Anarchism

[Maqo]

Seriously, can you quit it with that 99.8% number? It means nothing, at all.
Even with the absurdity of the metric, it's counting creatures that aren't even human.
But more to the point, the majority of humans that have ever lived have lived under a state. The first states began to establish ~3000 BC, by which time we had (by most calculations) barely reached 5 billion humans to have EVER lived. The cumulative world population is now ~110 billion.
I can't say exactly when the majority of the living began to live within a state, but populations within a state grew at much faster rates than those without - perhaps for the simple reason that the state exists to manage large populations effectively.
It is much more revealing that 95%+ of humans that have ever lived have lived under a state.

But you were claiming that anarchism can only last for a few years, a patently false statement, not that anarchism only works on smaller groups.

? Perhaps you misunderstood me. My claim is that the Free Territory of Ukraine (which according to Wikipedia lasted 1918-1921) (and Catalonia, and the korean one) was unstable - similar to the infamous first Tacoma Narrows bridge which was 'successful' for 6 months before collapsing, implying that most people wouldn't actually call a bridge that literally shook itself apart a big success. That was all.
And then I got the ridiculous response that homo neanderthalensis lived in anarchy, which is irrelevant, and I disputed.

I think the truth is a combination of the two - anarchism can last indefinitely with small groups of people with simple lives (eg, primitivists) but it gets more unstable the more people there are - hence the historical phenomena that the state naturally arose in civilisations the world over generally coinciding with their development of sedentary agriculture.

[Sociobiology]

I can if your argument hinges on us accepting your subjective claim as objectively true.

if you keep saying "it just is" the correct response is "why?"

"You own yourself, don't you?"
"I don't want to"
"But you still do"
"Why?"

In any case, you aren't doing it very well.

oh pot, how you deride the kettle.
also in your little play there why is still a very valid question.

freedoms which are not inherent, but are created by the actions of society. thus if you want a society that cannot enforce them (aka a stateless one) you need to describe why they would still exist.

At which point in the transition from a statist to a stateless society do I revoke ownership over my body?

as soon as you no longer have a society that enforces that perceived right.

both of which you have been unable to demonstrate objectively exist.

I backed them each up with a new term, which were all ultimately backed by self-ownership.

which you intern backed with natural rights, see reasoning, circular.

so circular reasoning, "natural rights exist because self-ownership exists, and self ownership exists because natural rights exist."
Aaand down the rabbit hole we go...
so basically your entire argument is based on a very well known fallacy.

1. You own yourself.

unfounded assumption

2. This gives you certain immutable rights which are granted from birth as a result of 1.

B does not follow from A, a bit of affirming the consequent.

3. Assuming a society larger than one individual, yourself, other individuals equally satisfy 1 and 2.

which is in itself undemonstrated, so you're really piling on the fallacies. and in this case it is being used as a mask to hide the fact your first two assumptions are unfounded.

4. From this, we conclude that your rights cannot trump another's-- your rights end where another's begins.

which is by no means a given plenty of societies have acted differently, and again founded on the unfounded assumption of rights.

5. This develops into a principle by which aggression, or any form of rejection or trumping of 1 or 2 would be illegitimate as they directly contravene such axioms.

so first we have the vague, and subjective term aggression, and you can't claim illegitimacy with no agreed upon definition of your second subjective term, legitimacy, which a large non-state society will not have. AND again your axioms are unfounded.

6. From 5, you can prove any instance of free-market capitalism ethically correct.

a a naturalistic fallacy to top it all off.

Where is the circular argument?

here

The legitimacy works fine in anarcho-capitalism. Overriding self-ownership, which is, to various extents, in direct relation to the non-aggression principle-- which itself is built from natural law, whch is built upon natural rights, which come from self-ownership

which so far is the closest you have have come to justifying your assumptions, including the one the above argument if founded on.

You're the only one to have ever suggested such a circular loop in logic.

you do realize we can go back and read your posts right?

If you're having difficulty, here you go: 1 is self-ownership,

unfounded

2 is natural rights,

unfounded

4 is natural law

,
unfounded

and 5 is the non-aggression principle.

thus also unfounded
so your right it is not entirely circular reasoning it is also a huge dose of affirming the consequent and begging the question.

which equals the brain.

The actual person themselves is not the brain.

based on what?

I AM myself, but I OWN my body.

repeating it does not make it true

because your entire argument is based on it

Not in the argument posed above it wasn't. How is property an initation of force?

prevention of use by others, denying access, thus force.

Is my life, therefore, an initiation of force?

yes by many definitions of force, hence the problem with using force as a lone metric.

Left-wing libertarianism falls to pieces when we look at their views on property.

so now just throwing in random non-sequitur?

the mind, people, light, ideas, ect.

I AM myself; people individually own themselves

repeating it does not make it true.

light is the product of whatever is emitting it; ideas are the product of whatever emits them. They all fall into one or another category of property.

so we are the property of our parents? and in the end all property of supernovas?
keep going down the rabbit hole, I always wondered what the core of the earth looked like.

wait. so now there are definitions for property, hey lets have them, this might be a step back towards the light.

people, space, the ocean, ideas... what part of everyone does not agree with you was confusing?
hell there are people who believe animals cannot be property.

People individually own themselves;

again , repeating an assumption is not justifying it.

(unless I'm mistaken, space itself isn't anything at all)

you are mistaken

; ideas are the product of whoever emits them.

Until you manage to prove me that there isn't something that falls into one or another form of property, I will have a very hard time believing that such a statement is "subjective".

subjective definition of property, the very fact others do not consider it property and property is itself a social construct, means your definition will be subjective.

People might not want to want to call things property, but that's what they are.

based on your subjective opinion.

[Sociobiology]

I'm not
I'm assuming to functionally exist, legitimacy must be enforced.

Legitimacy =/= legality.

never said it did

so you see the massive flaw in your reasoning, but suffer from so much cognitive dissonance, that is you are so unwilling to even question your own beliefs, you just can't admit it.

See above post.

I did, my statement still stands.

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

An ideal government would be a Christian anarchy.

[Atlanticatia]

An ideal government would be a Christian anarchy.

That was like a triple paradox.

[The Scientific States]

An ideal government would be a Christian anarchy.

That wouldn't be a government.

[Maqo]

Arkolon. If you are your own property, can you sell yourself? That would seem to be one of the key components of property.

[Conscentia]

An ideal government would be a Christian anarchy.

That wouldn't be a government.

Government =/= state.

[Arkolon]

Arkolon. If you are your own property, can you sell yourself? That would seem to be one of the key components of property.

I'll address what Sociobio wrote later and answer this easy one first.

Yes, of course I can sell myself if I want to. Rothbard played a magical exception card and said no, that would be slavery, but Nozick was controversial in saying that entering slavery voluntarily was totally legitimate as long as it was totally voluntary. I can sell my kidneys, too, or even sell samples of my blood, urine or semen to whoever would buy that. Selling either part of myself or the whole of myself is totally legitimate as long as I consent to it.

[Arkolon]

The follow-on question was natural law, which came from your acceptance to natural rights. Let us continue to the following axiom. Overriding self-ownership, or natural rights, or natural law, would be illegitimate, correct? They would be wrong for the very reason that the things it breaches are, as you and I agree, right. This means that murder would be illegitimate, as it breaches self-ownership. As would rape. As would slavery. As would theft. As would all else in... the non-aggression principle.

So where does, in your left-libertarian eyes, does the NAP fall short of being consistent?

I feel that taxation is justified because something good comes out of it. Is it preferable to all alternatives? No. Could it be made better by allowing people to choose where their tax burden falls? Absolutely. But in cases like murder, or slavery, very few, or no people benefit from it. With taxation (in most cases) everyone does.

... but using taxation would contradict with everything you just agreed to.

[Arkolon]

An ideal government would be a Christian anarchy.

Let me guess, within Arendelle?

[Arkolon]

Consequentialism is usually used to justify the overriding of self-ownership because the means, overriding human rights, would justify the ends, which are instituting various positive freedoms. The means there are never justifiable.

Why not? Why are good outcomes automatically rejected because you have some ethical issue with the way we get there? Why are 'ethical' actions praised no matter how detrimental their outcome?
You're simply asserting that consequentialism is 'wrong' and self-ownership is 'right', without any proof. Which I guess there can't be, considering its a philosophical discussion. Which essentially leads us to the conclusion that what is ethical depends on your system of ethics imagine that.

Because the ends don't justify the means when the means contravene elementary human rights and liberties. "You're wrong because some people might disagree with you" is not a viable argument.

[Arkolon]

That wouldn't be a government.

Government =/= state.

Don't you have something of mine to respond to, by the way? Or was it my turn?

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

An ideal government would be a Christian anarchy.

Let me guess, within Arendelle?

Arendelle would be a fine anarchy if they could give up socialism.

[Maqo]

Because the ends don't justify the means when the means contravene elementary human rights and liberties.

'Contravening elementary human rights' can only be justified when the end is a better result than not taking that action. Ie, there would be a bigger violation of rights if I do not act. A lesser of two evils situation, if you will.

As I understand it, your philosophy tells you it is better to let a great harm occur if the path away from it is even the tiniest tiniest bit unethical? Hypothetically, if an alien spaceship shows up and says "Give us Maqo or we will destroy the earth!" - in your view, it would be better to let the world be destroyed than to sacrifice one person?

Arkolon. If you are your own property, can you sell yourself? That would seem to be one of the key components of property.

I'll address what Sociobio wrote later and answer this easy one first.

Yes, of course I can sell myself if I want to. Rothbard played a magical exception card and said no, that would be slavery, but Nozick was controversial in saying that entering slavery voluntarily was totally legitimate as long as it was totally voluntary. I can sell my kidneys, too, or even sell samples of my blood, urine or semen to whoever would buy that. Selling either part of myself or the whole of myself is totally legitimate as long as I consent to it.

If you sell yourself to someone else, do you then lose all your 'natural rights' as you no longer have self-ownership? Can you ever back out of the deal without violating your owner's rights?

[Arkolon]

Because the ends don't justify the means when the means contravene elementary human rights and liberties.

'Contravening elementary human rights' can only be justified when the end is a better result than not taking that action. Ie, there would be a bigger violation of rights if I do not act. A lesser of two evils situation, if you will.

If x men raped y women, where the pleasure gained from the y women by the x men had a positive result of 1 when the displeasure gained by the y women, Y1, was subtracted from X1, the pleasure the men had, would those rapes be justified? After all, there is more utility gained than lost, so it must be fine, no? Elementary human rights, whatever, the ends are great!

As I understand it, your philosophy tells you it is better to let a great harm occur if the path away from it is even the tiniest tiniest bit unethical? Hypothetically, if an alien spaceship shows up and says "Give us Maqo or we will destroy the earth!" - in your view, it would be better to let the world be destroyed than to sacrifice one person?

Letting you die versus the whole world dying would be a tricky question indeed, much like the "killing of 1 to save 1,000"-type question. Unfortunately, I would have to let you die, because your x would prevent the many-x of others. Were your x to give many-y-- or, to be put in perspective, one y per person, then it would not be justified. If we gave you up to the aliens for x starving kids to have a single meal, where X1 is larger than Y1 (Y1 being losing you to the aliens), that would not be justified, much like the rapes in the question above.

I'll address what Sociobio wrote later and answer this easy one first.

Yes, of course I can sell myself if I want to. Rothbard played a magical exception card and said no, that would be slavery, but Nozick was controversial in saying that entering slavery voluntarily was totally legitimate as long as it was totally voluntary. I can sell my kidneys, too, or even sell samples of my blood, urine or semen to whoever would buy that. Selling either part of myself or the whole of myself is totally legitimate as long as I consent to it.

If you sell yourself to someone else, do you then lose all your 'natural rights' as you no longer have self-ownership? Can you ever back out of the deal without violating your owner's rights?

You would become a slave to your master, and renouncing self-ownership would be renouncing natural rights, too, seeing as natural rights are the logical conclusion of self-ownership.

[Maqo]

'Contravening elementary human rights' can only be justified when the end is a better result than not taking that action. Ie, there would be a bigger violation of rights if I do not act. A lesser of two evils situation, if you will.

If x men raped y women, where the pleasure gained from the y women by the x men had a positive result of 1 when the displeasure gained by the y women, Y1, was subtracted from X1, the pleasure the men had, would those rapes be justified? After all, there is more utility gained than lost, so it must be fine, no? Elementary human rights, whatever, the ends are great!

Ending up with Y raped women is also part of the ends. As well as the Z remaining people in the world who disapprove.
If the situation is absurd, that is because it is difficult to imagine any numbers of x/y/X1/Y1 in the above situation where the equilibrium could take place.
The second part of consequentialism is whether a there exists another choice which can result in a more pareto-optimal outcome (better in at least one metric and at least as good in all others.) Positive utility is necessary but not sufficient to consider it ethical.

As I understand it, your philosophy tells you it is better to let a great harm occur if the path away from it is even the tiniest tiniest bit unethical? Hypothetically, if an alien spaceship shows up and says "Give us Maqo or we will destroy the earth!" - in your view, it would be better to let the world be destroyed than to sacrifice one person?

Letting you die versus the whole world dying would be a tricky question indeed, much like the "killing of 1 to save 1,000"-type question. Unfortunately, I would have to let you die, because your x would prevent the many-x of others. Were your x to give many-y-- or, to be put in perspective, one y per person, then it would not be justified. If we gave you up to the aliens for x starving kids to have a single meal, where X1 is larger than Y1 (Y1 being losing you to the aliens), that would not be justified, much like the rapes in the question above.

Why is it tricky?
If it works in ANY situation, at all, you have shown that at some point you concede to the consequentialist argument. Giving me to the aliens is still violating my 'elementary human right'. Why is it ethical for you to violate my rights in the situation of saving the entire world, but not for saving 10 starving children? At what point does it become ethical, and why, if not for consequentialism?

You would become a slave to your master, and renouncing self-ownership would be renouncing natural rights, too, seeing as natural rights are the logical conclusion of self-ownership.

That doesn't sound very natural. How can I lose my elementary, primordial, intrinsic natural rights which I have just by virtue of existing?

[Arkolon]

If x men raped y women, where the pleasure gained from the y women by the x men had a positive result of 1 when the displeasure gained by the y women, Y1, was subtracted from X1, the pleasure the men had, would those rapes be justified? After all, there is more utility gained than lost, so it must be fine, no? Elementary human rights, whatever, the ends are great!

Ending up with Y raped women is also part of the ends. As well as the Z remaining people in the world who disapprove.
If the situation is absurd, that is because it is difficult to imagine any numbers of x/y/X1/Y1 in the above situation where the equilibrium could take place.
The second part of consequentialism is whether a there exists another choice which can result in a more pareto-optimal outcome (better in at least one metric and at least as good in all others.) Positive utility is necessary but not sufficient to consider it ethical.

y would be an end, but, again, X1 minus Y1 equals 1, so there would be more benefit than loss, even if y women were raped. Tell me now: would these rapes be justified? If not, why not? It is very simple to come up with numbers to make this make sense, except last time we did it I assumed x = y, and we ended up debating the psychological effects and pleasurable gains of rape instead of deontology vs consequentialism. That's why I stick to vague numbers now. 10 raped women would be 10 lives ruined, and 10 rapists would arguably only be a small amount of pleasure gained. 100 rapists, ten per woman, would be impractical. Anywhere between x = 3y to x = 5y would be practical, and probably realistic, too. What are you trying to prove with z?

Letting you die versus the whole world dying would be a tricky question indeed, much like the "killing of 1 to save 1,000"-type question. Unfortunately, I would have to let you die, because your x would prevent the many-x of others. Were your x to give many-y-- or, to be put in perspective, one y per person, then it would not be justified. If we gave you up to the aliens for x starving kids to have a single meal, where X1 is larger than Y1 (Y1 being losing you to the aliens), that would not be justified, much like the rapes in the question above.

Why is it tricky?
If it works in ANY situation, at all, you have shown that at some point you concede to the consequentialist argument. Giving me to the aliens is still violating my 'elementary human right'. Why is it ethical for you to violate my rights in the situation of saving the entire world, but not for saving 10 starving children? At what point does it become ethical, and why, if not for consequentialism?

Actually, it would be your call. I would ask you, Maqo, whether you would prefer giving yourself to the aliens or having the whole of humanity die out. If you voluntarily make the decision, then it doesn't contravene your elementary rights. I'm also amazed at how lowly you value your life. Feeding ten starving kids a single hot meal would cost about $15, which ends up being a cumulative $150. I doubt Somali pirates would charge $150 for you to return to your homeland. In this case, x would have to be much higher. And again, it would be your call anyway. Would you want to die to feed x starving kids a single hot meal?

You would become a slave to your master, and renouncing self-ownership would be renouncing natural rights, too, seeing as natural rights are the logical conclusion of self-ownership.

That doesn't sound very natural. How can I lose my elementary, primordial, intrinsic natural rights which I have just by virtue of existing?

Because you explicitly gave those rights up by renouncing your self-ownership. Strictly speaking, you have given up living as an individual (who would own themselves and as such have rights to freedoms), and are now nothing but a slave, subject to the whims of your master. I can't see how doing so would be desirable by anyone, but it would be totally legitimate as long as it was totally voluntary.

[Conscentia]

Government =/= state.

Don't you have something of mine to respond to, by the way? Or was it my turn?

Yes, I'll get to it later.

[Jello Biafra]

What would you say is the relevant distinction between making healthcare decisions for people and making healthcare policy?

Also, I snipped off the other part because I think if we can realize what the other is talking about here, then it will help with the police force discussion as well.

Typically, a 21st century doctor in a developed country will reach a diagnosis and present a patient with a number of possible treatment options. The patient is then free to choose between any of the treatments, or none at all. It's a very personal, optional relationship. There is no force involved making you take your meds and no punishment for not doing so.

Sure. I would compare this to a health care policy delegate who negotiates the policy and then brings it to the general public for a vote.

Conversely, making policy essentially determines a course of action that *must* be followed. There is no opportunity to say 'no, I don't want that policy, what are the alternatives?' Policy is enforced, and policy affects everyone.

We were talking both about the example you mentioned and also the example where the patient is in a coma and a decision has to be made on the patient's behalf but without the patient's input. I compared this to an instance of the healthcare policy delegates making the policy without bringing it to the general public for a vote.

[Vazdania]

Anarchism, without some sort of quasi-enforcing authority, (Which defies Anarchism's spirit) is impossible. The ideology, much like Communism, cannot and will not happen due to Human Nature.

[Alaizia]

Anarchism, without some sort of quasi-enforcing authority, (Which defies Anarchism's spirit) is impossible. The ideology, much like Communism, cannot and will not happen due to Human Nature.

Prepare for a shitstorm of replies from some unrepetant annies.

[Distruzio]

Anarchism, without some sort of quasi-enforcing authority, (Which defies Anarchism's spirit) is impossible. The ideology, much like Communism, cannot and will not happen due to Human Nature.

Prepare for a shitstorm of replies from some unrepetant annies.

As a repentant "annie" I have to admit that when you're right you're right.

[Jello Biafra]

Anarchism, without some sort of quasi-enforcing authority, (Which defies Anarchism's spirit) is impossible. The ideology, much like Communism, cannot and will not happen due to Human Nature.

What is the 'spirit' of anarchism?

[Casita]

Since when is defending one's self against the 'spirit' of anarchism?

This nonsense about anarchists want to be free but aren't allowed to defend themselves from exploitation via force, is really getting old.



What is the 'spirit' of anarchism, btw?