Democracy: Do you support it?

Post Reply New Topic

They are enforced and they are unnecessary. Minimum wages are not necessary and some nobel prize winners have advocated abolishing them. Anti-usury laws are unnecessary, interest rates are something that markets can easily decide, and that markets really do already mostly decide. All of "the works" is not necessary.

The real question isn't whether this occurs but whether it is necessary, and I think that every economist would argue that current regulations are either wrong headed or excessive.

That really depends on whether or not the banks themselves can use the vouchers, because a voucher is only a different form of currency. Yeah, and that in itself points to the inapplicability of the situation. A modern economy is too large to have that situation pop up under any reasonable circumstance, few people would ever pick a job that pays in funny money.

Yes, and people inevitably have options. Because employers are still going to be compelled to pay for the hours they get. They do not have perfect controls over the wage rate, therefore if they try to extract extra value then workers will find other jobs that don't suck as much.

Yeah, but then if we use that kind of definition then all capitalist means is "not socialist", and such a definition is rather pointless for analysis. Capitalists honestly don't care whether the capitalist system is maintained or not maintained and the laissez-faire folks deride businessmen for that.


Not the barons banding together, but rather their organizational structure being so tightly knit. They have foreign threats to their welfare given the fact that they engage in behavior that is illegal in many other areas. If drugs were legal in the 1st world then I would think a lot of this behavior would fall apart as drugs would cease being so lucrative. The drug wars in the US are also not anti-market, the issue is that this not a normal market situation but rather is a black market situation.

Somalia has always been poor. It was poor before all of this happened. It isn't arbitrary, it is like compared to like.


No, because you aren't comparing like with like. You are being a 'tard and comparing unlike things and complaining because you think it is arbitrary to compare things in a rational manner. Somalia has always been one of the poorest nations, it was in a horrible state before their government collapsed. It should be compared to other nations that are poor and african as most 3rd world nations do better than African nations do.

Um... yeah. Of course. A system that produces wealth is a good system. No, who said that peasants should choose the country's leaders? I said that they would prefer a freer system, not a more open political system. I don't care about voting rights at all. The middle class is going to be somewhat listened to in China, especially as it grows. The middle class is the class that buys the products, that does the jobs, and that will eventually become the center of the chinese culture. I never said anything about capitalism producing democracy.

Oh, I am not denying that increases in inequality happen in a capitalist system, but I claim that generally where capitalism honestly takes root, we see economic growth that often drives this inequality. One of the features where it stagnates, often is corruption though, we saw this in Russia's privatization scheme. Many nations do a crap job in privatizing and trying to set up a market economy so they don't do as well.

No, but privatization + corruption leads to very ugly things as this privatization often will be done in an illegitimate manner without regard for any welfare. Like I said, Russia showed this in their privatization issue, as the new oligarch's bought a lot more in industry than they paid in money.

Anyway you put it, anarchy is IMPOSSIBLE!! !

(Sorry I haven't gotten to answer the second reply couple days ago, but i come on rarely).

----------------

I will describe why.

I noticed in further developments of this page you mentioned privatization. That alone prevents anarchy.

Why?

Because the person or people in charge determine what you do. It is no different then have dictatorships in the guise of Economics. It IS STILL government.

Whoever is in charge of the private police/army, GETS to decide how they ENFORCE...and guess what, to enforce, you need a mode of ABSOLUTEs...which are also known as "LAWS", which in the end makes it AUTHORITY...which in the end makes it no different than something called GOVERNMENT.

If everyone who had nothing to do with the privatized industry in those respective areas, disagreed with the those of the business, it would make no difference. The ones with the weapons are the ones with the power.

THERE MUST be absolutes. It is how our universe works. Gravity, thermodynamics, light, heat, magnetism, etc.

Our universe is made up of absolutes. These laws CANNOT be breaking. The most one can do is manipulate the variables present.

In terms of Who is in power, that is the variable you manipulate. At most you can attempt to decide WHO is in power. You cannot SCRAP government altogether. It simply is not possible. As soon as SOMEONE wants more, the whole theory goes out the window.

Anarchy is the equivalent of what you would call universal chaos. The ONLY way to achieve such a state is for there to be aboslutely no life present in the universe. Because as soon as SOME action takes place, anarchy is impossible, both physically and mathematically.

Absolute dictatorship likewise, is what you would call a cosmic singularity. All power is drawn to one point in the universe.

Because we are neither nothing, or everything at once, we can never achieve Absolute anarchy or absolute dictatorship.

However Anarchy unlike dictatorship REQUIRES that thought of absolute chaos. Here is why:

//////////

Imagine we are all populated on a planet, and each of us is given a hexagonal square 10feet from all edges in every direction.

Lets say there is a fence marking every point.

Unless you are encase even from the top by a bubble, one cannot have anarchy. As soon as You touch or speak or see another being you are INFLUENCING THEM. You are in essence attempting to assume power even if you do not realize it.

Only in absolute isolation can you not exert or be influenced by other people. However, other things such as gravity/heat/nature will still impose restrictions UPON YOU.

Therefore, even though in the sense you are anarchy in regards to human beings, you are not in regards to the universe. The universe itself, has much more influence on you, than you upon it. So one could argue, you are a slave to its power.

You cannot jump off the planet if you wanted to. Gravity restricted you.

You cannot NOT eat...or you will die of starvation.

You cannot NOT sleep, or you will eventually collapse, or die of fatigue, from draining your body of its energy reserve.

ETc.

Back to the hexagonal areas.

If they are merely fences. As soon as someone sees he can cross the fence, you know that it is POSSIBLE that they can take that land for themselves...harm you, or kill you.

....

Anyways everyone talks, and says they will help each other out, and each do what they want...in any industry they choose in their little common.

Everything is going fine, until the entire western block decides that its industry is the industry of "Im taking over everything and that is how we work." Their vocation is essentially subjugating as many people as they see because that is their desire. To see others kneel before them.

This is the first place where anarchy fails and is no longer anarchy. The west wants slaves, but the east does not. They disagree, therefore who is right? Well since we know that both disagree and one is going to use force, that we now have created two factions.

Faction one: who's law is "We rule all"

Faction two: who's law is, "No one rules all"

...

Well now. Faction Two has a choice, go to war, or be subjugated, there are no other alternatives.

However, if they go to war, they are in fact saything that Faction one's policy is illegitimate and therefore they would be EXERTING AUTHORITY OVER THE OTHER.

In the end, one side will win. If its faction one, there is now the first step toward heirarchy. If its faction two, there is also now a heirarchy...those who would be consider criminals(faction one), and those who are equal citizens.

If criminals go to prison, they have less freedom. If they dont, they will attempt to take over once again, because there was no reward for them. Additionally the punishment, beyond killing their brothers/sisters was not present.

However, if the criminals are released...they are now REALLY REALLY pissed, they lossed, really hate that you killed their friends/family, and will most CERTAINLY return stronger than ever to kick the ever-loving S*** out of faction two.

-------------------------------------


I could go into more depth, but you get the point.

The reason anarchy does not work, has absolutely nothing to do with the theory behind the individual vocations and community involvement.

It does not work, because it cannot work REALISTICALLY. Heirarchies are a MUST. Even if humanity were to pretend heirarchies did not exist, the universe would still know.

Person A is stronger than person B, genetically.

Person C is smarter than both.

Etc.

The universe is ONE GIANT HEIRARCHY OF ABSOLUTES. Thus anarchy cannot exist, or at least not until everything in the universe disappears.

If we defined anarchy as democracy then anarchy would be possible.


No, it is very different. Economics has people make individual choices. Dictatorships don't. So, even though you have people set up laws and set up enforcement, you also get greater choice in what laws and enforcement you are willing to abide by.


Sort of yes, however, there would likely be multiple police forces and multiple military forces. There is a difference though. Under this system, you contract with the enforcers to set up your system, under government you don't contract and you don't get to make any deals. So, instead of a one size fits all system with arbitrary set-ups, you get a choice in what you want and how you want to do it, with law being more of a private commodity.


Sure it would. You are assuming a monopoly, I am not assuming a monopoly. If there is no monopoly then there are choices, and the more people who can make choices that make a difference, the less oppression there can be.


I think you are oversimplifying things. I will agree that human societies have hierarchical tendencies, however, that does not mean that hierarchies cannot be reduced. If we define government as a legitimized monopoly of force in a given reason then we can scrap government by seeking to eliminate the monopoly. Also, if there is competition of powers, then "someone wanting more" goes out the window, as the criticism runs the same direction as "someone wanting more" in a republic with division of powers.


Um.... yeah. I know you are influencing them and using your power on them. That does not go against anarchy. Heck, anarcho-capitalism allows you to employ these people which is an even greater level of social interaction with more hierarchy.


Yes, of course. But also when they get on your property you can do that same thing to them. So, the issue comes down to game theory, is it worth the risk of them dying to get your land? I would think in most situations it wouldn't be, especially given the fact that people don't exist in a vacuum, a land stealer will be regarded by other men as a land stealer.



Well, yes, but psychosis is not limited to entire halves of cities but can also occur in governments, however, it is very stupid to go to war. Drug dealers usually don't want to go to war and they have less repercussions given that they deal with relatively risk seeking groups of people. Just imagine what most communities will think of this kind of war? They wouldn't support it at all, especially with the groups so close. There would be a lot more benefit for them to defect and never join in in a war as it is essentially a fact that wars in developed regions cost more to pursue than they return in value.

I have ceased caring after that point. You are just ranting. I am not saying ANYTHING about hierarchy completely blinking out of existence. As I stated earlier, most anarcho-capitalists believe that egalitarianism is stupid. Murray Rothbard even called it a revolt against nature. Anarcho-capitalists simply believe we should reduce coerced hierarchies and that private law and laissez-faire capitalism would be stable systems due to self-interest, or enlightened self-interest, and that they would increase human freedom and increase efficiency.

Than it wouldn't be anarchy now would it?

It would be democracy.



Um...What makes you think people don't make choices in dictatorships anymore than economics? Choice and power are not mutually exclusive. Freedom and Security are not either. Both are faux, and anyone who said it previous for campaigns misunderstood or used it for propaganda.

In a dictatorship you still have just as much choice...however the person at the top of the chain decides the laws and what happens. So you will still make a choice...but if it goes against something they decree, your in quite the unfortunate situation.

Economically...you still do not have greater choice in what laws and enforcement you abide by. Whatever the private industry decrees to follow is what they will follow. If you break the rules you face consequences.

If you were to talk to the industry as to why you should be able to break the law...it would be no different than asking a person in our government the same thing.

And trying to "buy" them off, would be no different than "buy offs" in our society.

There is no difference. A private industry is ruled by those who own it. In a dictatorship, the government is ruled by those who own it, given to them by lineage/force/etc.

They have exactly the same power over you and to harm you.



Having multiple forces means nothing. As I said in one of my previous posts, that is no different than having multiple nations. Those who disagree with your authority will attempt to reach one of the other authorities. Much like they already do in our present world.

Under government...you actually can contract if they agree. And people make deals all the time, and pay off the government, or get its branches to benefit them. The exact same as a private industry setup.

As I said, your just giving it a different guise. Social vs Economic appearance. They are however, in the context, exactly the same in the end.

Additionally, you don't get a choice in what you want, and how you want to do it, in anarchy. Not if the People running the Private industries don't care, or disagree. And they decide to tell you off.

You will still be punished and/or ostracized based on culture, customs, and the individuals themselves. JUST like it happens in our society.

However, if one were to switch to anarchy, you have now allowed them additional loopholes with which to ruin your life in the process.



WHat I am assuming, is that people will do whatever it takes to improve themselves. In order to improve themselves they need advancement and power. In order to do that they need more. And in order to do that, you need to take control and crush the opinions and thoughts of others.

The kindest way to do that is to prove the other person's method inefficient(This is the way we would like to see all outcomes occur in). However, that rarely happens, and force is a much more common avenue.

Changing the form of government does not remove brash actions.

Privatization does not remove oppression. It has absolutely nothing for or against it. People can oppress or be oppressed in any avenue of life. The only direct counter to oppression is to eliminate all forms of ignorance. Anarchy does not devise a method to do that. In fact, it supports ignorance, because it argues to WIllingly allow for it.

However, these are in response to the Theory of anarchy...something which I already have said before is impossible, simply because as soon as someone did SOMETHING it would pave the way for thought and change the system from anarchy to any other number of systems.



Before I begin on this paragraph...There is no such thing as "oversimplifying." Nothing can ever be too simple. In fact the whole point of progress is to make things simpler so one can understand them.

Anyways, Who said heirarchies were a bad thing? Why do you want to reduce them?

Actually, Heirarchies are in fact a very good thing. They help people judge themselves, and teach them how to improve.

The problem with heirarchies(as with anything else), is that people can use it to hurt others, and try to appear the superior. However, removing heirarchies in a social sense, cannot and will not stop this. Instead of trying to show who is superior socially, they will prove who is superior genetically, competitively, physically, and reap all the benefits to be gained.

The problem is not heirarchies. It is using them as justification to look down upon other individuals. As I said before. Heirarchies are inevitable. Even if humans choose to be blind to them(Something which in and of itself is a form of ignorance), the universe will still know, and will still present them in many ways.


-------------------------

Competition of powers does not eliminate "someone wanting more." There is always competition even now. You cannot eliminate it; it is part of the universe.

The only difference, is that you had more people TRYING. If you have one person who wants something...then at that point in time competition has completed in that avenue, and that person controls/won. If you have three people who want something...than the competition is ongoing, however, eventually one of them will win.

In both cases, new competitive forces can arise, but how they began is different, that is all.

The problem with more competitive forces in certain aspects of life, is it leads to bad consequences. Having many people vouching for power, if it is in terms of police/military...if one wants to win(and someone WILL), Then you now have a situation where people are dying. The more factions you throw in, the greater chance that a larger number of people will die/be oppressed.

If you had one person with no competition, there would be no one to beat except themselves.

One can still be progressive if they seek to maintain new goals. As a result, having one person(or in this case GOVERNMENT) in power, IF THEY UNDERSTAND THIS, will reap the benefits of the multi-person competition, without the costs and deficits.

This is why having a single Government is beneficial. As a society, we must seek to push each other, but we are in effect under the command of the government. If we were seperate governments, conflicts would arise. We still have problems with other nations even now do we not? Those problems would not be present if they did not exist. Only problems in relation to the nation in and of itself could arise.



It actually does go against anarchy, and that is my point.

Those anarchist THEORIES, have many many loopholes. WHich is what I am POINTING out. They are wrong in so many small degrees, that they simply are not possible.

The biggest with anarcho-capitalism being this...EMPLOYMENT...that is a form of authority. Which is all that government is. The difference is, the guise and manner in which each is introduced. Government tries to get involved in all pursuits. The private industry does not necessarily(THOUGH it could), it oftentimes is one or several pursuits.

However, those pursuits still have heirarchy, and still have authority.

You could quit the job...but the problem is, without a government, those with the greatest force will impose rules on the rest.

There may be multiple police/military, but they will impose their "JUSTICE" and "BELIEFS" as they see fit, which in the end will result in the reemergence of government.

Anarchy does not fail from single ideals...as I said before...However, Everything reacts to everything else. Eventually Those police/military will disagree against one another, and they will try to destroy the other faction. This destruction of factions will continue going on until One of them is the victor. And once they are victor, NOTHING stops them from taking complete control.

Since they will want more, and believe that their victory is proof of their intelligence and ability, they will deem their law universal, with which all must follow.

The result is you may have rebels, and insurgents, but if they will either be defeated or defeat the faction. In doing so, they will now have complete control. And they will do the SAME EXACT thing, that the last faction did, and that is try to take complete control.

And that will continue, until they either become so powerful and involed in society that they embrace everything(like all governments now do), becoming identical to what you see today. Or it will simply rinse and repeat, raising the body count to untold heights.

The first thing I said about anarchy, in this thread, was that it was our VERY FIRST FORM OF GOVERNMENT. It is the starting point. It was terrible. All our warring nations can be attributed to the original anarchy. Anarchy could be said to be the cause of all our misfortune.



First thing you said...my point exactly. You can do THE SAME TO THEM. You can HARM THEM OR TAKE THEIR LIFE, if they do that to you.

Which means you are imposing RESTRICTIONS, upon them, and at worst, preventing them from doing anything ever again.

"Is it worth the risk of them dying to get your land?"

In short, Yes and No. Is it worth the risk to get your land simply for the sake of your land? no

However, is it worth the risk to get your land, for useful purposes, that will make him stronger, which will in turn give him power, which will let him take yet even more, and advance himself and those in his society if he gets the chance.

So yes it is worth the risk. Risk is the price you pay to advance. Now, the best way to handle that would be to verbally speak with the other person about it, so that you both agree.

However, there are many obstacles, and sometimes people are ignorant and will say No, simply because. In that case, when you KNOW, what the answer to advancement is, you have a choice to make.

Either you use force to acquire the product to advance the others with you in your society, or you let them be...knowing full well that if you do so, you will not advance as greatly.

Once that thought crosses their minds, guess what happens? They will risk life, in order to acquire the benefits.

Now...Im not saying issues are always that easy to comprehend. And mistakes are made. However, In all situations, there is always a BEST ANSWER. Now, I doubt people commonly reach the best answer...

However, with enough thought and consideration, one can still reach the BEST ANSWER of those presented. And one should always seek to do that. In order to do that though, force and authority are SOMETIMES necessary. Hence the reason anarchy, simply does not work.

As I said, we would need near flawless beings or even flawless beings, in order for the theory and concepts of anarchy to ACTUALLY work.



Wars are terrible tragedies, I think everyone can agree.

However, I beg to differ that everyone, or even a majority cannot see or do not desire the benefits that could be reached. If their were no benefits to be reached with war, it would have long disappeared as a convention and tool. Yet it still flourishes even today.

And even assuming they would disagree with the "PURPOSE" and benefits to be gained of war...the industry leaders would likely think of this beforehand. As a result, they would expand the industry to produce orators, propagandists, inciters, media, etc. Any method to achieve their desired result.

In the end, they will then be able to levy support for the war required, and it will once again happen.

--------------------------------

Additionally even in developed regions, I think you will find a benefit for at least those remaining in life. Though, it may not have been progressive on the whole, those who survived such a war, now have more options, and even a chance to acquire and pillage the effects of those they subjugated.

So while its not beneficial for everyone, it is beneficial for some. And that is all that is really necessary to start a war. People are selfish not by choice to be selfish, but by experience and feelings assosciated with them. They cannot SEE the bigger picture, and so they choose the method that they BELIEVE is most superior.

Anarchy allows such beliefs to flourish. And in the end, as a result, only the very very strongest will see any benefit at all, and anarchy will no longer be anarchy, but a dictatorship under them. The rest will be dead or servants.

" Anarcho-capitalists simply believe we should reduce coerced hierarchies and that private law and laissez-faire capitalism would be stable systems due to self-interest, or enlightened self-interest, and that they would increase human freedom and increase efficiency."

Only at the very beginning would you see increased freedom and efficiency. That would last all but 5 years, maybe 10 at most. However, after that point, you would hit a wall, and dictatorships would reemerge all over the place.

5 years of war, probably less...and then you will have returned to a society that is so much below what you originally gave up in the first place in order to acquire those 5-10 years of anarchy. Society will in fact be much similar to the ones you saw imposed in persian, greek, and possibly roman settings.

Those in the highest power, will reap the benefits, the rest will damn their fate.

----------------------------------------

Anyways, I think you should play a game, a very specific game.

Not because literature, movies, or videogames are real strands of history, or even the most pure form, however, sometimes they can help show others what someone already knows. I have given enough explanation of the logical deductions into why anarchy cannot work, and given feedback in detail. So I feel I can freely present this next thought, knowing that it is well understood.

The reason I wish to do this, is because visuals can sometimes help one understand...and having a single source showing a case of cause and effect could possibly help one realize new things.

The game in question is Bioshock.

The society you speak of, much similar to what could be described as "anarcho-capitalism", could be argued to be the exact system of the City of Rapture in this game.

I think it paints a very REAL picture of anarchy in its entirety, and why it CANNOT survive, last, or be a realistic system of government(or lack thereof).

Ok...that seemed smaller to me when I typed up that response...

oh dear... Sorry about that.

Well, regardless of what some economists in their ivory towers may think, we can look at what happens in practice in the absence of meaningful government regulation by looking at black markets (which obey the same laws of supply and demand legal markets do, just without regulation), and at places where the government is either absent or extremely feeble. What happens then is not some sort of 'open' utopia, but extremely violent, authoritarian situations tnat are extremely profitable for a handful of people at the expense of everyone else. Why such a situation is desirable for anyone that is not a gangster is beyond me - it is you, not I, who is saying it would be a good idea, and that somehow markets inherently favour 'openness' (and counterexamples like Pinochet well, you have no answer). By the way, governments of economists have usually been an economic catastrophe, including governments of economists from Harvard and Yale - China's experience with governments of engineers has been much better. I'm sorry, but I will take historical facts and contemporary realities over the econometric models of abstract theoreticians any day. You remind me of former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, with his PhD in economics from Yale, who, when asked how much a kilo of tortilla costs (the most basic staple food in Mexico) did not have the faintest idea.
Nobody will pick a job that pays funny money if they have an alternative - if they are very poor and there is no welfare state they may well pick any job that they can (or the lesser evil from the ones available). You are obviously unfamiliar with labour markets in hugely unequal countries, where many employees can only borrow from their employers, as they're too poor for the banks to be willing to lend them much. In the absence of a government, who is going to compel employers with gunmen (after all, the boss can better afford to hire mercenaries than his impoverished employees) to pay for overtime? You seem to be extrapolating from the mostt successful places with strong government like the US and somehow deducing that anarchy would be the same, minus taxes.
Switzerland was once very poor, as was Japan (Japan has about the same natural resources as Somalia, Switzerland has less). They are not poor now; Somalia is desperately so. Switzerland and Japan did not lift themselves out of poverty by having anarchy - unlike Somalia, they have never experienced it. I'm not saying Siad Barre was any good, or that no government can be worse than anarchy. My point is that anarchy has no success stories in the real world.
The law is an ass; but with a relatively decent government, the rule of law is still preferrable to the rule of death squads and the law of the jungle.

Well, I am joking with you.


Because the dictator's preferences overwhelm other choices and thus coercion dominates. Choice and power are mutually exclusive because the absolute power of one force diminishes the power and thus the choosing of other forces. Freedom and security can be mutually exclusive as well, depending on the set upt.


Um... yeah, you are coerced into doing what they want you to do. The dictator has control.


Private industry is not a single entity but rather multiple, independent entities, and there are feedback mechanisms between individual choosers and private organizations, and these even can be somewhat customizable via contracts. There is a significant difference.


Sure it would. Their goal is pleasing their clients and is thus consumer oriented. They might not always allow for something, depending on all of the set ups, but it also depends on the organization involved as well.



Except that they don't. A private industry competes with multiple other private industries all aiming at the same goal. Essentially speaking, a government has a legitimized monopoly, and a private organization doesn't have a monopoly. And a government has varying aims, while a private industry seeks profit maximization.


No, it is quite different as there is nothing preventing multiple sets of legal codes and arrangements in the same society. Actually, our present world really doesn't have much of people reaching out to other authorities because other authorities have less power.


No, they really don't. Government laws are set in stone and not to be altered by contracts. There are additional bureaucratic elements as well as more criminal law and crimes against society than would be found in a more private context.



You get the same amount of choices in that, the issue is that the legal set up is different. I would argue that private law would be more efficient.


You can be, but the issue pops up about what laws would exist.


That seems like an unwarranted assumption for loopholes

Um.... ok? But people don't do that now, therefore I still stand by my claim. You either have not developed your argument or you are making a baseless assertion. People do see advancement and power, but it does not follow that they will go around killing others.


Not really. Violence can and has occurred in the past with a government's presence, but starting fights ends up starting wars. Even drug dealers usually avoid starting drug wars.


Ignorance means nothing. Oppression is a matter of decision, not knowledge. Forcing a lack of ignorance IS oppression by definition. Not only that, but you still have not really gotten to the depths on an anarcho-capitalist system as the argument is that market laws will be more efficient laws and thus less oppressive, you have not addressed why more oppression or equal oppression would be found but rather asserted it would by claiming "private organizations = government" which they clearly do not.


Now *that* is a stupid comment. The whole point of progress actually HASN'T been to make things simpler but rather to make things more complex. Which is simpler, a spear or a tank? Obviously the spear. Let's just look at all of our learning, have we reduced the number of concepts or multiplied them? Well, if you look at modern economics, or modern mathematics, or modern physics, or modern chemistry, or modern any subject, we have complexified things a lot.


Hierarchies stand against individual freedom. I promote individual freedom for individual choice.


To some extent, but only within a relative homogeneous group with a single purpose. I don't see society as a homogeneous group with a single purpose but rather a heterogeneous group with multiple purposes. Therefore less hierarchies allow for these different purposes to be expressed.


I don't care about people being hurt by hierarchies or superiority within that. I think am fine with hazing rituals so long as they aren't literally forced upon someone. I care about individual freedom.


I don't care if people look down on others. I know that hierarchies are inevitable, but that does not mean they should be forced or promoted and frankly people should have the right to be ignorant of them.


It mediates it.


Assumption. I assert that there is no reason for an eventual victor because the competition is eternal and the competitors enter and exit at will.

No, they actually won't. The issue falls down to competition as a learning process and competition as a means of preventing loafing. The power in control will rationally see little reason to learn, they will loaf, and they will not try different methods to learn the proper way to do things.


Um, why must we seek to push each other. I say that given our lack of knowledge of moral truth, that pushing is pointless. I also don't think we are under the "command of the government", we are under our own control and seek our own ends.


Private industry likely could not. Also, competition of employers allows for choice. Frankly, the most selection you will ever have is between multiple providers and frankly, that is all the choice you'd want anyway.


Ok? So, there'd be less authority.


Yeah, but the power differential would have to be quite great in order for that to happen.


No, they won't. There are many of them. If they tried then they'd go to war, if they went to war then they'd die. Most people prefer to live to fight again than dying or risking death and thus our risk aversion will keep us safe.


Everyone could leave while the police are in their weakened state, everyone could fight back. Heck, I really disagree with the notion that they really will seriously try to destroy the other faction.


Only if it came easily, they would probably try to avoid conflict if it was difficult and their hold tenuous.


And I considered that claim BS as you did not provide any proof or evidence.

No, it really would not. People don't trust thieves and murderers, he'd still lose no matter what he'd do.


Yeah, most people'd pick an easier route where they did not die and where they would not get ostracized by the rest of society.


We would never know if we had the best answer so therefore force and authority would not have to be used.


No, think of this: socialized costs, privatized benefits. There are no benefits to a lot of our actions, they are still taken because the benefits are collected by a small group and the costs by a larger.


Most people would still be unlikely to go to war. Who'd want to pay for any war on their own?



No, what is necessary for a war is popular support as you need men and resources. Mercenaries typically won't do either unless something is absolutely easy or absolutely necessary.


Trust me, I study thoughts, I really don't care for a stupid game. I disagreed with most of your reasoning, considered your post WAY too long winded, and honestly, I think about this stuff a lot for fun anyway. Giving me this game is no different than giving me your favorite dystopia novel. Still sort of pointless because every such system is loaded with assumptions already.

Um... not really. Ceteris paribus is not an assumption we can maintain under those circumstances.

That is because I don't consider Pinochet much of a counter example. He was there for a short period of time in a relatively undeveloped region.

Actually, that comment there is stupid. "Reality" and "facts" are not proofs or disproofs, there is nothing but theories and all you assert is that you don't believe that economists are good theorists. Technically, the major issues is that in many of those circumstances is that the economic plans are very rarely followed as they should be.


Ok, I honestly don't care about tortillas. Tortillas are not what matters here. What matters is theory. If you aren't speaking about economics from a theoretical point of view, then I don't care as theories are matters for theoreticians.


Not so much unfamiliar, more like I don't care about that. The reason why I don't care about that? Well, I am not speaking of some 3rd world little nation with all sorts of messed up corruption, I am talking about a theoretical form of government being applied in a relatively developed area.


The US has historically had a very weak government. Frankly, I am also following the economic ideas of highly influential laissez-faire economists on the workings of the US, and I am deducing that anarchy would be the same as that.

Look, talking to you is pointless. I am discussing theory and you are discussing 3rd world history. We aren't talking about the same subjects, and you aren't looking at this with the honesty of a theoretician even though you seek to disprove a theoretical idea, and I honestly don't care about the history of the 3rd world enough to point out how every single example you give has a flaw that prevents it from being a good example to extrapolate from, as they aren't good examples to extrapolate from.

The US government has always been strong, just not interested in a command economy. And of course the examples of real anarchy are going to be from the Third World, as it's economically catastrophic (except for a small minority of the people involved).
By your own admission, you are only interested in theoretical arguments, and not a discussion of facts and evidence. To me, what matters is not theory - it is reality. You have a theory of how the economy could be run if we were not human beings. But you're right - we should leave theories not based on facts to the theoreticians in their ivory towers, and leave the real world to everyone else. If I see a contradiction between a theory and the facts, I ditch the theory and couldn't care less what elegant theoretical arguments are made in it's favour - if you prefer to shut your eyes to reality, that's your privilege. But I prefer to live in the real world.

Ok, I think I get what you mean by strong. You mean *effective*. Well, I look at the US because I think anarchism would also be *effective*, but I would not call it strong.

Except that there aren't really going to be examples of anarcho-capitalism, as anarcho-capitalism refers to a specific institutions formed without government. So, saying X variant did not work will not suffice unless you have established something more profound.

Theories do include issues involving facts and evidence, but honestly, it is not facts or evidence that lie at the heart of understanding. It is theories. Frankly, to make the distinction between reality and theory is an idiotic one, there is no known reality beyond our conceptualization of reality, and thus the reality we see is a theory of it.

We disagree on what defines us as human beings.

Theories are all based upon something believed to be factual, but theories are concerned with deeper general principles of humanity. You kept on stating examples that were not all things equal, if all things are not equal then the facts don't work as proof or disproof and I can merely say that the knife was something else.

And once again, I think your epistemology is completely wrong. If the theory contradicts the facts then either the theory is wrong or the facts are misinterpreted. I'd say that elegant theoretical arguments are where we make the distinction between whether a theory is wrong or a fact is misinterpreted though, as a fact ONLY shows that at one point in time that something happened like so, all other interpretations are induced from that. Yeah, stick to your self-righteousness, all of the facts in the world are nothing unless one knows the proper interpretations of them, and I assert that your epistemology is wrong.

I support the democracy. Rummel's law states that the less freedom the politicians give you, the more likely they are to kill you (as evidenced by the fact that communism killed at least 100 million people).

Ok...simply put I am going to show you some of those logical fallacies in hopes that you can realize reality vs theory.

Between the arguments presented by both myself and pbcoll, it is clear you have only harnessed a thought for theory and philosophy. Elements about how variables attribute to each other realistically clearly eludes you. I don't mean to say that insultingly. Rather that it presently is the case. As a result, I will show you the fallacies in hopes that by understanding them, you can develop your talents to cover both THEORY and REALITY.

--------------------

Power and Choice are NOT mutually exclusive...The first logical fallacy. This is failed logic at best, and a strawman argument at worst.

The opposite of ABSOLUTE POWER, is NO POWER.

The opposite of TOTAL CHOICE, is no CHOICE.

They are SEPERATE IDEAS.

You can even make a venn diagram with two circles where they cross...in the center are all the things which are both POWER and CHOICE...one side with power without choice....one side with choice but not power....and the outside where you have neither.

Choice is the ability to make decisions/amount of decisions you can make.

Power (in its simplest terms)...is the amount of force you have at your disposal.

One can have a large amount of force at their disposal, but lack choice.

For example...you could control all of the energy and matter in the universe...however, you still cannot exceed the boundaries of logic.

Therefore in respect to that, you have total force, but no choice that can exceed logic.

Likewise, having 5 grams of matter is less than 1kilogram. if there are 100 blocks of 5 grams of matter, and one block of 1kilogram of matter, the 5 100 blocks is still less than the kilogram. However, the blocks of 5 grams of matter has just as much choice to move freely about in the universe as the 1kilogram. The difference is, is that 1kilo will always be a stronger force(aka more powerful gravitationally), than the 100 blocks of 5 grams.

Regardless of how COMPLEX the situations get...that LAW will remain the same.

Power and choice are NOT mutually exclusive.

With any form of power, you ALWAYS have the same choice. THE DIFFERENCE, is in the punishment and how it is carried out.

Punishment and how it is carried out, ALSO are not mutually exclusive to choice or power.

If Freedom and Security DEPEND on the setup than they are already NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If it depends it is not EXCLUSIVE, PERIOD!

------------------------------------------------------



Ostracism is a worthy risk for everything to some. To some people, seeing that they have an opportunity to control everything is enough incentive to risk ostracism.

-----------------------------------
////////////////////
///////////////////
///////////////////
///////////////////
//////////////////





There were more than that, but I'm getting tired of showing the faults of the arguments.

I may have been harsh, but that is only because I can show you where there is wrong in those arguments.

Science is not about finding the Best answer or the right answer. It is about eliminating the wrong answers. Anarchy is an incorrect and impossible model to allow for progress for human beings.

While I cannot attribute all the information to the best answers...I can certainly state that the arguments you presented are the wrong ones. And have attempted to show you those faults.

Hopefully you can see the faults as of now. I do not mean to insult you.

I do believe you like philosophy and you like thinking upon subjects. That is a good trait and something you keep refining and continuing. However, rather than looking for information that supports your model, you should be looking for information that proves the model incorrect or insufficient. It is the only way to discover if a model was a good model at all. That is all I can say.

There is no difference for all practical purposes between theory and reality. Facts are only a means by which theories can be tested, and these theories can only be tested by relevant facts.


Yes, I use thought predominantly because the case for anarchism is highly theoretical because very few cases even come close to what anarcho-capitalists speak of.


It is not a fallacy at all. I understand power and choice, and I claim that the more power in the hands of a single will, the less ability to productively choose other agents have. That is not illogical at all and certainly not a strawman, heck, similar notions are stated by many scholars.


No, you can't. It is not a venn diagram, more like a continuum.


I understand those terms, and your choice fails. If you control all of the energy and matter then you have lots and lots of choices and everyone else has very few choices. Even though you may have one limitation, you are unlimited in all other realms.


Umm..... it is a matter of physics, of course it cannot change as we cannot affect the nature of the molecules. In human situations, we can impact the nature of the acting agents though in various manners with various trade-offs.


Umm..... yes, and the punishments are done with a regard to control. Yes, we can use a Sartrean definition of choice, but it is absolutely pointless to do so and all meaningful discourse on freedom ends with such a statement. Obviously when we speak of freedom, we speak of it in a more meaningful sense.



Not a fallacy at all, merely a recognition that control effectively removes choice. I am not speaking of choice in a Sartrean sense, and to define choice in such a manner is meaningless as we never invoke Sartrean definitions of choice when talking meaningfully of liberty and human rights in a system.


He is in essence ceding power as he is allowing others to have power where he could rightfully assert it. Still a matter of definition.


No, you are just a 'tard. You assume a monopoly, I don't. If it is not 1 then it does not equal 1.


Ummm.... if it is 0 then we don't have anarcho-capitalism anyway and there is nothing to speak of.


No, they can't. Freedom to enter and leave an industry is exactly that. You can't prevent people from doing something unless you are in a position of much greater power.


Um... yes, it is to please their clients. They have that goal in order to reach the other, higher goal of maintaining their success, progress, and benefits.


Um... if they hold to that method then they have goals based upon it. Just like a student who wants to go to Harvard will have sub-goals such as taking the SATs, to do good in their classes and etc. Yes, if they run into a situation of trade-offs then they won't, however, the issue falls down to incentives. Trust me, I study economics, I am pretty sure I know this crap a lot better than you do.

Not necessarily so? Perhaps not, but it is the closest to a monopoly we have really seen.


You could call it a form of Oligarchy, however, oligarchies tend to emphasize a ruling class of some form.


Ok, and we have to prove that a monopoly will form, and be powerful enough to stop other groups. It may try to stop opposition perhaps, but there has not been much proof for successful monopolies occurring or maintaining their position.


No, I really don't need to rethink those comments. I know about immigration and emigration, however, both are clearly less than they would be or could be. You are speaking of a rather small percent of a population ever shifting their legal providers, I am speaking of a much larger quantity.


That is different, the contract is still set in stone, just the policies are changing based upon other decision makers.


Very few people.


I know these things occur, I am not a moron and frankly you have not pointed out an actual fallacy yet. You merely are misinterpreting everything I write somehow and someway as I make a rather moderate point with some factual truth and you reinterpret it to be something ridiculous. Yes, there are a large number of these things, from the scandals in the Harding administration to scandals today to scandals in the past. Trust me, I know what I mean.

No, it really isn't. You actually are not impacting my opinion at all, and frankly I think you haven't actually hit a real logical fallacy on my side during this debate but rather have merely misinterpreted my points without regard for my meanings. Your arguments have hardly addressed my position.


I am not learning and you are a horrible teacher.


Read Freakonomics by Steve Levitt.


Now you are just redefining things like a little turd to fit your own philosophical conception which I already reject. Forcing a "lack of ignorance" is oppression. You are forcing one person to act against their will, and thus oppressing them. Negative is a meaningless, loaded term. Cruel is a term that proves nothing as it only focuses on a motive. Unjust is also meaningless and loaded, as you cannot have unjust unless you prove justice, and I don't think justice can be known.


Positive and negative have nothing to do with oppression or not oppression. Very few oppressors actually think they are evil anyway, frankly though, the assignation of positive and negative is simply you placing your morality at the center of the "truly good" conceptualization of these ideas, and I disagree with you.


No, they really don't. Most anarchists don't call anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists.


They can be, but they are different than the government, and I disagree with calling these organizations governments, because the traits are different enough to merit that.

Adding more variables decreases simplicity. Have you ever taken a physics class? First you do the simple model where friction does not occur, then you have a frictional model, then you might even get the even more complicated version where there are multiple forces, and multiple frictions.

No, not classification, organization. Hierarchies change as societies change, and modern society is less hierarchical than past societies. If hierarchy were classification then we would not see that.

Too much is a subjective value judgment, you don't have the ability to say how much I should properly care about something. I also don't care about what you consider "progressive" or whether more or less distress and unhappiness will result.


Ok, I disagree with your assessments of the system.


No, it isn't. Forcing someone to do something is bad, not forcing them is good.


No, that is why *you* support it. I don't support it with that same reason.

They might be, however, laws are really a moral choice imposed on the rest of mankind, and thus I want to get rid of the monopoly of legal force.


I disagree.


Actually, in economics there is the term known as "rational ignorance".

No, assumption.

Yes, IF. But IF is different than will.

No, I cannot say ABSOLUTELY will not, I can say that they will probably not, because they rarely have and because the psychology is wrong, and because the incentives are gone.

No, you really don't as no human being can claim what they would or would not do in the future. Not only that, but I was describing a tendency not an absolute, as it is a notable thing in human group behavior that with more people there is a tendency for them to subconsciously do less work.

You can only state general tendencies. Who are you to do the very same thing?


Which is why we work with models, one of the better ones being homo economicus with some psychological variables inserted.

We lived in tribes. Tribes have their own informal institutional structure.


No, none of those say that it was true. History would state that we had tribal structures, likely patriarchal with some basic religion and ultimately some mechanisms for throwing people out into the wild. Science would simply be scientific history and the same. Logic would be the same. My denial of your claim is merely a denial of the validity of necessarily calling that anarchism and instead labeling it tribalism.

No, they don't.


No, soldiers aren't murderers. Icons aren't trusted.


Your arguments sucked like hell. If there were more of them I would just ignore your bs post.


Not really, you were just annoying and I disagree with every single thing you stated throughout and deleted some of your arguments simply because they were inane bouts of nonsense.


No, you really can't. You are a moron and a self-righteous one at that.

There is a difference between reality and theory. Theory does not always work in reality.



IT IS a fallacy. They are NOT mutually exclusive. When someone gets more power and People APPEAR to have less freedom, they do not have less choice. They still have the same amount of choice present. However, their is now punishment.

One can still do something, knowing full well if caught they will be punished. Your choices have not decreased...however your choices of doing so unreprimanded have.



Continuum requires mutual exclusive thought...WHICH THEY ARE NOT. Hence why you use a venn diagram. I don't know how many different ways I can elaborate. Take what I wrote above, and put it into a mathematical equation. If you have to. Power being X...CHoice being Y...

The continuums you saw before are at best propaganda, and worst illogical.



Everyone else does not necessarily have fewer choices. Not unless the matter/energy involved allowed you to have special powers that let you overcome obstacles they could not. Such as gravity. You having more power does not alter choice. Even if you used the power you have to tell people what to do, they could still CHOOSE to disobey and accept the punishment. Additionally they could progress and allow themselves to exceed obstacles present before them.

Power and Choice are not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can interact, but they are not exclusive, they do NOT HAVE to affect one another.



The definition I used is MUCH more meaningful. Social construct of Choice and freedom is inefficient and only has meaning in regards to propaganda and manipulation of a culture/society.

Punishments are used to maintain control. However, that does not always work. For example prohibition. People exerted their choice against the law(possibly negatively, but thats another story entirely), and were able to overturn it.

Their choice was the same. They simply risked punishment. and Some were punished.




Even though the human constructs of liberty and human rights are within themselves full of some fallacies and loopholes? They are social constructs, which originated in declarations and essays, used in such a way as to become propaganda a rally support for a cause. They should have been disregarded long ago. Having liberty for the sake of it, is both backward and foolish. There must be a reason.

Let us not forget that the people who created these were themselves human beings, and we have now learned much more and progressed much since the most original of the thinkers began.

Liberty and Protecting rights are a good thing...but NOT for the sake of it. They had caught on to something back then, but ONLY given what they knew. We know more now. If I were to go through all law, there would be a reason for most and many of the laws one could attribute to absolute logic. However, there are some ideas which should be scrapped.

The manner in which freedom, liberty, patriot, democracy, human rights, etc, are thrown around these days is beyond sickening. I look upon such words and cringe in disgust when I hear them being thrown about.

Control does not remove choice. It can add more variables, interact, and complicate it,but it does not take away choice.



It is a logical deduction...Notice the "IF". IF-Then...as followed by math...which is logic...which is absolute. I always make sure to use it in my writing on such debates.



Sure you do...the construct has not changed. There is simply a motion of no action present. That does not change the system. It puts the system into a period of inactivity.



Actually you CAN prevent them. That is the point. Whether or not you are successful is another thing entirely. If an industry no longer wants competition it can make the attempt to snuff the others out, by force if necessary. A person without Power could even attempt to do so. Power is more attributed to success. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can do it. An Industry can still prevent others from entering the race. If they in a period of a monopoly or oligarchy, the one or few, likely have progressed enough to do it with ease. It doesnt take much power at all to take control.



It is the method...damnit. Since I have stated here, and in the next quote the reason, I will not repeat.



If its the method...ITS NOT THE GOAL. The goal is not the method. THe method is not the goal. The method supports the goal, not the other way around. If a student wants to go to harvard, that is there goal. They do not NEED any other goal. Success is a different story. SATs are the method to achieve that goal.

Calling something "Sub-goals" is just a reword of method. They are still the method. THe greatest goal takes precedent over all other goals. Therefore, if the goal at the top says benefit by scrapping certain previous goals, they will do it. There is more than one path to the goal. They all have different chances for success...and some are better than others, however people can only utilize what they know.

And saying that at all times they will listen to consumers...IS NOT GUARANTEED.

Also I would not claim that last line presented if I were you. That is often a sign of losing an argument. It is also disrespectful since you do not know me, or my background. As a result it is a foolish assumption. I'll overlook it, but for future reference it is not smart to say such things.



Thats because we have never actually had a TRUE monopoly. There have always been multiples, and there have always been options. In fact A True monopoly is not even possible realistically speaking, only in theory.

As an economist you should know this. The bell curve of True Monopoly goes straight up and down. And the bell curve of a True Free market goes straight side to side. You should really remember that.



You do. When you made the comments I replied to, you had made an illogical statement. Regardless of the scale, it happens. One does not attribute scale, because the end result is still the same. If you amplify it, the result is the same. If you shrink it, it is the same. The only difference is the scale. The range has not shifted. 2 children, 2 adults, 2 seniors, is the same range as 4 children, 4 adults, 4 seniors. The difference is number exponent.



If there is change...it is not set...



ALL OF THOSE THINGS WERE FALLACIES...how did I know that you were going to be in denial.

I did not Misinterpret anything. Any reliable person could read what I said and have the ability to understand that I answered only given what was provided and did my best to answer each segment as its whole.

I have not twisted them, misinterpreted them, or changed them in any way. Your words are typed and present. If you wish to elaborate on them feel free. However remember, that certain things regardless of the elaboration are already prevented from being proven if they were previously proven incorrect.

Additionally remember, that an elaborated idea, does not make it right. You could still be very wrong in the assertion you present

There is no guarantee that you rectify anything.



I suggest your look at why those things I mentioned about yoru comments are logical fallacies. The ability to understand that will benefit you. It will benefit you to understand why certain things you said, simply CANNOT be. Denying their truth does not change a thing.

And as I said before, I did not misinterpret what you said. If you had more to say, you have to say it. I attributed the meanings that were present given the whole paragraphs visible.



That will not be evidence. I said what I did, because there is NOT any record that documents all or even the majority of drug dealers.

People utilize what they think, given evidence of what HAS been recorded, to make estimates or guesses. However, with the limited documents we currently have, no GOOD guess can be made. And as I said thereafter that passage...it did not change a thing. Even if the Guesses of "USUALLY" are correct, it does not change the points addressed about drug dealers and drug wars in the full passage.



No...I am not redefining things. I am using the ACCURATE definition of the words. Here is a list of definitions.

the act of subjugating by cruelty; "the tyrant's oppression of the people"
the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority: "after years of oppression they finally revolted"
a feeling of being oppressed
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Oppression is the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the cruel exercise of power in a society or social group. It is particularly closely associated with nationalism and derived social systems, wherein identity is built by antagonism to the other. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

Notice...In all those definitions, they fit the above description. They all define my first comment of "The type of action being subjugation by force." and second of "And the type of the type of action being Negative, cruel, or unjust."

Think about the damn things before you type them in response to me. Forcing a "lack of ignorance" is not oppression. It is force, but not oppression. Do not comment unless you ACTUALLY know the definition of oppression.



See above. You did not even know the definition of oppression, hence the reason why you fail to grasp the concept in the first place.




What other anarchists consider anarcho-capitalists is a moot point. They all have some elements of common ground for foundation.



They are still governments. All governments are different even ones of the same type and industry. The title of government can still be attributed to them all.



You should really read the entire paragraph pertaining to that. You are making a spectacle of yourself. Those VARIABLES were always present. They have been present since the beginning of time. WE simply stumble upon them. Progress requires us to make the most simple and concise working method/equation for the variables.

When you look at those models, mathematically and scientifically you break them down. To make them simpler. You REALLY need to read what I type before posting. Its irritating to repeat myself.



Actually that is not being objective at all. My statement was objective. I cannot believe how much propaganda has swayed you. Force is neither bad or good. It is force.

Beneficial is good....not beneficial is bad. Notice the words. I am basically repeating myself saying that. The fact you do not pick up on this, and even claim to say that it is Wrong, shows you lack to ability to understand even the objectivity.



What you believe doesn't change the fact on the subject. Freedom hopefully allows for progress and hopefully raises quality of life. It is not guaranteed. It CAN backfire. These are simple concepts. I should DEFINITELY not have to repeat myself.



I certainly can claim what I would do in the situation. Since I am me.



The whole argument FOR anarchy is based around the assumption that certain tendencies can be prevented and removed. All of my arguments have allowed for the whole range of outcomes. However, with the full range of outcomes comes the bad. The thing is, when the bad hits in anarchy, anarchy disappears and you acquire a dictatorship.



And what do you think was before tribes? You realize, that anarchy equates with before earth. Anarchy is equivalent with nothingness, or chaos. So it doesnt matter how far back you go, you eventually reach the same point. Anarchy. Reread that first quote you quoted from.

This shows how ignorant of society you truly are.


Soldiers are still murderers. They killed another human being. In cold blood no less. Not by accident.

////////////////////////
/////////////////////////


I suggest you reevaluate your whole philosophy. I have skipped repititive comments you mentioned to simplify my new answer.

Your entire philosophy about everything is so very wrong that you simply cannot look objectively and understand logic.

I expected denial as possible, however I did not expect the full blown Denial you have presented. Your entire belief system is flawed and you need to reevaluate that philosophy because I cannot do it for you.

This is said in the most serious manner possible. Not to be insulting. Not to attack you as a person. However, it is very sorely needed. You may have used personal insults and attacks on multiple occassions, but I am going to overlook those.

But our knowledge of reality is always theoretical.

Yes, and I claim in terms of pragmatism, that punishment is a reduction in the ability to choose. I don't care about how you choose to construct choice, I construct it differently using similar terminology. Frankly, my reasoning is because "choice" is a simpler way of saying "choice without coercion by forces who have a monopoly of legitimate violence or an approximation thereof". Switching terminology is stupid, especially given that your interpretation is rare.

No, simply the result of having a definition of choice that has some analytical value. Now, I don't accept your point. I won't accept your point. Your point is stupid. I can understand your point, it is still just stupid and based more upon anal terminological masturbation than analysis of human conditions.


No, it really is not. It is much less meaningful as it lacks a lot of the analytical value that choice and freedom usually represent. The table on economic freedom published by the Heritage institute each year, loses all meaning under your redefinition as all nations can be described as equally free. This is not an issue of propaganda or the manipulation of a culture/society, but rather trying to express that there is an analytical difference between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and a modern liberal democracy that is based a broad measure of how individuals can act without major top down imposed repercussions.


Um.... no, I disagree. Human constructs of liberty and human rights only have fallacies and loopholes in as much as the thinker has fallacies or loopholes. Frankly, they should not have been disregarded, and liberty for the sake of it is important if only to prevent people such as you as having power. As much as liberty is a social construct, well, only so much as every other term to describe a human society can be called a construct. Now, frankly, you have to prove backward and foolish, and you literally can't as those are subjective analyses.

Um.... the original constructions? Yeah, and we have learned more and progressed and frankly, we have refined those constructions with more modern thinkers such as David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek and others. In fact, every theory of society is created by a human being, this includes yours.


No, absolutely for the sake of it. We really cannot know more now as I support these concepts no matter their consequences and say that they are absolutely a good thing.

The very intention of control is to remove unwanted choices and prevent them from happening. If it weren't so then control would not be there. I disagree with your redefinitions and beyond that I don't give a damn.


Yeah, and *if* you don't have absolutes then what is the point? If it started raining purple elephants than we'd all be pretty screwed, but that is a pretty big if, so we need to analyze the if.

If you aren't successful then you aren't preventing them! If you cannot be successful then you cannot prevent them! It takes a lot of power to maintain control over anything, especially a market.

You're quibbling about terminology. Stop being so anal and actually recognize I am using different but logically valid constructions.

Methods include goals. You assume that there is only one final goal, I assume that there are goals to reach for reaching one's goals. Frankly, the latter is not necessarily wrong at all.

And being as childish as you are is a sign of being incompetent in debate, and I would estimate that you are in your teens and probably a high schooler. I'd be shocked if you were in your 20s and if you were older then I'd be rather ashamed, unless you are some foreigner and English isn't your first language. Trust me, I don't need you telling me how to debate, you get so hung up on such small little things and work within such an odd little construction that really I'd think I should teach you.

Depending on definitions. Natural monopolies are possible, and were believed to be found in certain utilities and were enforced in them as well.

You aren't talking about bell curves, in fact, I don't know what the heck you are talking about as you are either using completely bad terminology or describing something different.


Um.... I was clearly referring to scale. Scale does change the end results as more movement would cause different constructions in society.


The changes are not renegotiations, so therefore I call it set.

No, they really aren't. Misinterpretations on your part. You probably knew I'd be in denial because you get this a lot.

No, you did. I am not saying that you did not answer it how you interpreted it, but for "fallacies" the ideas I was using were relatively common, sometimes stated by major academics, and usually not incorrect ways of phrasing something.

You have, you did not change them, you interpreted them in terms of your weird voodoo definitions. Defining terms different than an opponent and not accepting their definitions will result in misinterpretation. Elaboration doesn't matter so long as the differences in definition and phrasing are not accounted for. Frankly, I am not going to elaborate because the fault is on your end for interpreting me from your weird philosophical views that I do not accept.


I understand why. You misinterpret my arguments and take everything too literally from your own philosophical orientation. It will not benefit me at all, what will benefit you is to accept more colloquial definitions of terms and a more existential framework.

Well, if we look at it that way then the issue is ignorance with one *really* good example of how these people probably think which is backed up with a theoretical argument as well so that we may generalize. Therefore, if we are to accept a conclusion then we should accept the theory with evidence as opposed to assuming another.

Yeah, and I am saying that "unjust" is not a term that can be invoked, and cruelty is a matter of subjective interpretation, so I call it reinterpretation because without these distinctions we only find subjugation and being kept down by unjust use of force or authority.

Yes, and "negative", "cruel" and "unjust" are meaningless concepts, therefore any differentiation between forces and subjugations is impossible, therefore I call it a redefinition because of the terms underlying the terminology used.

I know the definitions and I do think about damn things. Forcing a lack of ignorance IS oppression if I claim that the use of force is unjust.


Nope, I simply rejected the concepts of positive and negative as useful in terms of analysis and called oppression a usable term in all claims of force because positive and negative are undefinable.

Ok, then if we call those governments then we need a different title for the thing being opposed as the differences in categories still exist. The terms themselves really don't matter but rather the underlying meaning.

I recognize what you wrote, I just don't care about your rants. I also don't care how irritated you get. You are irritating to deal with as you have these long rambling oversized posts that merely misinterpret everything in terms of your anal little philosophy.

No, your statement was not objective, as I stated that force was bad. If force is bad then your statement fails. Force is not necessarily morally neutral. We can be in moral ignorance on its nature, but it still has moral attributes.

I notice, I don't care. I stated FORCE is BAD. This means that I view force as evil in most applications, note, I am not being so analytical as to mean literally all applications, I mean most. This means that I do not view force as morally neutral and thus must reject your notion of force being morally neutral.

Ok. You have not proven or disproven moral worth, therefore you misunderstood me and my point stands.

No, you cannot, as you being you does not mean that you have absolute knowledge on yourself. I claim that you could also be a liar or a hypocrite, and not even know it.

Not really. We simply assume different tendencies in mankind, I assume anarchy can go with human nature given the right social/cultural conceptions and you don't.

No human set ups before tribes. Um.... the universe is not what we are talking about. We are talking about human societies.

No, it really doesn't. We throw out people because they could potentially murder, we certainly throw out the ones who do.

No, murder is killing another being illegally or unjustly. Soldiers are legal and seen as just and therefore not murderers.

No, I see no reason to do so. Your philosophy is the one with the odder conclusions and less analytical value.

Um... yeah, keep on telling yourself that buddy.

No, I really don't.

Yeah, I know I used them, and I see your statements as no better.

Your arguments seem no different than the values of radically religious. You are sticking to your beliefs, and are unable to realize their lack of validity, because your methods and philosophies are so ineffective and wrong, that you are currently unable to understand the models presented.

This is why I suggest you change your philosophy.

Absolutes are absolute. You do not replace absolutes with Gray material in analytical values. Math is clearly something that eludes you. Replace any statement or word and place them into a mathematical construct.

Your arguments present values that are not equivalent on either side and therefore wrong. The arguments you present are incorrect.

Additionally, your ability to deduce is lacking, and you follow many forms of illogical statement.

For example:

No it isn't. Otherwise we would not exist. Sight..sound...our senses, they are all real. How we describe them or interpret them to others, takes revision, and therefore theory. However it is real.

1 + 1 = 2, is a definite. Though it is presented through a model, and is not the real world, we can present real world scenarios.

1 person, plus another person, is 2 people. That is real. That is not theory. And that matches 1 + 1 = 2, which withholds what those variables represent.

Your inability to understand such simple concepts automatically destroys your entire argument's credibility.



My theory of society could very likely be wrong...assuming I ever presented a model. I did not present a model of my own, I rendered yours impossible. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Yours being impossible has absolutely nothing to do with what I present. If I were to present a model(which I have not), it being right or wrong has no bearing on the credibility of your own. Your own is illogical, impossible, and exceeds the boundaries of logic.

I tend to avoid making models. Rather, I Simply destroy other models. It allows me to choose the better models, and deny ones that are worse or not feasible.



Irrational. If you don't understand the consequences of something, claiming it is a good thing CANNOT be absolute.



Wow...you don't understand IF-than statements in math do you.

In fact everything you have ever said, has shown me you misunderstand math and logic entirely.

IF-THAN in math...means that if the so called "IF" happens...the answer on the opposite side is GUARANTEED. There is no maybe about the other side. If the thing on one side occurs, the other is GUaranteed.

If you look back at what I said throughout the thread, and what I said of the original IF-than statement, and all its parts together, you will actually see where the absolute is presented.



I love how you only quote parts of the entire statement. WHere the few paragraphs below it already asnwer your question, and show you the difference between what you call "sub-Goals" and the final goal.

You know very well what I am taking about.



They aren't misinterpretations. What you stated is in stone. I said you could elaborate, and you clearly are not going to attempt it.

The reason I knew you would be in denial, has to do with Belief systems. I could assume you would be, because people do not generally accept that their entire belief system has been wrong, even if proven black and white in front of them. We call that denial.

It happens all the time. It does not only happen to the religious.

This is why I could predict you would be in denial.



Whether or not you see my statements as better has nothing to do with validity. You intentionally and purposely attacked an individual with words. I did not attempt to harm you in any way. People get harmed by things sometimes because things are harsh, and they don't like the THOUGHT of being attributed to them.

I never intentionally attacked you at all. So there is must certainly a difference.

Yours was a form of intentional insult. Mine was not an intentional insult. You did not like what I said, that is clear. However, it was not made to intentionally hurt. I state to explain things. You state to harm.

/////
////
///

I am only picking out those replies, because I seem to have attempted in all other directions to demonstrate TO YOU, why your philosophies and belief of anarchy are not correct.

Since you will not be engaging the debate rationally, and believe you are, makes it impossible for me to elaborate, until you can understand why your arguments are not rational.