Anarchism

[Arkolon]

Again, please do not conflate nature (biological sciences) with nature (political philosophy).

Again? When did I do this previously?

Regardless, the political philosophy is another social construct. There are no such things as rights except where we invent them. To do so requires a subjective value system, making "rights" no different than "beliefs".

Again because I grouped you into the large pool of internet "critics" of anarchism that never really bothered to delve into the actual philosophy in the first place. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have conflated the two terms.

Social constructs still exist. What constitutes a negative right or liberty is not subject to subjective reasoning.

[Arkolon]

Natural law (political philosophy) and natural law (science) are not at all the same.

Again, what? No-one mentioned "natural law".

There is no distinct political concept called "nature".

Natural rights, natural law, the whole Lockean "naturalist" argument. Of course there is.

[Conscentia]

Again, what? No-one mentioned "natural law".

There is no distinct political concept called "nature".

Natural rights, natural law, the whole Lockean "naturalist" argument. Of course there is.

Could you elaborate on how those do not just use a dictionary definition of "natural"?

[Cymrea]

Again because I grouped you into the large pool of internet "critics" of anarchism that never really bothered to delve into the actual philosophy in the first place. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have conflated the two terms.

Social constructs still exist. What constitutes a negative right or liberty is not subject to subjective reasoning.

Well, then, in fairness I will group you into the large pool of internet "keyboard cowboys" who respond to dissenting perspectives with unwarranted condescension and disdain. If you knew how to express yourself with a modicum of grace, you wouldn't have come off as a pompous windbag.

Social constructs most certainly exist, and I never said otherwise. What constitutes any right or liberty is absolutely subject to subjective reasoning because they are subjective values.

[Arkolon]

Natural rights, natural law, the whole Lockean "naturalist" argument. Of course there is.

Could you elaborate on how those do not just use a dictionary definition of "natural"?

The dictionary definition is far too vague. They do, to an extent, use the dictionary definition. They do not use the scientific definition, as in pertaining to biological nature.

[Conscentia]

Could you elaborate on how those do not just use a dictionary definition of "natural"?

The dictionary definition is far too vague. They do, to an extent, use the dictionary definition. They do not use the scientific definition, as in pertaining to biological nature.

Scientists do not use "nature" to refer exclusively to the biological. They have the word "biotic" for that.

[Arkolon]

Again because I grouped you into the large pool of internet "critics" of anarchism that never really bothered to delve into the actual philosophy in the first place. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have conflated the two terms.

Social constructs still exist. What constitutes a negative right or liberty is not subject to subjective reasoning.

Well, then, in fairness I will group you into the large pool of internet "keyboard cowboys" who respond to dissenting perspectives with unwarranted condescension and disdain. If you knew how to express yourself with a modicum of grace, you wouldn't have come off as a pompous windbag.

Social constructs most certainly exist, and I never said otherwise. What constitutes any right or liberty is absolutely subject to subjective reasoning because they are subjective values.

Despite how much you must want me to whisper loving words into your ear, I'm not here to show you affection. I'm here to debate anarchism, the title of this thread, and you made clear you total disregard for anarchist philosophy-- not only once-- but twice since your last post. You cannot distinguish nature in biology from nature in political philosophy, and now, clearly, you have no understanding of the two distinctions of liberty. What is negative and what is positive liberty is not subject to subjective reasoning. Positives and negatives are not subjective values.

[Arkolon]

The dictionary definition is far too vague. They do, to an extent, use the dictionary definition. They do not use the scientific definition, as in pertaining to biological nature.

Scientists do not use "nature" to refer exclusively to the biological. They have the word "biotic" for that.

I'm not pretending that every poster in this thread that made the common, amateurish mistake was a scientist. I'm fairly sure they meant biological nature as in "biotic", anyway. Natural law would be objective scientific law, in their eyes, which it isn't in our context.

[Conscentia]

Scientists do not use "nature" to refer exclusively to the biological. They have the word "biotic" for that.

I'm not pretending that every poster in this thread that made the common, amateurish mistake was a scientist. I'm fairly sure they meant biological nature as in "biotic", anyway. Natural law would be objective scientific law, in their eyes, which it isn't in our context.

You've misunderstood them.

[Zottistan]

humans naturally developed states.

Only after several hundred thousand years of existing without them.

They still developed them naturally, and still naturally behave that way in large societies.

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

Coercion is natural.

He's specified that by "natural" he means "in accordance with natural law".

[Conscentia]

Only after several hundred thousand years of existing without them.

They still developed them naturally, and still naturally behave that way in large societies.

Humans naturally form super-organisms. They don't necessarily have to be states.

[Zottistan]

They still developed them naturally, and still naturally behave that way in large societies.

Humans naturally form super-organisms. They don't necessarily have to be states.

But the ones we have naturally formed so far have been states. So states form naturally, just like hierarchy.

[Arkolon]

Humans naturally form super-organisms. They don't necessarily have to be states.

But the ones we have naturally formed so far have been states. So states form naturally, just like hierarchy.

But are they in accordance with natural law?

[Zottistan]

But the ones we have naturally formed so far have been states. So states form naturally, just like hierarchy.

But are they in accordance with natural law?

Not with your interpretation of it. Your interpretation being as valid as any other system of ethics.

[Conscentia]

Humans naturally form super-organisms. They don't necessarily have to be states.

But the ones we have naturally formed so far have been states. So states form naturally, just like hierarchy.

They can form naturally, or they can be imposed onto societies by existing states (eg. Colonising European powers created states where previously there had been none).
Of-coarse, that doesn't make them preferable. Computers aren't "natural", but their existence is preferable to their absence. Meanwhile, Malaria is "natural" and it's existence is most objectionable.

[Conscentia]

Arkolon, could you explain what you mean by the "natural" in "natural law"?

[Cymrea]

Despite how much you must want me to whisper loving words into your ear, I'm not here to show you affection. I'm here to debate anarchism, the title of this thread, and you made clear you total disregard for anarchist philosophy-- not only once-- but twice since your last post. You cannot distinguish nature in biology from nature in political philosophy, and now, clearly, you have no understanding of the two distinctions of liberty. What is negative and what is positive liberty is not subject to subjective reasoning. Positives and negatives are not subjective values.

Your omniscience is broken. Best not to try to presume what I want, because you're failing miserably at it. Since you can't be bothered with the simplest courtesies, you'll get what you give.

I've been debating on the topic, but you have made it clear - not only once but twice now - that you are incapable of discerning what I'm actually saying. You demonstrate a complete failure to understand that it doesn't fall into your narrow - and dubious - definition of nature. Invent whatever bullshit distinctions you like, but you don't have the monopoly on perspective.

Now pay attention, because this is the second time I've had to pull your words back out of my mouth: I said nothing about the subjectivity of positive and negative. But when you strip away all the pseudo-academic nonsense, rights and liberties are subjective concepts invented by humans.

My disagreeing with you does not constitute a disregard for the philosophy. See if you can manage to recognise dissenting perspective and how it differs from disregard.

[Zottistan]

But the ones we have naturally formed so far have been states. So states form naturally, just like hierarchy.

They can form naturally, or they can be imposed onto societies by existing states (eg. Colonising European powers created states where previously there had been none).
Of-coarse, that doesn't make them preferable. Computers aren't "natural", but their existence is preferable to their absence. Meanwhile, Malaria is "natural" and it's existence is most objectionable.

I know. Just saying that "hierarchy is natural, states aren't" is wrong.

[Tea Party Separation of America]

Now, im a Tea partier that supports personal liberty, limited government, ETC. But when people bring up TOTAL anarchy, i just tell them to watch The Purge.

[Conscentia]

Now, im a Tea partier that supports personal liberty, limited government, ETC. But when people bring up TOTAL anarchy, i just tell them to watch The Purge.

The Purge does not demonstrate anarchy as advocated by anarchists.

[Tea Party Separation of America]

Now, im a Tea partier that supports personal liberty, limited government, ETC. But when people bring up TOTAL anarchy, i just tell them to watch The Purge.

The Purge does not demonstrate anarchy as advocated by anarchists.

Yes, it demonstrates how anarchy would turn out XD

[Conscentia]

The Purge does not demonstrate anarchy as advocated by anarchists.

Yes, it demonstrates how anarchy would turn out XD

No it doesn't.
The Purge is initiated abruptly with the purpose of encouraging violent crime, and it's enacted by the state as a means of population control. During the Purge there are no institutions are established to allow people to defend themselves.
Many anarchists advocate a transition, and even those that want an abrupt revolution advocate the establishment of institutions such as militias to allow people to protect themselves.
Additionally, the purge is a period of lawlessness - anarchist do no advocate the abolition of law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law.

[Arkolon]

But are they in accordance with natural law?

Not with your interpretation of it. Your interpretation being as valid as any other system of ethics.

I disagree. The initiation of force is negatively perceived in all ethical systems. Those who initiate force in your perspective and that have a different ethical system see their initiation of force as justice; as the reciprocation of force. Communists initiate force on the capitalistic system in riots and revolutions because they see that as the initiation of force. In no ethical system is the unwarranted initiation of force justified. It can be given justifications as the reciprocation of force, but never the initiation.

[Arkolon]

Arkolon, could you explain what you mean by the "natural" in "natural law"?

Although NST was right in saying that it creates confusion, I was taught with these terms as they were given by John Locke and Robert Nozick. Natural as in human social nature, not biological nature.

[Arkolon]

Now, im a Tea partier that supports personal liberty, limited government, ETC. But when people bring up TOTAL anarchy, i just tell them to watch The Purge.

You claim to support personal liberty, but oppose drug legalisation, freedom of love, freedom of expression, and liberalism? How does that work?