on them. Not us.
Everything in the world right now is under the state, so if you hate corporations, or wrecking the environment, if you hate war, theft, corruption, those are not problems of anarchy. Even Kiopa_Matt talking about riots, those are in response to the statist paradigm, not because people have too much peace and individual liberty.
I can defend peace and cooperation from economic, moral, and philosophical standpoints.
Who here will champion taxes and war?
I'm tempted to write a sort of neural network for people to reference when it comes to all these arguments, since they tend to be repeated so often.
I'm tempted to play the devil's advocate, if only to exercise my brain. But I can't find a logically-consistent starting point. It's like trying to find the corner on a ball.
Re-read what I said. What we have right now is not the worst case scenario I talked about.
Originally Posted by jacky8
In anarchy, several small corporations will eventually consolidate to a few big corporations. There will eventually be big monopolistic organizations constantly in war with each other absolutely without having to answer any citizens.
There we go. What an ignorant and noobish statement lol
People forget that here has existed prosperous anarchistic societies such as the medieval viking age Iceland Free State which survived 300 years. Milton Friedman's son David Friedman has written on this topic.
Icelandic Commonwealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Icelandic Commonwealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which could, and should, be applied to authority systems in general. The burden of proof for their own legitimacy is on them and them alone. That's from Chomsky, not my original. But a powerful notion, and quite radical compared to the status quo of blind acceptance.
Interesting point about Ducks Unlimited. My dad's been involved with a simliar local organization that does habitat restoration for quail here in California. All volunteer and donation based, all hunters, and very effective.
I'll check out that Block interview, thanks.
This is because it is another way of looking at the world. It stands out, because it's not the conventional wisdom.
There is no part of the anarchist argument that is based on historical appeal. Mentioning historical events is used to communicate within a medium other people are comfortable with. The past could cease to exist, and anarchism could still be argued on the very same merits it typically is.
I'm happy to admit weakness, but the stuff that people come up with isn't even close to a decent critique. I won't do the rest of your post, but you claim to see these weaknesses, and have counter-arguments, but you never bring them forth.
I'd love you to. Hell, let's do it in private.
But you won't. You'll post, so you have time to post, and you'll say you have these points, so you have the ammunition, and yet you never actually pull the trigger.
It's very hard to have a discussion, particularly between two viewpoints, if one party won't expose their thinking, and make the case for it.
Will you explain to me, in public or private WHY you support government?
Because as said above, it puts everyone else at a real disadvantage if you assert you are correct without every substantiating it. At least the anarchists around here are willing to tackle arguments, present theories. They may be wrong, or they may be poor communicators, but you can't claim they don't try.
Let's talk.
That's not a very good critique, although you never hear me reference the Icelandic Anarchism, because I generally try to avoid arguments based on periods and peoples none of us know well. Arguments based on facts are always slippery (pay attention to this MS Teacher), however, arguments which are a priori true are essentially, impossible to reject (without being dishonest)
Iceland was a Capitalist system in the strict economic sense.
Anarcho-Capitalists don't believe in a Utopia. Indeed, it is because Utopia (perfect government) is impossible, that we need systems like Anarcho-Capitalism, to settle disputes and problems without violence.
An individual can choose to live communally. Individualism is not the same thing as being atomistic. In merely means that the individual is the smallest unit of human decision maker, and all group (communal) decisions are made by many individuals, not the group, as an abstraction unto itself.
For example, voluntary communists can do their communist thing in an Anarcho-Capitalist world.
However, statists of any sort, will not tolerate a voluntary (anarchistic) society within their boundaries.
Anarchist communal assembly is basically Mutualism or left-Libertarianism, which isn't strictly Anarcho-Capitalism, but its about 90% in common, still makes it radically different from the state in many regards.
The argument you posted pseudo nym, misframes the position of Anarcho-Capitalism. There are legitimate questions and challenges to Ancapism, but you won't find it coming from people who don't understand Anarcho-Capitalism.
Once again rehashing the same old point, understanding of any philosophy has to include causality. If you don't understand Ancap, and what it implies, as well as what it explicitly claims, it is very hard to criticize it.
I recently had the same issue discussing Communism with someone who knew almost nothing (and probably still knows almost nothing) about Communism as a political, philosophical or economic system.
Arguments like that are similar to asking your dog to make the case for or against abortion. Good luck bro.
Iceland was a Capitalist system in the strict economic sense.
Anarcho-Capitalists don't believe in a Utopia. Indeed, it is because Utopia (perfect government) is impossible, that we need systems like Anarcho-Capitalism, to settle disputes and problems without violence.
An individual can choose to live communally. Individualism is not the same thing as being atomistic. In merely means that the individual is the smallest unit of human decision maker, and all group (communal) decisions are made by many individuals, not the group, as an abstraction unto itself.
For example, voluntary communists can do their communist thing in an Anarcho-Capitalist world.
However, statists of any sort, will not tolerate a voluntary (anarchistic) society within their boundaries.
Anarchist communal assembly is basically Mutualism or left-Libertarianism, which isn't strictly Anarcho-Capitalism, but its about 90% in common, still makes it radically different from the state in many regards.
The argument you posted pseudo nym, misframes the position of Anarcho-Capitalism. There are legitimate questions and challenges to Ancapism, but you won't find it coming from people who don't understand Anarcho-Capitalism.
Once again rehashing the same old point, understanding of any philosophy has to include causality. If you don't understand Ancap, and what it implies, as well as what it explicitly claims, it is very hard to criticize it.
I recently had the same issue discussing Communism with someone who knew almost nothing (and probably still knows almost nothing) about Communism as a political, philosophical or economic system.
Arguments like that are similar to asking your dog to make the case for or against abortion. Good luck bro.
Hey g, where do rights come from?
Also, can you explain for the class how you get an 'ought' from an 'is'?
Also, can you explain for the class how you get an 'ought' from an 'is'?
That's a long question, but I don't believe in rights in any conventional sense.
I'm not a very big fan of natural rights theory either.
If you see me mention rights, it's usually in reference to property rights, which are agreements between individuals to respect the boundaries of mine and thine. Or "rights" implied by the pre-existence, and I might argue, necessity of property rights.
Occasionally I will reference "rights" in a conventional sense, but that is audience specific. I would never do that in the presence of people who understand what rights are and are not (say, if I was emailing Jake).
You can't. See David Hume.
That said, "is" conditions imply other "is" conditions. And so, if you want to create, or experience or promote a particular "is" condition (perhaps as an "ought"), then you will want to make sure the preceding and related "is" conditions match up.
This is what I talk about when I mention causality.
Most people derive their "oughts" from "is", without understanding the "is" condition and its implications, frequently creating a double error.
They did in Cheran, Mexico.
The people kicked out the cartel, the police, and all the politicians.
Now volunteers guard the towns entrances.
The people have banned drugs, firearms, alchohol, and political parties.
When the people hit a breaking point and snap, shit gets done.
Quote from an article I found about the town here http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/mexican-town-revolts-waging-own-battle-against-drug-cartels:
Sounds like fun. So instead of being under the control of cartels. These people who patrol the city now have control. If this were a real anarchist society, how long do you think it would take for the people protecting the city to impose their own government upon its people? In fact i'd say they are already doing it. Either way you look at it the situation is not good.
Better yet. If mexico was an anarchist society, how long do you think it would take the cartels to come back and kill everyone in that town? It says they only have about 8 guns.
In an anarchist society you live in fear from what is outside your own territory. Everyone becomes suspect when passing through your town. Sounds like great times! Talk about going backwards.