NationStates

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Ancaps don't see a problem with the class system. Why are you asking?

It just seemed to me that your argument against Anarcho-capitalism was that it maintains the class system, and I thought this was curious because no an-cap would see any problem with that. Obviously I've misunderstood you somewhere.

"Thinking of becoming" implies you're not already, and I assumed you were sensible and would find plutocracy objectionable - was that a mistake?

Conscentia wrote:

36 Camera Perspective wrote:It just seemed to me that your argument against Anarcho-capitalism was that it maintains the class system, and I thought this was curious because no an-cap would see any problem with that. Obviously I've misunderstood you somewhere.

"Thinking of becoming" implies you're not already, and I assumed you were sensible and would find plutocracy objectionable - was that a mistake?

But can't we make a distinction between having classes and having plutocracy? I think you've made an explicit argument for the former but not the latter.

Herskerstad wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:How are we defining "compatible" for the poll question?

I would say that if compatible it would either add to the spirit of western civilisation or at the very least be able to coexist with such without great friction, whereas in the negative it would be counteractive to western values, norms, standards be it in doctrine or development. I am aware large terms are being thrown about in it, so it's a very open question to be defined as a person would will it.

I don't think it'd add to the overall spirit of Western civilization, since the basis of Western civilization is a mix of Graeco-Roman philosophy and Christianity. Can it coexist with little relative friction? Yes, if reformed among the adherents within the West much like many Bosnians and Albanians have already done. You could not take how Islam is practiced in say the Arab states (especially the Gulf Arab ones) or Pakistan or parts of India etc and not have it clash with Western civilization, especially as it pertains to our ethics, morals, and norms in the 21st century. Not to mention certain sects are overall better suited for coexisting with Western civilization, such as Nizaris (among others, Sufis also tend to be much more suited though not always).

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Conscentia wrote:"Thinking of becoming" implies you're not already, and I assumed you were sensible and would find plutocracy objectionable - was that a mistake?

But can't we make a distinction between having classes and having plutocracy? I think you've made an explicit argument for the former but not the latter.

We can make that distinction. All the world's countries have a class system, but not all of them are plutocracies.

I didn't think I'd have to explain that if you privatise the state apparatus then wealthy people will buy it.

Conscentia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:This is a rather odd definition of class.
My father owns a small business (i.e. private property). Yet when he worked in the corporate world, but didn't own any private property other than his house, he was arguably more influential. If all you have to fear is a class of shopkeepers taking you hostage, then you don't have an argument since this is an odd way to describe plutocracy. In many respects people who do not have to own property have more advantages.

What?
I think you've misunderstood. By "class system" I'm referring to the existence of classes. I call Ancapistan a "plutocracy" because the wealthy will own the state apparatus.

Okay, but I am still unsure what your argument actually is. You said "AnCapistan's 'state' maintain's private property (...) and thus maintains the class system," making it seem like you equated owning property with a class system.

---

Nevermind, afk.

Of course the response to Islam, or more accurately its extremist sects, is not to launch some genocidal campaign across the globe.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Conscentia wrote:What?
I think you've misunderstood. By "class system" I'm referring to the existence of classes. I call Ancapistan a "plutocracy" because the wealthy will own the state apparatus.

Okay, but I am still unsure what your argument actually is. You said "AnCapistan's 'state' maintain's private property (...) and thus maintains the class system," making it seem like you equated owning property with a class system.

Class is defined by one's economic social relations - one's 'relations of production'. Private property naturally produces a class system - people who own it and people who don't. It gets more complicated than that, but elaboration on that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It not controversial that capitalist economies have economic classes. I don't know why you're so focused on that detail - unless you for some reason think that Ancapistan would be a classless society.

Conscentia wrote:

36 Camera Perspective wrote:But can't we make a distinction between having classes and having plutocracy? I think you've made an explicit argument for the former but not the latter.

We can make that distinction. All the world's countries have a class system, but not all of them are plutocracies.

I didn't think I'd have to explain that if you privatise the state apparatus then wealthy people will buy it.

What exactly results?

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Conscentia wrote:We can make that distinction. All the world's countries have a class system, but not all of them are plutocracies.
I didn't think I'd have to explain that if you privatise the state apparatus then wealthy people will buy it.

What exactly results?

Results from what? From plutocracy? Are you asking me to argue that plutocracy is undesirable? Do you not already think plutocracy is undesirable?

Conscentia wrote:

36 Camera Perspective wrote:What exactly results?

Results from what?

Privatization. Describe what you think will happen and why it's undesirable.

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Results from what?

Privatization. Describe what you think will happen and why it's undesirable.

To privatise something means to release it for sale on the market. State apparatus isn't cheap, so only people who are wealthy will be able to afford to buy it. The result is that the state apparatus now belongs to unaccountable plutocrats who's power is derived solely by the virtue of being them being wealthy enough to purchase the means to their power - a plutocracy. Do you not already think plutocracy is undesirable?

Conscentia wrote:

36 Camera Perspective wrote:What exactly results?

Results from what? From plutocracy? Are you asking me to argue that plutocracy is undesirable? Do you not already think plutocracy is undesirable?

I'm just unsure that it would give the wealthy the kind of power we find undesirable in plutocracy

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Results from what? From plutocracy? Are you asking me to argue that plutocracy is undesirable? Do you not already think plutocracy is undesirable?

I'm just unsure that it would give the wealthy the kind of power we find undesirable in plutocracy

They'd have absolute control over the state apparatus since they own it. What more power do they need?

Conscentia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Okay, but I am still unsure what your argument actually is. You said "AnCapistan's 'state' maintain's private property (...) and thus maintains the class system," making it seem like you equated owning property with a class system.

Class is defined by one's economic social relations - one's 'relations of production'. Private property naturally produces a class system - people who own it and people who don't. It gets more complicated than that, but elaboration on that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It not controversial that capitalist economies have economic classes. I don't know why you're so focused on that detail - unless you for some reason think that Ancapistan would be a classless society.

So why would this necessarily lead to a state?

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Class is defined by one's economic social relations - one's 'relations of production'. Private property naturally produces a class system - people who own it and people who don't. It gets more complicated than that, but elaboration on that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It not controversial that capitalist economies have economic classes. I don't know why you're so focused on that detail - unless you for some reason think that Ancapistan would be a classless society.

So why would this necessarily lead to a state?

Lead to? If you have private property, there already is one. Private property exists because the state enforces the property rights of it's owners.

I'm not arguing, as many do, that Ancapistan will produce a state. I'm arguing it never gets rid of it to begin with - it just changes the form of that state into a plutocracy.

The poll question is so vague as to be pointless. What are we defining as "Western civilisation?" How are we defining "compatible?" Hell, there's not even a universal consensus on what is and isn't Islam.

Conscentia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:So why would this necessarily lead to a state?

Lead to? If you have private property, there already is one. Private property exists because the state enforces the property rights of it's owners.

I'm not arguing, as many do, that Ancapistan will produce a state. I'm arguing it never gets rid of it to begin with - it just changes the form of that state into a plutocracy.

This is just circular logic now. The state exists because of private property, and then private property exists because of a state? Obviously one of your definitions are flawed, because nobody would equate private property with a state, if it is dependent on that state to exist in the first place. Therefore your argument is just affirming the consequent, and provides no evidence otherwise.

Conscentia wrote:

36 Camera Perspective wrote:I'm just unsure that it would give the wealthy the kind of power we find undesirable in plutocracy

They'd have absolute control over the state apparatus since they own it. What more power do they need?

In what sense do they have absolute control?

Napkiraly wrote:Of course the response to Islam, or more accurately its extremist sects, is not to launch some genocidal campaign across the globe.

Tell this to the US. They've been warring in the middle east for almost two decades.

Someone should add a "Muh dumbass spooks" option.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Of course the response to Islam, or more accurately its extremist sects, is not to launch some genocidal campaign across the globe.

Tell this to the US. They've been warring in the middle east for almost two decades.

Yes but our campaigns have been restrained by "humanitarian concerns". Alas, poor Uncle Sam, prevented from the endsieg.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Lead to? If you have private property, there already is one. Private property exists because the state enforces the property rights of it's owners.

I'm not arguing, as many do, that Ancapistan will produce a state. I'm arguing it never gets rid of it to begin with - it just changes the form of that state into a plutocracy.

This is just circular logic now. The state exists because of private property, and then private property exists because of a state? Obviously one of your definitions are flawed, because nobody would equate private property with a state, if it is dependent on that state to exist in the first place. Therefore your argument is just affirming the consequent, and provides no evidence otherwise.

Consc never mentioned "the state exists because of private property," only the second statement, that private property exists because of a state. What Conscientia was arguing is that the state can primarily be defined by being an institution which protects a class system--a definition I'm not too sure of myself, but it's not circular. It's like saying 'laws only exist because of the state' (this is, of course, excluding systems of custom law--I'm talking about centrally-decided and enforced laws) and then saying that one of the state's defining features is that it creates and enforces laws. This isn't exactly circular, and is analogous to Conscientia's arguments. I have my own problems with Consc's argument, but it's a logically valid one, I think.

Napkiraly wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:

I forgot about your previous career as the Frito Bandito

Why must you persecute me so? First implying I am a Turk, now this? Truly Nap you will sink to any level to slander my good name.

Lady Scylla wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
You aren't even a real libertarian. I'm more free market than you.

You wouldn't know free market if it gave you a tax deduction.

I read the Prophet Hoppe, I know a non-believer when I see one. Even worse is a heretic like TLT.

Conscentia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:So why would this necessarily lead to a state?

Lead to? If you have private property, there already is one. Private property exists because the state enforces the property rights of it's owners.

I'm not arguing, as many do, that Ancapistan will produce a state. I'm arguing it never gets rid of it to begin with - it just changes the form of that state into a plutocracy.

What is the difference between a public police department and a privately owned one? Really only the name. Its no different than if your lot tried to get rid of the state, you would merely call it by a different name.