palak United States. Sep 02 2011 16:06. Posts 4601
On September 02 2011 14:21 Stat.Quo wrote:
I didn't read a lot of the longer posts, but i'm guessing someone is arguing that anarchy in Somalia is a good thing? lol
Not recently but typically pro-anarchy ppl in the forum either claim that somalia is not really an anarchy, or that somalia has benefited from being an anarchy (usually by referring to this study http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf )
On September 02 2011 05:56 Fudyann wrote:
In general we should strive for individual liberty and autonomy, for reducing coercion in society. I regard taxation as theft, and war as mass murder - I don't think a special moral standard should apply to government, rebranding coercion as things that sound more legitimate. I see taxation not as a moral good but as a necessary evil: for the society that we presently live in, taxes are clearly necessary to keep it running, so we should have taxes. For me, this does not in any way diminish the fact that taxation is morally wrong.
I would like to move to a society where we are as free from coercion as is possible as a practical matter. What is practical and what is not is of course open to interpretation. I certainly would not want the poor to starve, say.
By the way, if you find yourself arguing over whether atheism is a religion or not, one way to resolve the debate is to both agree not to use the world religion any more.
palak: Atheism is a belief about the existence of a god.
Loco: Atheism is not a belief in the existence of a god.
That is not what I am saying at all, it would be nonsensical for me to hold a position that something we feel we know is not a belief. Belief undergirds everything that we know. But when we say that we don't know, it is epokhé, or suspension of belief. Many atheists are just atheists because they suspend belief, but think it is very unlikely that there is a God or Gods, like Dawkins. They don't call themselves agnostics as such, but skeptics and atheists. All I'm saying is that this doesn't fit any particular definition of religion, including the one palak just stated. It's not a set of beliefs, and not everyone shares the exact same one; some atheists might have different levels of skepticism in regards to the existence of God or the theory of evolution for example. And they don't share any common practices. But I understand where palak is coming from, because I don't find atheism an intelligible position, and because the definition of agnosticism fits so well with the position of many atheists.
Buddhism is a religion, but it's an interesting religion because it doesn't require faith. It advocates knowledge only. It teaches that we are made up of elements, and that these elements dissolve, and have no reality. It demonstrates our non-reality. And then it says: figure out the consequences.
Atheists imo all share two common beliefs. At least when someone takes the atheist position they always take the side that.
1. There is no god/higher power
2. There is no afterlife
I have not talked to an atheist who does not accept the 2 beliefs. Just b/c they then differ on things like humanism and such doesn't mean it's not a religion or doesn't share some common beliefs among all of them. Much the same Christianity is a religion, no one will debate otherwise but all christian sects only share 2 beliefs in common.
1. The bible is the word of god.
2. Jesus is gods son who died for humanities sins, through him redemption is possible.
They even differ on that as they have different interpretations of how much of the bible is gods word, and what jesus's mission was etc.
I agree Buddhism is an interesting religion, but have that conversation with 10 buddhists and u'll have at least 1 claim that buddhism is a way of life not a religion.
On September 02 2011 05:56 Fudyann wrote:
In general we should strive for individual liberty and autonomy, for reducing coercion in society. I regard taxation as theft, and war as mass murder - I don't think a special moral standard should apply to government, rebranding coercion as things that sound more legitimate. I see taxation not as a moral good but as a necessary evil: for the society that we presently live in, taxes are clearly necessary to keep it running, so we should have taxes. For me, this does not in any way diminish the fact that taxation is morally wrong.
I would like to move to a society where we are as free from coercion as is possible as a practical matter. What is practical and what is not is of course open to interpretation. I certainly would not want the poor to starve, say.
.
The taxation being theft is still idiotic to me. If you insist on viewing it as a monopoly on something then think about it like this. Taxes are the premiums that a government requires in order for you to live in them. Just like you would be required to rent in an apartment building. When you say you don't have a choice about paying taxes, same goes for rent in an apartment if you wanna live there you need to pay the bills. You also (w/ the exception of NK citizens) move to any other country which better suits ur desires tax/living wise. If you exclude NK there are 195 countries for you to choose from ( http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm ). The only thing really holding you back from moving to somewhere new is that it's a complete pain in the ass (redoing housing, new friends, may not speak the language, etc). But no one is forcing you to stay in your country and it's unlikely anyone is forcing you to out of one (assuming you have a passport from ur current country and a job).
War=mass murder I'm pretty sure we can compromise on easy enough.
1. Actual combatants killed on either side do not count as murder (both can likely claim acting in self defense from the other side).
2. Civilians killed by either side which are not involved in the war count as manslaughter (r u familiar with the american legal difference between manslaughter and murder?) if done on accident via collateral damage.
3. Civilians killed on purpose by the other side count as war crimes perpetrated by whoever ordered the attack through to the person who actually carried it out. None of the superior orders excuse as stated by the Nuremberg trials principle 4.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
You are making the same mistake that religious people call atheistm also another religion or belief.
By definition Atheism is a religion, deal with it. If you want to get into the whole idea of the lack of belief being the scientific initial position until proven wrong then that's agnosticism. As richard dawkins says "I'm agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about faries in my garden." Technically science can only stay agnostic on the issue, once u cross into saying atheist then u've crossed into a religion.
Uh, I think you misunderstand what is implied by Dawkins here... He is basically making fun of agnosticism and ridiculing it as a logical position. He's saying he knows that there is no God just like he knows fairies are not in his garden.
I'm not an atheist, but to just call it a religion is laughable. I want to say that it's possible to be dogmatic as an atheist, which is different from saying "it's a religion all atheists are religious!" some are dogmatic and self-righteous like the religious fundamentalists, and others aren't, i.e., existential atheists.
Anyway, the problem with religion has always been the dogma, not the virtues espoused by one.
QFT
Basically, do you deny the existence of leprechauns living in your closet yes or no? if you say no then you are just "religious" about it... its such a ridiculous point.
2.- Its not an opinion, i mean its an opinion that "they wont bitch", it is NOT an opinion that there is no social contract in anarchy, because well anarchy is actually the lack of a social contract by definition.
yes you can still be forced at gunpoint by individuals, i didnt say anarchy is perfect sine humans are flawed, all im saying its that its better.
3.- You mean what would stop people from imposing a government on you while anarchy is archived?, hah i think ur thinking as anrchy as madmax but anyway if such things happens it can be stopped by people organizing and stopping them
4.- Stop mentioning scandinavia as examples of strong governments and not including China, Vietnam, Cuba and Russia and North Korea, i wont listen to arguments supporting strong government that dont also include 3rd world countries.
On September 02 2011 07:56 gororokgororok wrote:
I knew this thread was made by Baal. If you like anarchy so much why not live in Somalia?
If you like government so much why not move to North Korea?
do you see how stupid my argument is? well so is yours.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
palak United States. Sep 02 2011 19:54. Posts 4601
On September 02 2011 18:41 Baalim wrote:
2.- Its not an opinion, i mean its an opinion that "they wont bitch", it is NOT an opinion that there is no social contract in anarchy, because well anarchy is actually the lack of a social contract by definition.
What's to stop someone from signing away their unborn childs life? Just curious. If the person was not consciously able to object to something can they be made to do something?
3.- You mean what would stop people from imposing a government on you while anarchy is archived?, hah i think ur thinking as anrchy as madmax but anyway if such things happens it can be stopped by people organizing and stopping them
So two different groups would organize and fight each other? That sounds familiar.
4.- Stop mentioning scandinavia as examples of strong governments and not including China, Vietnam, Cuba and Russia and North Korea, i wont listen to arguments supporting strong government that dont also include 3rd world countries.
So strong democratic republic form of governments with strong congresses and weaker executive branches eliminates those examples pretty well.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
2.- i dont quite understand what is your question, if you are a child you mean? well then yes you are subjected to the will of your parents until you can and want to live on your own means.
3.- Yes they would, we humans are horrible creatures but still its hard that in an anarchy a group would amass enough armament to blow up the world 13 times over
4.- No you cant cherrypick what represents a strong government and what doesnt, all those are examples of strong government presence, scandinavia just happens to have extremely civil societies.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
palak United States. Sep 02 2011 22:20. Posts 4601
2. So if say ur parents put their child into a 70 yr contract is thd child obliged to do it?
3. Not provable opinon.
4. Im not cherry picking gov't im saying democratic republic governments which r strong r better then an anarchy. Communism, monarchies, dictatorships r a completely different issue. No one arguing strong gov't in any form besides demo-republic.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
On September 02 2011 21:20 palak wrote:
2. So if say ur parents put their child into a 70 yr contract is thd child obliged to do it?
3. Not provable opinon.
4. Im not cherry picking gov't im saying democratic republic governments which r strong r better then an anarchy. Communism, monarchies, dictatorships r a completely different issue. No one arguing strong gov't in any form besides demo-republic.
2.- what? im either not understanding where you are going or you are making stupid questions, of course parents cant put children in 70 year contracts... what in the fuck
3.- Well we dont have a "society simulator", the fact its not provable it doesnt mean its quite likely and reasonable to assume.
4.- If im a dick and use your "technique" that you used for #3, its un provable since there isnt a true example of anarchy, see how stupid is to say this? it simply stalls any kind of argument.
Baal I am for anarchy, more specifically socialist anarchy (Chomsky ftw!). Most people have a huge misconception of what anarchy is because the western world threw a lot of propaganda at the term during the ideological wars of the twentieth century. When most people think about anarchy they think about individualist anarchy and a dog-eat-dog system. I don't think it's possible to get to people using such a heavily distorted word.
Anarchists need something else to call it....
There of many examples of successful anarchist societies, including one in south america!
edit: another thing people often forget when discussing anarchy is that society does not equal government.
When discussing ideology people often assume a country's success is dependent on their ideology and their government. aka the 'communism sucks cuz communist countries are poorer than western ones' argument (not considering that russia and most of eastern europe lost a ridic amount of population and infrastructure fighting germans during ww2, and that the western world reaped most of the benefit of slavery and the exploitation of africa/south america/pacific islands etc.)
for this reason, you cannot denounce anarchy because somalia is a shit hole, believe me, its a shit hole for a LOT of other reasons.
Last edit: 03/09/2011 00:29
1
palak United States. Sep 03 2011 01:03. Posts 4601
2. In an anarchy what is there to stop a parent from signing away their children's life? What's to prevent slavery from forming? Is the only thing preventing it the assumption that human society will maintain a level of respect for basic human rights (not a bad assumption, just wanna know if your working off of it).
3. I don't see why its unreasonable to assume oil companies could just buy up entire armories. They easily have the money.
4/3 It is unprovable, the difference is we have evidence that democratic republics work. You have no actual evidence (that i know of) that a company left to it's own wouldn't buy up military force. Shell after all in nigeria bought up armed forces
In the 1990s tensions arose between the native Ogoni people of the Niger Delta and Shell. The concerns of the locals were that very little of the money earned from oil on their land was getting to the people who live there, and the environmental damages caused by Shell's practices.[1] In 1993 the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) organized large protests against Shell and the government, often occupying the refineries. Shell withdrew its operations from the Ogoni areas. The Nigerian government raided their villages and arrested some of the protest leaders. Some of these arrested protesters, Ken Saro-Wiwa being the most prominent, were later executed, against widespread international opposition from the Commonwealth of Nations and human rights organisations.[2]
Shell maintained that it asked the Nigerian government for clemency towards those found guilty but that its request was refused. A 2001 Greenpeace report claimed that "two witnesses that accused them later admitted that Shell and the military had bribed them with promises of money and jobs at Shell. Shell admitted having given money to the Nigerian military...".[3] Shell denied these accusations and claimed that MOSOP was an extortionary movement that advocated violence and secession.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Nigeria#Human_rights_controversies
Frick did the same w/ the homestead strikes
After consultations with Knox, Frick in April 1892 had contracted with the Pinkerton National Detective Agency to provide security at the plant. His intent was to open the works with nonunion men on July 6. Knox devised a plan to get the Pinkertons onto the mill property. With the mill ringed by striking workers, the agents would access the plant grounds from the river. Three hundred Pinkerton agents assembled on the Davis Island Dam on the Ohio River about five miles below Pittsburgh at 10:30 p.m. on the night of July 5, 1892. They were given Winchester rifles, placed on two specially-equipped barges and towed upriver.[20]
The strikers were prepared for them; the AA had learned of the Pinkertons as soon as they had left Boston for the embarkation point. The small flotilla of union boats went downriver to meet the barges. Strikers on the steam launch fired a few random shots at the barges, then withdrew—blowing the launch whistle to alert the plant. The strikers blew the plant whistle at 2:30 a.m., drawing thousands of men, women and children to the plant.[21]
[edit]Pinkertons attempt to land
The Pinkertons attempted to land under cover of darkness about 4 a.m. A large crowd of families had kept pace with the boats as they were towed by a tug into the town. A few shots were fired at the tug and barges, but no one was injured. The crowd tore down the barbed-wire fence and strikers and their families surged onto the Homestead plant grounds. Some in the crowd threw stones at the barges, but strike leaders shouted for restraint.[22]
The Pinkerton agents attempted to disembark, and shots were fired. Conflicting testimony exists as to which side fired the first shot. According to at least one eyewitness, the unionists shot first. John T. McCurry, a boatman on the steamboat Little Bill (which had been hired by the Pinkerton Detective Agency to ferry its agents to the steel mill) and one of the men wounded by the strikers, said: "The armed Pinkerton men commenced to climb up the banks. Then the workmen opened fire on the detectives. The men shot first, and not until three of the Pinkerton men had fallen did they respond to the fire. I am willing to take an oath that the workmen fired first, and that the Pinkerton men did not shoot until some of their number had been wounded."23] But according to The New York Times, the Pinkertons shot first.[24] The newspaper reported that the Pinkertons opened fire and wounded William Foy, a worker.[24] Regardless of which side opened fire first, the first two individuals wounded were Frederick Heinde, captain of the Pinkertons,[25] and Foy. The Pinkerton agents aboard the barges then fired into the crowd, killing two and wounding 11. The crowd responded in kind, killing two and wounding 12. The firefight continued for about 10 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
palak United States. Sep 03 2011 01:14. Posts 4601
On September 02 2011 23:12 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Baal I am for anarchy, more specifically socialist anarchy (Chomsky ftw!). Most people have a huge misconception of what anarchy is because the western world threw a lot of propaganda at the term during the ideological wars of the twentieth century. When most people think about anarchy they think about individualist anarchy and a dog-eat-dog system. I don't think it's possible to get to people using such a heavily distorted word.
Anarchists need something else to call it....
There of many examples of successful anarchist societies, including one in south america!
name the successful societies? Not saying they don't exist, I'm just curious as to what they r.
I'd like to see u and baal hash it out over individualist vs collectivist.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
palak United States. Sep 03 2011 01:24. Posts 4601
You are making the same mistake that religious people call atheistm also another religion or belief.
By definition Atheism is a religion, deal with it. If you want to get into the whole idea of the lack of belief being the scientific initial position until proven wrong then that's agnosticism. As richard dawkins says "I'm agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about faries in my garden." Technically science can only stay agnostic on the issue, once u cross into saying atheist then u've crossed into a religion.
Uh, I think you misunderstand what is implied by Dawkins here... He is basically making fun of agnosticism and ridiculing it as a logical position. He's saying he knows that there is no God just like he knows fairies are not in his garden.
I'm not an atheist, but to just call it a religion is laughable. I want to say that it's possible to be dogmatic as an atheist, which is different from saying "it's a religion all atheists are religious!" some are dogmatic and self-righteous like the religious fundamentalists, and others aren't, i.e., existential atheists.
Anyway, the problem with religion has always been the dogma, not the virtues espoused by one.
QFT
Basically, do you deny the existence of leprechauns living in your closet yes or no? if you say no then you are just "religious" about it... its such a ridiculous point.
If someone were to believe in leprechauns would that then make them religious?
Also courts ruled atheism is a religion (not that u'll likely care about what courts have to say)
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Edit: As i've said before, i have no problem with someone saying something like belief the christian god does not exist is not a religion. But saying for certain that u know there is no deity or afterlife is going to be a religious statement.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
the bushmen of south africa, this one south american tribe i read about on wiki (forgot the name) doesn't have any murder or concept of murder in their society and they are anarchist, "freetown" in northern europe was successful, but it kinda got fucked with by the government it was ignoring, but before that it even managed to kick out an invading criminal organization (criminal under the government freetown was ignoring, but bad ppl nonetheless)
check out this video, and if you have no life like me read the free book of the site and get chomsky's (havent read them yet!)
if you analyze life and society you find out that a fuckton of it is anarchic in nature. even law (judges decide shit on case by case basis based on the general "morality" of the society, black and white state issued laws actually have a tendency to impede this when you think about it, (like pot laws in cali etc.) and in these cases the state governed law is often ignored or lightened by the executive ppl (police, judges) even if the state governed law is more extreme
eg. ive smoked pot in front of police in vancouver, not even a word from them, this is because state issued law is general "behind the curve" of the real moral zietgiest of society
edit: this is a prime example of anarchy working great, obviously the majority of ppl in vancouver do not think a punishment is required for publicly smoking pot, the moral compass is against punishment, therefore no punishment, even with the existence of coercive authority. most business is also anarchic, ever heard the phrase, all a man has is his reputation? the only reason douchy ppl can even hide now is because of state issued corporations and corporate-influenced law. i doubt the majority of americans think that corporations should have the same rights as human beings without any real drawbacks etc.
On September 04 2011 18:58 ShaperofDreams wrote:
the bushmen of south africa, this one south american tribe i read about on wiki (forgot the name) doesn't have any murder or concept of murder in their society and they are anarchist, "freetown" in northern europe was successful, but it kinda got fucked with by the government it was ignoring, but before that it even managed to kick out an invading criminal organization (criminal under the government freetown was ignoring, but bad ppl nonetheless)
check out this video, and if you have no life like me read the free book of the site and get chomsky's (havent read them yet!)
if you analyze life and society you find out that a fuckton of it is anarchic in nature. even law (judges decide shit on case by case basis based on the general "morality" of the society, black and white state issued laws actually have a tendency to impede this when you think about it, (like pot laws in cali etc.) and in these cases the state governed law is often ignored or lightened by the executive ppl (police, judges) even if the state governed law is more extreme
eg. ive smoked pot in front of police in vancouver, not even a word from them, this is because state issued law is general "behind the curve" of the real moral zietgiest of society
edit: this is a prime example of anarchy working great, obviously the majority of ppl in vancouver do not think a punishment is required for publicly smoking pot, the moral compass is against punishment, therefore no punishment, even with the existence of coercive authority. most business is also anarchic, ever heard the phrase, all a man has is his reputation? the only reason douchy ppl can even hide now is because of state issued corporations and corporate-influenced law. i doubt the majority of americans think that corporations should have the same rights as human beings without any real drawbacks etc.
1: whether or not smaller and homogenous tribes can function without a state is not really an issue. they obviously can. but most of the rest of the world experienced the agricultural revolution- with all it entails of resource hoarding (impossible for hunter-gatherers) and thus demand for security. (this is the basic purpose of the state, and the reason for its conception. whether hunter gatherer societies committed murder against fellow tribesmen is wholly irrelevant to whether or not anarchy is plausible for the world today.
2: by freetown in northern europe I assume you are referring to christiania in copenhagen. It's a nice place and I've been there on several occasions. What did I do? bought hash and weed, smoked hash and weed, and drank awesome juice. it's entirely populated by hippies (which I don't mind at all personally), but largely functions as a method for danes and tourists to buy drugs that are illegal in the rest of denmark. Now, it's obviously stupid that hash and weed is illegal in most western countries, but it's very possible to legalize all drugs without abandoning the structure of the state (holland), and judging by the past 10 years, public opinion seems to be swaying in favour of legalization most places, which means politicians will inevitably follow. but anyway, mentioning christiania as a functioning anarchist society is pretty silly, because it doesn't provide anything in terms of jobs or education, but it's rather just a place for artists and self-titled misfits to congregate, and for people who love drugs to hang out. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - just that it doesn't compare, at all, to what is offered by christianias neighbouring country - denmark. There's a very, very small percentage of danes who would prefer living in christiania over living in the rest of denmark.
3: the phrase "all a man has is his reputation" is only valid if people don't move - once again going back to the small homogenous group where people already accept that anarchy can function. (christiania is also very small, and in some key areas, exceptionally homogenous.) If you have no state, what is to stop someone (say a travelling business man) from travelling between cities scamming people? I mean, it's not like doing so is impossible in a state, far from it, but thinking that a scammer would be deterred simply by the threat of hurting his reputation in one area is foolish.
3. not true. i know idra is bm. i know not to trust emails from nigerian princes. i know goldman sachs is a dick
they are all in parts of the world far from mine
also 2. how is freetown not a good example? you said it wouldn't be a good example of a functioning anarchist society right after giving it the characteristics of one. ppl go there by choice, stay there (or not) by choice. it might not be the best place to live, but it doesn't have to be, because you don't have to be there if you don't want to. the economy might be based on drugs and tourism but it is an economy. there are minimal amounts of coercion, which is what anarchy is about.
as for the "but....agricultural revolution...." it doesn't matter. a functioning anarchist society is a functioning anarchist society. just because they had no agricultural revolution does not mean that anarchy is not viable for societies that have had a agricultural revolution. saying so would be like saying:
socrates was a man, therefore all men are socrates.
anyways, even if all you say about examples of anarchist societies is true it doesn't matter. Like i said before, successful examples don't have to exist for for something to be viable, otherwise nothing would ever be invented. great inventors say "invent for the future, invent things for technology that doesn't yet exist, so that once it does you can implement it" the same can be said for anarchy, replacing technology with social atmosphere/variables like education and failure of government etc.
sorry for grammar and organization, multitasking atm.
btw check out wikiquotes of chomsky on anarchist-socialism, apparently he "solves" the issue of agriculture and resource hoarding.
edit: he also spent time in kibbutz, a free society in israel (that obviously has had an agricultural revolution), he said if not for all the religious dogma he may have stayed.
baal what kind of anarchy do you think would work best in wherever you are? capitalist, socialist etc.
1
NighTLesS15 United States. Sep 04 2011 22:54. Posts 241
You can document this example and document that example of societies that had any form of anarchist ideals existed.. because they did. You can make statements of them doing well . . . in somalia and having better years of economic growth during this supposed state of anarchy... (btw i can't imagine the massive drought they are going through has ANY impact on their economic issues.. its quite clearly the government).. and you can pick apart certain parts of everyones arguments like you have been doing without actually defeating the argument just 1 or 2 points in a 10 to 12 point statement. No matter how you describe it or shape it in any type of anarchist system there will be someone who gets the biggest stick (metaphorically obvious if you can't tell) and they WILL take over. They will create a system which benefits them and their friends at the cost of others. If you don't see this, or think there is some way around it in our world today... well there is nothing anyone here can do and i suggest private help
23] But according to The New York Times, the Pinkertons shot first.[24] The newspaper reported that the Pinkertons opened fire and wounded William Foy, a worker.[24] Regardless of which side opened fire first, the first two individuals wounded were Frederick Heinde, captain of the Pinkertons,[25] and Foy. The Pinkerton agents aboard the barges then fired into the crowd, killing two and wounding 11. The crowd responded in kind, killing two and wounding 12. The firefight continued for about 10 minutes. 
