quadibloc on April 12, 2011, 06:50:40 pm
If people lived in an open and stable society where no government existed, there would be property rights and reasonable people would come to agreements.
Then you're agreeing with the AnCap position.

But, if you called that same government-less society an anarchy, people would behave as if it were; because in an anarchy, there are no property rights.  
This is what people believe, and so they act on that belief.
It is legitimate, and not fudging the argument, to say that people who travelled off to Ceres or an island in the Pacific to establish an AnCap society will know what kind of society they intend to establish, and will not, unlike some other people, be misled by a misinterpretation of its name.

Also, after that society has been around for a while, other people will know it doesn't correspond to that particular definition of "anarchy" either.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 02:46:32 am by quadibloc »

terry_freeman on April 13, 2011, 01:05:42 am
You're attempting to reason with idealists. This can not be done. The only way to affect their views is to expose them directly to the reality of said views. In other words go to an anarchist region and just throw them on the street.

In short, Holt, your argument is that your "might is right".

That argument fails the first time an anarchist shoots your sorry ass and dumps you in the river.

As a logical argument, it's a total non-starter. Is that your best?




Archonix on April 13, 2011, 02:39:09 am
I suspect the problem is the definition of "anarchist". In the UK the term is used most often as a shorthand for violent socialism or anyone who acts violently at protests. Anarchy means violence and lack of respect for the rule of law these days rather than the ideal expressed by Sandy and others. Those "weekenders" Holt mentioned are a perfect example: they're the children of prosperity who entertain themselves by throwing rocks at things and using that as a reason to express "solidarity" with the world's poor. At the msot recent protests about government cuts the group that occupied (and heavily damaged) a few up-market shops were described as anarchists, yet their slogans were "tax the rich" and various demands for more money from the government. Anarchism? Somehow I don't think so, but they're the stereotypical perception of anarchists. Not counting the majority of the members here, most self-described anarchists tend to be young socialists with a penchant for violence and the belief that expressing "solidarity" with various causes makes them more noble.

It's an unfortunate linguistic evolution, just as awful used to mean the opposite of what it's used for today.

mellyrn on April 13, 2011, 06:38:49 am
Quote
If you tell someone that society is anarchy, and their is enough evidence that they can see for themselves, they will act as if they lived in an anarchy.

Annnnnddd, no amount of words will convince someone who believes that anarchy means lawlessness that your law-filled, orderly, government-less society is not anarchy.

Oh?  "If you tell someone that [this place, 'your law-filled, orderly, government-less society'] is 'a state of lawlessness, chaos where anything goes', #AND# there is enough evidence that they can see for themselves . . . " -- whoops!  You've got as givens:

a) someone believing that "anarchy = lawlessness"
b) a 'law-filled, orderly, government-less society'
AND
c) 'evidence that they can see for themselves' that 'law-filled, orderly' = 'lawlessness'.

Dude, the someone in question either has to doubt the equation of anarchy with lawlessness, OR he has to doubt the 'you' who is telling him that this orderly society IS an anarchy, OR he is insane to 'see for himself' that 'law-filled and orderly' = 'lawlessness'.

Try again?

GlennWatson on April 13, 2011, 06:39:44 am
You're attempting to reason with idealists. This can not be done. The only way to affect their views is to expose them directly to the reality of said views. In other words go to an anarchist region and just throw them on the street.

In short, Holt, your argument is that your "might is right".

That argument fails the first time an anarchist shoots your sorry ass and dumps you in the river.

As a logical argument, it's a total non-starter. Is that your best?





Might might not be right but it usually wins, so whats the difference?

mellyrn on April 13, 2011, 06:41:14 am
Quote
I suspect the problem is the definition of "anarchist".

Hence the thread, "queer, gay, and anarchistic" which started as a discussion of that problem & proposed "decentralized" or "networked" or "voluntaryist" as alternatives.

Holt on April 13, 2011, 07:09:34 am
You're attempting to reason with idealists. This can not be done. The only way to affect their views is to expose them directly to the reality of said views. In other words go to an anarchist region and just throw them on the street.

In short, Holt, your argument is that your "might is right".

That argument fails the first time an anarchist shoots your sorry ass and dumps you in the river.

As a logical argument, it's a total non-starter. Is that your best?

Would you still be an anarchist after living in Freetown? They were quite quick to drop anarchy in favour of a democratic system with few laws. Eventually despite being anarchists they were thoroughly kerbstomped by the local government who had finally had enough of trying to reason with them regarding their cannabis trade.

happycrow on April 13, 2011, 08:31:10 am
Eh, gentlemen, in a way I think you're arguing past each other.

Lack of private property rights is a serious issue in any anarchy:  ten minutes in any favela demonstrates this.
On the other hand, it's also true that customary practice (which is what replaces government where there is none).
On the gripping hand, it's also-also-true that outsiders to those practices are not bound to follow them.

That gripping hand is important, yet it is also something which affects areas which are governed -- and especially areas which are ruled.  Law doesn't provide virtue, as anybody who's ever seen a culture embedded in the "screw the other guy first" mindset can readily vouch.

Holt on April 13, 2011, 08:59:00 am
The law like most things can be virtuous or villainous depending on who is involved.
But it's not like that "legalise weed now" comic BHP put out which pretty much said all police are on par with the Nazis

spudit on April 13, 2011, 09:01:13 am
Good stuff here folks.

Are we Yanks and friend Holt using the same definitions or is this a windshield - windscreen thing. Seperated by common language, what?

Does Holt float? One way to find out. ;D But no barrels though, that would be mean.

Hey, mean, now there's a common word with about a dozen "meanings". Who wants to fight about it? In this case cruel, just to be clear.

Anarchist societies do exist alone. I used the present tense because we all exist in them sometimes on small scales. That is we play nicely with other children when teacher is not watching. They are self defining and self policing to use a badly fitting word.

My property is mine. My neighbors agree and I recognize there's as well. Suddenly it's not one against the world it's a group. How big, who knows. Let's find out.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

spudit on April 13, 2011, 09:03:54 am
Not all police no, but there is still a lot of just following orders in their culture, as in enforcing laws any sane person would see as wrong. Gotta fix that someday. Not today though.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Holt on April 13, 2011, 09:14:07 am
Not all police no, but there is still a lot of just following orders in their culture, as in enforcing laws any sane person would see as wrong. Gotta fix that someday. Not today though.

This is why I miss traditional British policing. Instead of just following orders and not knowing the community you serve, you had the neighbourhood bobby who scared the children into behaving themselves and knew when to let things slide.

spudit on April 13, 2011, 09:18:13 am
Gotta love the hat too.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Holt on April 13, 2011, 09:41:57 am
Aye those hats do rock. You can always tell British police apart from all others because of those dam fine hats.

J Thomas on April 13, 2011, 10:24:07 am


In short, Holt, your argument is that your "might is right".

That argument fails the first time an anarchist shoots your sorry ass and dumps you in the river.

As a logical argument, it's a total non-starter. Is that your best?

Might might not be right but it usually wins, so whats the difference?

Well, when somebody is strong enough that they get the only vote, it doesn't much matter what you argue unless they like your argument. They might still encourage people to debate issues and agree for themselves about what's right, because that makes it easier -- provided people do reach the result they want. If it starts going too much off track they might stop the discussion and tell people what to believe.

But most of the time, there isn't somebody that strong. If they look that strong it's because a lot of people support them or at least don't care enough to intervene. And in that case it really does matter what people think.

When we can reach a common agreement about what's right, we don't have to fight to see who wins. We can just agree. And if enough of us agree then the ones who don't will probably knuckle under without a fight because they're sure they'd lose.

So that's the difference. When you're strong enough to beat everybody else one at a time or all together, and you have the time to watch what they do and make sure they do what you want, then you have the only say. But most of the time, getting agreement about what's right is the more practical approach. Or even just let them do what they want until they start to encroach on you, and then push back in a friendly polite but firm manner.