US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[unknown lions fan]

Do you put out fires with gasoline? Or are you some kind of waterist?

wut..lol

[dpatnod]

Your a rabid waterist!!!!!!!!

[unknown lions fan]

One of my anarchist meme-master buddies:

trumptwitter.JPG

[The King]

Is that Bobby Valentine?

[unknown lions fan]

lol - alright, I will try to keep this minimal, but this one is too funny to resist...

statism.JPG

[JGSpartan]

You say Anarchy is the absence of rulers not rules.

This very concept is contradictory because rules even if agreed upon voluntarily create a form of governance. Combined with any who don't agree to the rules you now have a hierarchy of different power dynamics and sets of rules in a land and different governing bodies even if those governing bodies consider themselves to be collectively equal.

Let's say Group A says murder is wrong and punishable by death but Group B says its unpunishable. If someone from group B murders someone from group A you suddenly have a contradiction on what happens next. A contradiction that will require one group attempting to rule over the other.

You now have rulers, You now have government.

I suppose you could live in a dream world where all these differences were handled peacefully but any deviation from the rules would require a monumental task of getting all to agree on the compromise.

Anarchy with rules is an impossibilty. At least on any meaningful scale.. You could maybe make it work with a group you could fit in a room I suppose.. .

[unknown lions fan]

That does not indicate any inconsistency in my philosophy.

Messiness is a function of self organization. If I associate with a group that agrees to these rules, and you associate with a group that agrees to those rules, we have potential for a conflict. Again, perfection is not for this world. This scenario will always exist. It exists in today's era of statism, no matter how much central control tries to quash it.

Best we find a way to "socially distance" ourselves in one way or another. And if there's a conflict, best we find some way to resolve it as peacefully as we can...

Murder is a bit of a silly example. While I don't subscribe to any "objective" morality, I don't know many societies that think murder is a good thing. And if they did, one could easily imagine staying the fuck out of their place, and disallowing them into their space (remember, property rights.)

For the sake of operational definitions, I use the term "government" and "the state" distinctly different. "Government" could be used to describe any manner of rules and control, whether it be a parents determining the rules for their household, or a snowmobile club determining their rules for participation in their club. The state, however, is a different entity altogether. It consists of a monopoly on the use of violence, with supposed "authority" over some arbitrary boundaries, with a claim to rule over people within those boundaries, whether they agree to the rules or not.

Again, anarchy is not the abolition of rules. It's the abolition of rulers - people who impose rules on others without their consent.

All rights are based on property, all the way down to self-ownership. My body is mine. What I own, acquired through exchange or my labor is mine. I have complete discretion regarding the holding, trade, or distribution of my property. Any imposition on that is a violation of individual rights. Any imposition by myself or the life, liberty, or property of another is a violation of their rights.

"Anarchy with rules is an impossibilty." No, it's not. Rules are based on property. Society is an organization of individuals. Rules are an emergent property resulting from their interactions with one another.

[JGSpartan]

Oh dear...A group of 5 decided together they own you. Your liberty is gone. They now rule you. Absence of rules and rulers is an impossibility. There will Always be those who desire to make decisions for others..

As it pertains to my previous post You purposefully passed on commenting on the part where the resolution to the conflict between the two parties requires that one will need to make a decision from the other thus creating rule and groups of people making decisions for others. Power over you is power over you regardless of how much.

[unknown lions fan]

Step by step...

A group of 5 decided they own me.

OK, let's put us on an island. Six people.

Are you legitimizing their claim? On what grounds?

I deny their claim.

Now what?
Conflict.



Now, which one of those 5 is willing to initiate violence against me to support their claim? What if I snap the neck of the first one that initiates violence, will the other four come? Was I right or wrong in defending myself against their claim to own me?

You purposefully passed on commenting on the part where the resolution to the conflict between the two parties requires that one will need to make a decision from the other thus creating rule and groups of people making decisions for others. Power over you is power over you regardless of how much.

No, I addressed it with voluntary association. If I don't like the rules of one group I associate with, I can withdraw and move my association to another group. We do this every day with our voluntary associations in the real world. You join a group, you don't like their rules, you disassociate with it.

Seriously, what is so hard about these concepts? My understanding of all objections I've faced in a hundred conversations points to one thing: An objective reality. A belief that there is ONE RIGHT (in the context of right vs wrong ...based on the "right" held by the advocate) and that all dissent should submit to the "majority rule" (if the proponent agrees with it) for the sake of "society." And, we need a monopoly on the use of force to make sure everyone adheres to the ONE RIGHT, even though none of us agree what that RIGHT is.

THAT is the basis for philosophical self-contradiction.

[unknown lions fan]

One of my favorite thought experiments has always been "Crusoe Economics." It's an invaluable concept when evaluating any ideas about rights, society, law, property, etc.

It involves us reducing our interaction to Just Us. Not some abstract idea like "society." Let's put some of us who want to discuss these ideas on a virtual island together, completely detached from the rest of the world.

I am extending an invite to CGVT, chemi, dpatnod, and jgspartan. You can all find yourselves landed on this island, together or separately. But we all wind up here together and we have to decide what is the proper set of rules and norms for our little "society."

Anyone else interested in participating can chime in and land on their own little boat.

[JGSpartan]

You're ignoring that not accepting rule does not create an absence of rule. You have failed to provide any example that doesn't have an existence of rule.

Even in your defense as you chose to snap someone's neck you decided to impose your will and desired rules over theirs.

The existence of rules creates the existence of rulers.

People having power and rule over others is an unavoidable reality. Anarchy removes any power to place a limit on that. Any decision to unify in doing so is no longer anarchy if anyone at all disagrees. Suddenly someone is held to anothers rules. I'd rather support a government or state that aims to limit the amount of power than try to exist in a fantasy world where I believe no one will have power over me.

You're really just arguing over whether or not those that rule you can state whether or not they do formally. But once they do they do.. Either way your liberty is gone.

I don't believe in government because I believe there is one right or wrong. Quite the opposite really. We live in a Grey world where there is often no one right answer. What a unified government does though is it allows us to live together under set rules on one team and allows for unified power to make things like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor a rarity as opposed to the norm.

No government or state is perfect and I won't live in a world where I believe they are. I also am not naive enough to think the absence of which doesn't expose me to potentially much worse.

[dpatnod]

I would just trade everyone on the island and draft / sign islanders that i value more. You know just improve on all of the losers. Eventually we will be a pro-island team.

I promise this island is gonna be great again.

[unknown lions fan]

You're ignoring that not accepting rule does not create an absence of rule. You have failed to provide any example that doesn't have an existence of rule.

You're on the island. Where does the "rule" originate from?

[unknown lions fan]

Even in your defense as you chose to snap someone's neck you decided to impose your will and desired rules over theirs.

No, I'm negating their claim to rule over me, and then going on to be left alone and not claiming rule over any other.

[unknown lions fan]

The existence of rules creates the existence of rulers.

People having power and rule over others is an unavoidable reality.

Or is it vice-versa? Rulers certainly create rules, but why should a mutual agreement between myself and one or more others create, or necessitate a "ruler?"

Inevitability is a tricky commitment for you, philosophically.