Special Rights

[Michael]

Anarchy does not survive contact with it's enemy, civilization.

Civilization is built from free-trade/free-interaction. This is Anarchy.
The State is the obligation to enact force against innocent people (see: War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Privacy). The State is ANTI-Civilization.

The fact is, you simply don't know WHAT government actually IS. Not surprising, years of public schooling does what is was designed to do - public propaganda.
I bet you raised your hand to Flag and said the pledge your whole childhood not realizing what you were doing.

Why here's some "good" American children being bred up into Tax-Cattle and Cannon-Fodder for the State, learning to obey their Political Masters and the Bankers who own them.
Take a real good LOOK at your State right here:

 

[Capracus]

Civilization is built from free-trade/free-interaction. This is Anarchy.

Tea Peter

Start
http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/peter-griffin-joins-the-tea-party

End
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIoyCNvTZD4

 

[Grumpy]

Sorry Michael, your ideology has made you too...er, intellectually crippled to hold an intelligent conversation with.

Anarchy is the LEAST stable form of organizing a country, and allows ANY other competing system to smash it flat. "Oh, my neighbor is under attack, too bad for him." You're next. Anarchy CANNOT survive contact with civilization, ANY other form destroys it and absorbs the rubble. If you don't have a republic, you get a king(or everyone starves to death in constant conflict). Anarchy is throwing up your hands in frustration that nothing is getting done and no commerce is possible, so you pick up a gun to achieve your goals. Without police to keep the peace the wealthy can't leave their house and gated compound. What you have in parts of the Philippines today is Anarchy in practice. The regular infrastructure was destroyed and we now have roaming gangs looting, shooting at police and trampling each other trying to get food. Those that don't starve will be reined in by force and as soon as the government can Anarchy will be brought to an end. If your ideology does not reflect reality, it is your ideology that must be changed, reality does not care what you think about it.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

This is what Anarchy really looks like outside of the rosy scenario in Michael's head...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/philippines-looting_n_4265962.html

 

[iceaura]

This is Ethics. So, while you can argue we need force against innocent people because you can't figure out how to voluntarily flush a turd, and gee if iceaura can't voluntarily make a poop - well gee, then no one in the entire world can - for ever and ever and ever. No technological advancement, no novel sewage service, nothing will ever allow you to voluntarily poop. Well, I disagree. So, we'll leave it there.

Y'know, I used to think you were just pretending to not follow other people's arguments or read what they posted, and your posts were deceptions. But I've changed my mind. You have a serious thinking disorder - you actually think that bit of idiocy there was a response to my post in this thread. It's even possible you regard the provision of sewer systems in the cities of industrial economies to be some kind of coercion of innocent people (the ones innocent of sewage production?).

But not even you can have missed the simple and obvious claim I actually posted: that not just me, and not just you, but nobody ever in theory or in fact, has come up with a way to provide working sewage disposal in a big city without a government doing it - in fact, so far no one I know of has established a distinction between whatever provides such a system and a government. It may be true by definition, tautologically, that only governments can provide industrial city sewer systems. It is certainly true in reality, both theoretical and physical.

You understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? I think you do. Let's try *gasp* to universalize moral actions - you know, as one may do in an Ethical discussion.

You don't know what you're saying, there, due possibly to a lack of education (you don't, for example, know the difference between morals and ethics, "universalize" is meaningless in that context, you didn't mean Ethical, and so forth) but let's see where you go with it:

Person A owns coffee
Person B is a barista
Person C drinks coffee

A pays B to make coffee.
B sells labor to A in exchange for making coffee.
C pays A for coffee made by B.

If I understand the argument correctly

Let's call that checkpoint 1 If you ever see yourself typing that: You don't. So just stop there, why not?

If I understand the argument correctly it's this: A cannot stop paying B to make coffee for a reason of bigotry alone? (religion, gender, sexual preference, or so-called 'race')
Is this correct?

You are replying to me, and that has nothing to do with any argument I've made here. Plus, it's muddled - what do you mean by "can't"? You should have stopped at checkpoint 1.

continuing:

Questions:
(1) Suppose A just doesn't like B. For no particular reason. Can A stop paying B to make coffee?
(2) Suppose B doesn't like A, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can B stop selling their labor to A?
(3) Suppose C doesn't like A, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can C stop paying A for coffee made by B?
(4) Suppose C doesn't like B, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can C stop paying A for coffee made by B?

And we see the last chance to make sense - say by introducing some inductive or deductive reasoning for me to tell apart - slip by.

 

[Tiassa]

Ethan Blackhawke Down

Anarchy is the LEAST stable form of organizing a country, and allows ANY other competing system to smash it flat. "Oh, my neighbor is under attack, too bad for him."

In its best, most fantasy-driven form, Anarchy still leads to government.

I would love to see the details of these fantasies, though. Can you imagine trying to enforce terms on an exchange of goods for services?

If we go back and read the Anarchists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they weren't prescribing open anarchy. Not that they were describing much, but they certainly weren't prescribing a return to jungle and steppe and desert.

To the other, Anarchism is what it is, and takes its shape according to the hand that wields it. For Emma Goldman, Pierre Proudhon, and others, Anarchism held a promise of human dignity. For the modern post-libertarian right-wing pseudo-Anarchist wannabe, it holds the promise of a world that is a lot more exciting, a lot more like a video game, and everyone in those fantasies thinks they're the best fragger in the network.

Call of Duty: Reality Bites, coming soon?

 

[Michael]

I would love to see the details of these fantasies, though. Can you imagine trying to enforce terms on an exchange of goods for services?

Oh, you mean like eBay?

Yeah Tiassa, you've made it clear, it's really really REALLY difficult for you to imagine life in a voluntary world where people were free to interact with one another without the threat of a gun looming overhead. I suppose, FMPOV your imagination was smashed and wrung out of you through over a decade of public schooling leaving bereft of this ability. Well look, at least you're not constipated like iceaura.

That's a start I suppose?

I recall an (ex)Muslim once telling me he couldn't imagine what life would be like without Islam until he came to the West (actually Japan and then the West).
A Chinese probably couldn't imagine that "Western" people who practiced some semblance of free-trade could be so much more prosperous than their State-run "People's Party". I mean, how could that be??? When the "State" was there to ensure everyone was treated fairly and equally. It just wouldn't have computed until that person actually moved to Japan or Europe etc... until then their State-ruined limited imagination would leave them coming up with idiotic fanciful post-hoc justifications for a lifetime of mental prejudice. They'd probably have looked at another Communist Chinese circa 1970 and said: I bet it's Like Battlefield 4 or GTA 5? And their friend would be all like... WTF?!?

So, now that we've firmly established this facet of your imagine, could you do me the pleasure of addressing these questions given the following scenario.

Person A owns coffee
Person B is a barista
Person C drinks coffee

A pays B to make coffee.
B sells labor to A in exchange for making coffee.
C pays A for coffee made by B.

Questions:
(1) Suppose A just doesn't like B. For no particular reason. Can A stop paying B to make coffee?
(2) Suppose A just doesn't like B because A is a racist homophobic misogynist. Can A stop paying B to make coffee?
(3) Suppose B doesn't like A, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can B stop selling their labor to A?
(4) Suppose C doesn't like A, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can C stop paying A for coffee made by B?
(5) Suppose C doesn't like B, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can C stop paying A for coffee made by B?

 

[Michael]

And we see the last chance to make sense - say by introducing some inductive or deductive reasoning for me to tell apart - slip by.

The questions are posted above, anytime you'd like to move on from your sophistry and begin feel free to do so.

 

[Michael]

Tea Peter

Start
http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/peter-griffin-joins-the-tea-party

End
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIoyCNvTZD4

The Tea-Party are the Religious Sky-Daddy far right Wing of the single Authoritarian Party/US Government. Which, given Oblahma - isn't all that far right from where he stands now. O-blah-blah is so far right he could probably shake hands with your typical Tea-Party religious crackpot. An example of this is their stance against gay-marriage. Obviously this goes against the non-aggression axiom. The State has no business even KNOWING who is and who is not married.

Welcome to the One Authoritarian Party. Yes, O-blah-ma was/is a tiny bit Left of the Mittens.

But far right of other famous Authoritarians - for comparison:

In summery, you have no idea what Anarchy is - I'm wondering if any of these squiggles are making an sense to you at all? If so, please feel free to answer the questions I posed to Tiassa up above.

 

[Michael]

Sorry Michael, your ideology has made you too...er, intellectually crippled to hold an intelligent conversation with.

Anarchy is the LEAST stable form of organizing a country, and allows ANY other competing system to smash it flat. "Oh, my neighbor is under attack, too bad for him." You're next. Anarchy CANNOT survive contact with civilization, ANY other form destroys it and absorbs the rubble. If you don't have a republic, you get a king(or everyone starves to death in constant conflict). Anarchy is throwing up your hands in frustration that nothing is getting done and no commerce is possible, so you pick up a gun to achieve your goals. Without police to keep the peace the wealthy can't leave their house and gated compound. What you have in parts of the Philippines today is Anarchy in practice. The regular infrastructure was destroyed and we now have roaming gangs looting, shooting at police and trampling each other trying to get food. Those that don't starve will be reined in by force and as soon as the government can Anarchy will be brought to an end. If your ideology does not reflect reality, it is your ideology that must be changed, reality does not care what you think about it.

This is supposition - plain and simple.

Your argument is no different than a Slave master arguing that without Slavery people would die cold and hungry in the streets. IOWs, you have ZERO proof and are arguing from personal belief.


It should be noted, I personally support Libertarians such as Ron Paul. Not that they matter, they make up 0.3% of the electorate. The two wings of the single Authoritarian Party run this country and will continue to do so for a long long long time to come, while we get used to a very much reduced standard of living. I suspect our Authoritarians are cooking up a good sized War on Some-Made-Up-Bullshit as we speak. If the situations gets any worse, I wouldn't be surprised if they call up the Draft. Time to go kill more women and children somewhere.

 

[Michael]

This is what Anarchy really looks like outside of the rosy scenario in Michael's head...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/philippines-looting_n_4265962.html

So your example of how an anarchic society would deal with a natural disaster is how people living in a STATE deals with natural disaster.

Nice logic there.

It reminds me of your notion 'Gangs would Rule the Land' - when that's exactly the situation now, in most large cities - under a republic. You keep saying this is going to happen or that is going to happen - but all of your examples ARE happening NOW, in these Republics.

You don't have to look WAAAAAAY over to the Philippines, just look how we "Americans" act when a tragedy happens (More Stories Emerge of Rapes in Post-Katrina Chaos).

So you can guess as to what would happen in an Anarchic society all you like. You simply have NO IDEA. Perhaps such a society would be so much more peaceful with so few sociopaths that people would pull together. Perhaps the only Anarchic society to form and stabilize would BE peaceful prosperous people? Perhaps societies with too many thugs and looters (like ours) will be forced to live under the rule of someone - always.

We simply can't know.

I'm 100% positive that the Japanese could easily manage to re-organize themselves into an Anarchy. It'd do them a world of good if they did. They have social cohesion, plenty of common culture, much lower levels of sociopathy (about 1/1000th compared with the USA). I think it could be possible - but, as I said, we can't know until we try.

 

[Michael]

But not even you can have missed the simple and obvious claim I actually posted: that not just me, and not just you, but nobody ever in theory or in fact, has come up with a way to provide working sewage disposal in a big city without a government doing it - in fact, so far no one I know of has established a distinction between whatever provides such a system and a government.

And?

Because the Government has taken over this responsibility the free-market has had no incentive to come up with solutions. One solution is maybe people wouldn't live in big cities designed the way they are now. If it's truly impossible (and it most certainly isn't) then perhaps there just wouldn't BE mega-large cities. Maybe there'd be more greener smaller medium sized cities. Or maybe the layout would be different. Perhaps there'd be more parks and sewage would be treated locally and used as fertilized. Maybe it'd be turned into fuel? No one CAN know.

Just because no one has the answer now doesn't mean there is no answer. If people really wanted to live in big cities, and they could not resort to force against innocent people, I promise you - solutions would be found. If there's a lot of money to be made, a sign there's a high sought after service, someone somewhere WILL come up with a novel solution. AND if the market is free, more people will follow and it'll be cheap and of high quality.

Yeah, following the end of Slavery society had to reorganize - big deal. It's better than having Slavery.

 

[Grumpy]

No, Micheal, there is effectively no government in the Philippines today, It's pure Anarchy.

Grumpy

 

[Michael]

No, Micheal, there is effectively no government in the Philippines today, It's pure Anarchy.

Is there Law or is it Lawless? Because the pictures I see look like looters - thus this is NOT referred to as Anarchy but is property defined as Barbarism. Which is quite interesting, a Republic seems particularly prone towards both Barbarism (looting and vandalism) and Dictatorships - perhaps one followed by the other.

Anarchy is a Free society (free markets with sound money) with Law where Force can not be legally initiated against innocent people (private property), but can legally use self-defense in response to aggression. Most people live their lives following the law, not harming innocent people and attempting to form relationships, work or otherwise, through voluntary interactions. Anyone who doesn't act like this - is seen for the sociopath they are. But, as soon as you get a group of these sociopaths together and call them a "Government" people instantly become bamboozled - mostly because of public school and the fact people define themselves as being a State "Citizen" (American, Germans, etc...). Even though none of these existed not that long ago.

Most people are by definition living anarchically. To deal with the 1 in 25 sociopath does not require resorting to a Government every single time a little problem crops up. It means taking the lessons taught as a child (don't hit, don't steal, use your words) and growing up into an Adult - and acting like one. It's this last bit that people seem to have a hard time doing.

I mean, just read your posts. You keep claiming anarchy is this, anarchy will become that - not only are these claims suppositions, you're using the wrong terminology! And worse, you seem to think that my mere questioning the statuesque use of initation of force against innocent people (that's becoming more than prevalent in our society) is nearly Sinning Against the "Founding Fathers" - that I'm the one of questionable character!? HA!!! I'm the one standing UP for the innocent. The LAST thing the "Founding Fathers" wanted was a State able to print money, tax labor and wage wars overseas. The trillions being wasted in phony wars murdering women and children in double-tap bombings? That's the State doing that. The napalm in Vietnam. The White Phosphorus in the ME - that's the State. The depleted uranium is so bad in some places in Iraq the populations is considered as genetically decimated! This is insane sociopathy. The government's use of the Patriot Act to spy on American citizens - in direct violation of the 4th amendment? The Public Housing slums - rife with gang-warfare? The Public School graduates who can't read (oh, and if you think this stops at highschool you're wrong, many degrees from university are totally useless). State, State, State.


So, we don't have to suppose - we KNOW what happens living under a large immoral State because we're living it! If anyone truly felt we needed a State (and I don't) then they'd at least agree that due to it's inherent immoral nature, that it must be severely SEVERELY limited. TINY!

BUT, this isn't the State we have. Americans don't want that State. American think it's perfectly good and natural and lovey-f*cking-dovey to use the State against one another. I find it perversion of human nature. The inevitable outcome of democracy - a perverted society of people. Thus, we MUST continue to lose civil liberties and become a less free less prosperous nation. It's baked in the cake.

Dance with the devil the devil don’t change, the devil changes you.
- Max California, 8mm

 

[Michael]

The Chinese seem to be getting it: Chinese promise for free market to play bigger role in economy

While China is far far far from a free-market, as they move in that direct they are becoming immensely wealthy. And they have a culture I find interesting in some parts of China, where if you attempt to use the State to restrict someone else from making money - that's a f*cking sin. Just the opposite as here in the USA. You can't wipe your arse in the USA without breaking the law five times till Sunday. Yeah, we'll get all that State you want - it'll take real good care of you. Don't you worry, Detroit 2.0 here we come.

 

[iceaura]

Because the Government has taken over this responsibility the free-market has had no incentive to come up with solutions.

That's not what happened. What happened is that the private market has had hundreds of opportunities to take over a problem no government wanted to handle, and when no solutions appeared the governments were forced into dealing with the problem somehow - sometimes even created, as a means for people to deal with sewage and water supplies. That's a very common motive for setting up a government.

One solution is maybe people wouldn't live in big cities designed the way they are now. If it's truly impossible (and it most certainly isn't) then perhaps there just wouldn't BE mega-large cities. Maybe there'd be more greener smaller medium sized cities. Or maybe the layout would be different. Perhaps there'd be more parks and sewage would be treated locally and used as fertilized. Maybe it'd be turned into fuel? No one CAN know.

All those things have been tried for thousands of years. All of them have always required government action, regulation, intervention, coercion, and accomplishment, to be employed in the provision of a sewer system for a metropolitan area.

To this day, more than half the city dwellers in the huge cities of India defecate in the open, in areas adopted for this purpose by the free market choices of the individuals involved. Where the government has not provided sewer systems, they do not exist. That has not prevented these cities from becoming very large - as similarly sewer-free cities have become large for hundreds, thousands of years.

Just because no one has the answer now doesn't mean there is no answer.

My point was simply that no one has "the answer" now - in theory or in practice. Your assumption that there is one has no support in theory or in evidence - a blind assumption we have good reason in theory and in practice to reject.

While China is far far far from a free-market, as they move in that direct they are becoming immensely wealthy

One would hope for a better example of the benefits of free market anarchy than the small rays of ordinary liberal freedom within one of the world's most totalitarian societies and governments. I realize you are desperate for evidence and support, but China? Sheesh, why not Singapore? Why not a place with an actual free market and no government, like the fishing economy on the northeast African coast?

 

[Michael]

My point was simply that no one has "the answer" now - in theory or in practice. Your assumption that there is one has no support in theory or in evidence - a blind assumption we have good reason in theory and in practice to reject.

We do not have 'good reason' - we have no 'reason' at all: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Because 'voluntary' sewage treatment did, or did not, workout in the past, does not mean 'voluntary' sewage treatment will or will not be possible in the future.

For the sake of argument, suppose it's true (and I do not think it is). Suppose you are correct and mega-large cities can not physically function without the use of force against innocent people. Well then; guess what iceaura? This means we don't get to live in mega-large cities and call ourselves a moral society. One would think the dwellers in said cities could come to an arrangement where force would not have to be enacted against innocent people - but you don't see to think so. So, no mega-large moral cities.

It's really not that difficult - actually: f*cking simple.


Here's another one: Suppose you wanted to date some woman and she didn't want to date you? Well, too bad for you. You don't get to claim "nationhood" or "culture" or 'it's for the Good of the Nation" or "God told me to grab her" or "how can I take a nice dump in my mega-large city" or "The Social Contract" or "It says so in the Bible/Qur'an/Scientological ramblings of a SyFy Prophet" or "It's the Law" or "We took a Vote" or "She's a Citizen if she doesn't like my advances she can go live in Somalia" or "it's her patriot duty to the State" .... any other such nonsense to claim you morally use force against this innocent woman that doesn't want to date you. She doesn't want to so leave her alone.

Because if you do use force against her, your actions will be immoral.
You WILL be acting immorally.
It's THAT simple.


Honestly, I shit you not. This is not that difficult of a concept.
I'm sure your mother taught it to you: Don't hit, Don't take what's not yours, Use your words iceaura. Now go play with the other kids.

Pretty simply rules here. I'm sure even you can grasp their meaning.



Now, I'll await your answers to the questions proposed.

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

Looking at the governments that exist on Earth(rather than wasting time on how YOU think things should be or are)at this time we have no Anarchist systems other than where there is war, natural disaster or where government has failed completely. Anarchy is the natural condition of roving humans in the wild, but it does not even survive the meeting of ONE other human(unless you kill all of them on sight). Those who want Anarchist systems are the greedy rich, those that want Socialism are the very poor, somewhere in the middle is where all governments should be and the best government(measured by average income and "happiness" index)is about 50% Socialist and about 50% Capitalist. In fact the whole Scandinavian area is the best place on Earth as far as civilization goes. That's just the facts, Anarchy is lala land, Scandinavia is civilization. Deal with reality.

Grumpy

 

[iceaura]

We do not have 'good reason' - we have no 'reason' at all: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Because 'voluntary' sewage treatment did, or did not, workout in the past, does not mean 'voluntary' sewage treatment will or will not be possible in the future.

We have quite a bit of economic, ecological, psychological, and mathematical (games and decisions) theory indicating that no one except a government can set up a working sewer system for a large city, due to the nature of its costs and benefits. That is "reason".

We also have the circumstance that no one ever has, despite hundreds of opportunities over thousands of years.

And we have the fact that no one now published has any idea how it could be done in the future.

Nevertheless, and despite more than adequate reason, I did not assert impossibility. I simply asserted nonexistence at the moment. There are no free market sewage systems servicing industrial cities on this planet, there never have been any, all the theoreticians in the relevant disciplines regard the likelihood of one as vanishingly small, nobody knows how to set one up even in theory.

Suppose you are correct and mega-large cities can not physically function without the use of force against innocent people. Well then; guess what iceaura? This means we don't get to live in mega-large cities and call ourselves a moral society

And so you are going to forbid people to gather together into cities, because they would have to establish a government to install sewage disposal ? You will need not only a government, but a religion and an army, to impose a restriction that onerous.

 

[Michael]

Nevertheless, and despite more than adequate reason, I did not assert impossibility. I simply asserted nonexistence at the moment.

See, that wasn't hard. At one time the car didn't exist. At one time electricity didn't exist. At one time a cure for bacterial infections didn't exist. At one time the radio didn't exist.

I'm sure to someone living 150 years ago the notion I could sit at my desk and at my leisure communicate to someone anywhere in the world, nearly for free, probably would have seemed fanciful - yet here we are. So, who knows iceaura. Perhaps if we had never resorted to the State, you'd be pooping into a energy-harvesting devise that powers your house. We simply can't know what might have happened had people not resorted to a State because people always have resorted to the State.

Thus are people.

Which is why I'm not making an argument from history in this thread - I'm asking about the morality of 'special rights'.

And so you are going to forbid people to gather together into cities, because they would have to establish a government to install sewage disposal ? You will need not only a government, but a religion and an army, to impose a restriction that onerous.

As long as people do so voluntarily and don't enact force against innocent people - they can do whatever they like. No, you will not need a Government and no you will not need an Army and no you will not need Superstition. What we would need, IMO anyway, is peaceful parenting to produce children that think logically, an appreciation of the non-aggression axiom, law, private property rights and sound money. It's really pretty simple.



Not that you need to worry. Instead of a toilet-powered house, we get drones. We get spied on. We get to murder women and children across the globe in double-tap strikes. We get to be monitored. We get a gun to the head and told to pay TO work - for our own good. Because "the Government" Loves the Worker. Because "the Government" protects the Worker. Anyway, it's for the "Good of the NATION". And we're Americans.

So, don't you worry, we're going to be getting MORE government - not less. MORE.
Much more.
MUCH MUCH MOAR.
....and this little mental exercise as to what is moral and what is not moral, this isn't going to matter. Nothing we say or do is going to matter. That hyper-regulated thing many call the "Free" Market.... haha...HAAA! You don't have to worry about that either. Our interactions will be MORE regulated, not less - MORE. Who knows, maybe in another 20 years you'll need your electronic identification on you at all times when you leave your government rented house (rented in the sense the State will take it off you if you don't pay it property tax) to go to your Government regulated Job to be paid Government fiat currency with which a size able amount you will pay to the Government - you know, because no one can figure out how to poop without a gun to the head :bugeye:

So, aren't you lucky. You're going to get all the Government Services you ever dreamed of and then some.



There's a list of 5 questions up above regarding the thread topic. I'll await your response.