A constant reminder that life was so much better before the internet
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Desperation
There's a good article here from Anna Raccoon, but there's also a long to-and-fro in the comments between Kingbingo and myself about how anarchism might work and why I don't feel like laying out a potential roadmap.
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Good on ya for some great Ancap thought (and not your usual generic Libertarianism - not that i don't enjoy it), however arguing with Kingbingo seems a bit mad. His every question was a false dichotomy, and all the questions about parental responsibility would have applied equally to his minarchist state.
That is, it's move important question to force him to explain how numerous Violent monopolies will handle the situation, as he thinks he has "the solution", while it's perfectly valid for us to remember we don't have the solution, and any problems can be dealt with because of a lack of violence.
However, as our best guess models for a future society involve voluntary organisations which would set rules for things like coming of age, even in the worst-case scenaria, a free society would have only as many moral questions as Kingbingo on the issue. Don't allow the attacker to confuse your argument with questions that their own system cannot answer.
Otherwise, good arguments as always, but I can't read too far, I can't stand Kingbingos Non sequitur questions and life boat scenarios.
Yep... gave up when he started asking for historical examples of countries without slavery before slavery was abolished... oh wait, no, he's a bit late but I bet he would have.
I think the Bridge comment was funniest... another Libertarian adds one aspect Kingbongo doesn't agree with and he shoots it down with logic, but then applies the same fallacy to things he does want the state for heh.
"If peole want A, A will come, but mummy I wanna use violence to provide B otherwise those smelly foreigners will invade because no one wants to pay the stupid amounts of money it costs to violentlly repel them from moving house! Erm, oh and yeah, murders will run rampant because people are too stupid to choose to not interact with them."
I usually choose not to engage with anonymous comments but this part goes to the point about Anarchism being a lot of ill thought through wishful thinking.
“Erm, oh and yeah, murders will run rampant because people are too stupid to choose to not interact with them."
If it was a question of simply choosing not to interact with murders, rapists, thugs and thieves. :rolleyes:
Anarchists always want to bring things back to this conceptual affront to the use of compulsion and violence by the state. But they fail to see that violence is a constant, there will always be violence . And that most people do not have a problem with a state holding a monopoly on the use of violence for enforce a set of laws.
Obviously, it is important that that use, like all functions of government it must be very limited, I wholeheartedly agree. We do not want to hark back to Mao Tse-Tung advice to communists, essentially, ‘we must grasp’ "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The toughest questions I get from Anarchists is how do you keep government limited and small. It is this I devote most of my thinking at. (when I spend my time on Anarchist websites anyway)
However, Anarchists are attached to this notion of justice without having any idea how it would work. I think that’s because there are no good answers, thus why they never get provided. I have never heard a good explanation why, or indeed if there is another angle that holds water.
I knew it wasn’t you, the guy was sat on a slightly different logic train. Your style and assumptions in writing are more recognisable then handwriting script sometimes. Especially in your case as I read you every day.
Oh and btw: It’s why you ‘can’t’ lay out how it might work, not why you ‘can’t be bothered’.
“Whereas you choose to believe in “minarchism” despite having repeated real-world proof that it always leads us to where we are today: a bloated state that sucks up half of everything we do and sticks its interfering, bossy nose into everything we do.”
:From Anna’s blog:
Over the fullness of time yes, plenty of evidence for that, starting with Rome (probably earlier if I knew my history better) going to the US today. Very fair point, and the hardest I have to answer, Although your note I set out ways I think this could be achieved above, I did go into detail.
So..... Let’s just for a moment my ideas on localism (regions) and full election of all public officials and budgets actually works, and holds for 100 years + (which to be fair the US kinda did, and Rome lasted for centuries before going statist). Then maybe, that would be pretty cool, and give you Anarchists the time you need to get your ducks in a row?
But I can lay out how it might work. The thing is, that every time I covered off the subject, you'd say, "OK, what about this or that?"
And it would never end and I would never satisfy you. I've had this exact conversation before on internet forums and it really does never end. So I'm not even going to try.
(And it would be total bullshit anyway, because just because I can work something out, doesn't mean it's going to work out that way.)
It's not really fair to compare Roman government to our own. It was a completely different model of society. There are far too many things that diverge from minarchism anyway, because they were an aggressive military empire.
And the US has got a written constitution that ostensibly prevents the state from becoming overbearing (although it just gets ignored by Obama or whoever when it's too inconvenient) and people have been moaning since forever about the Federal government anyway.
So I think you'll find it a matter of some debate that the Americans survived a century before the state got too bloated.
It's not a question of getting ducks in a row anyway. If I have to plan how to make an AnCap society work, it defeats the whole purpose of it. The idea of an AnCap society is that we would all have to mutually agree on the structures by which we live. Otherwise it's just a state with a different name.
"Anarchists always want to bring things back to this conceptual affront to the use of compulsion and violence by the state. But they fail to see that violence is a constant, there will always be violence . And that most people do not have a problem with a state holding a monopoly on the use of violence for enforce a set of laws."
Sorry, after banging my head agaisnt the wall in a similar style to the way you treat basic logic, I'm able to respond only partially to this. It is the anarchist who recognises violence, hence we don't want to give violence a monopoly by which it can do anything it likes with no responsibility.
Of course it is all about interaction, how the hell does a murderer get near people or not starve to death if people refuse to do business with them and defend their property?
Statists are the ones who belief violence is a non-constant magically removed by virtue of being in government.
"However, Anarchists are attached to this notion of justice without having any idea how it would work. I think that’s because there are no good answers"
Sorry for a third post in a row, but I missed this gem the first time round.
I mean.. seriously. You say there are no solutions to justice, so lets use the violent non-solution? Madness isn't contageous is it? Obviously, Anarcho-Capitalist thought has come up with hundreds of solutions though, so it was probably more an admittance of your own loves (violence) failures.
George Want Job, George contract with employer, Employer want assurances, Emploer and George agree to contract by which justice dealt with, George get job, George arrested under agreed terms, George cleared under investiagation by mutely agreed terms, George get back to work. Even Jungle Language can describe this basic concept.
""The idea of an AnCap society is that we would all have to mutually agree on the structures by which we live."
The way we do in a democracy you mean."
Bullshit. Show me where I signed up? Show me where I sold my home to government? Show me where I agreed that the minimum wage was a crime? Show me where I agreed to pay taxes. By your logic, you can't even be a Minarchist, lest you be a dirty hypocrite.
Anonymous has beaten me to it, but really, I don't agree with most British laws and regulations, yet I am compelled under the threat of violence to adhere to them.
There is absolutely NO mutual agreement involved. I have to adhere to the rules of not only others, but the rules created by people who tend to exempt themselves from those rules.
We have (notionally) a representative democracy. This means that as little as 35% of the population decides the 0.001% of the population who gets to make the rules that 100% of the population has to live by. I haven't signed up to pretty much any of the laws created by New Labour, and yet I'm still bound by them.
Yeah, I often see truth in front of me then decide to ignore it. As I have said before, I don't see why me selecting the Anonymous option annoys you when I am happy to reveal my name and address, it just seems to be a petty argument.
So please, do tell, and I will avoid insults in response, how exactly is it not hypocritcal for you to say that democracy is mututally agreed upon by everyone in the country, but that the choices currently being made by that democracy aren't what you want?
If that isn't hypocrisy (using one argument agaisnt us, but not yourself) then I really don't know what Hypocrisy is.
Moreover I recommend the Cato Institute in the US and the IEA in the UK as places to further your knowledge. They are both really good sources for libertarian minded people.
20 comments:
Good on ya for some great Ancap thought (and not your usual generic Libertarianism - not that i don't enjoy it), however arguing with Kingbingo seems a bit mad. His every question was a false dichotomy, and all the questions about parental responsibility would have applied equally to his minarchist state.
That is, it's move important question to force him to explain how numerous Violent monopolies will handle the situation, as he thinks he has "the solution", while it's perfectly valid for us to remember we don't have the solution, and any problems can be dealt with because of a lack of violence.
However, as our best guess models for a future society involve voluntary organisations which would set rules for things like coming of age, even in the worst-case scenaria, a free society would have only as many moral questions as Kingbingo on the issue. Don't allow the attacker to confuse your argument with questions that their own system cannot answer.
Otherwise, good arguments as always, but I can't read too far, I can't stand Kingbingos Non sequitur questions and life boat scenarios.
Yep... gave up when he started asking for historical examples of countries without slavery before slavery was abolished... oh wait, no, he's a bit late but I bet he would have.
I think the Bridge comment was funniest... another Libertarian adds one aspect Kingbongo doesn't agree with and he shoots it down with logic, but then applies the same fallacy to things he does want the state for heh.
"If peole want A, A will come, but mummy I wanna use violence to provide B otherwise those smelly foreigners will invade because no one wants to pay the stupid amounts of money it costs to violentlly repel them from moving house! Erm, oh and yeah, murders will run rampant because people are too stupid to choose to not interact with them."
Interesting that these comments were made Anonymously.
Don't look at me! :o)
I usually choose not to engage with anonymous comments but this part goes to the point about Anarchism being a lot of ill thought through wishful thinking.
“Erm, oh and yeah, murders will run rampant because people are too stupid to choose to not interact with them."
If it was a question of simply choosing not to interact with murders, rapists, thugs and thieves. :rolleyes:
Anarchists always want to bring things back to this conceptual affront to the use of compulsion and violence by the state. But they fail to see that violence is a constant, there will always be violence . And that most people do not have a problem with a state holding a monopoly on the use of violence for enforce a set of laws.
Obviously, it is important that that use, like all functions of government it must be very limited, I wholeheartedly agree. We do not want to hark back to Mao Tse-Tung advice to communists, essentially, ‘we must grasp’ "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The toughest questions I get from Anarchists is how do you keep government limited and small. It is this I devote most of my thinking at. (when I spend my time on Anarchist websites anyway)
However, Anarchists are attached to this notion of justice without having any idea how it would work. I think that’s because there are no good answers, thus why they never get provided. I have never heard a good explanation why, or indeed if there is another angle that holds water.
“Don't look at me! :o)”
I knew it wasn’t you, the guy was sat on a slightly different logic train. Your style and assumptions in writing are more recognisable then handwriting script sometimes. Especially in your case as I read you every day.
Oh and btw: It’s why you ‘can’t’ lay out how it might work, not why you ‘can’t be bothered’.
“Whereas you choose to believe in “minarchism” despite having repeated real-world proof that it always leads us to where we are today: a bloated state that sucks up half of everything we do and sticks its interfering, bossy nose into everything we do.”
:From Anna’s blog:
Over the fullness of time yes, plenty of evidence for that, starting with Rome (probably earlier if I knew my history better) going to the US today. Very fair point, and the hardest I have to answer, Although your note I set out ways I think this could be achieved above, I did go into detail.
So..... Let’s just for a moment my ideas on localism (regions) and full election of all public officials and budgets actually works, and holds for 100 years + (which to be fair the US kinda did, and Rome lasted for centuries before going statist). Then maybe, that would be pretty cool, and give you Anarchists the time you need to get your ducks in a row?
But I can lay out how it might work. The thing is, that every time I covered off the subject, you'd say, "OK, what about this or that?"
And it would never end and I would never satisfy you. I've had this exact conversation before on internet forums and it really does never end. So I'm not even going to try.
(And it would be total bullshit anyway, because just because I can work something out, doesn't mean it's going to work out that way.)
You raised some other good points that I will respond to later here or there.
I just have to work now. and might get pissed tonight. But I will return.
It's not really fair to compare Roman government to our own. It was a completely different model of society. There are far too many things that diverge from minarchism anyway, because they were an aggressive military empire.
And the US has got a written constitution that ostensibly prevents the state from becoming overbearing (although it just gets ignored by Obama or whoever when it's too inconvenient) and people have been moaning since forever about the Federal government anyway.
So I think you'll find it a matter of some debate that the Americans survived a century before the state got too bloated.
It's not a question of getting ducks in a row anyway. If I have to plan how to make an AnCap society work, it defeats the whole purpose of it. The idea of an AnCap society is that we would all have to mutually agree on the structures by which we live. Otherwise it's just a state with a different name.
Sorry, but why do people make such absurd comments in response to anonymous before asking for details? I'll give you my name, address, just ask.
Also, it's not "interesting", my points stand for themselves as criticisms of content.
"Anarchists always want to bring things back to this conceptual affront to the use of compulsion and violence by the state. But they fail to see that violence is a constant, there will always be violence . And that most people do not have a problem with a state holding a monopoly on the use of violence for enforce a set of laws."
Sorry, after banging my head agaisnt the wall in a similar style to the way you treat basic logic, I'm able to respond only partially to this. It is the anarchist who recognises violence, hence we don't want to give violence a monopoly by which it can do anything it likes with no responsibility.
Of course it is all about interaction, how the hell does a murderer get near people or not starve to death if people refuse to do business with them and defend their property?
Statists are the ones who belief violence is a non-constant magically removed by virtue of being in government.
"The idea of an AnCap society is that we would all have to mutually agree on the structures by which we live."
The way we do in a democracy you mean.
You end up with another state by following your methods, you just call it something else.
"Otherwise it's just a state with a different name."
But that IS what your doing.
"However, Anarchists are attached to this notion of justice without having any idea how it would work. I think that’s because there are no good answers"
Sorry for a third post in a row, but I missed this gem the first time round.
I mean.. seriously. You say there are no solutions to justice, so lets use the violent non-solution? Madness isn't contageous is it? Obviously, Anarcho-Capitalist thought has come up with hundreds of solutions though, so it was probably more an admittance of your own loves (violence) failures.
George Want Job, George contract with employer, Employer want assurances, Emploer and George agree to contract by which justice dealt with, George get job, George arrested under agreed terms, George cleared under investiagation by mutely agreed terms, George get back to work. Even Jungle Language can describe this basic concept.
""The idea of an AnCap society is that we would all have to mutually agree on the structures by which we live."
The way we do in a democracy you mean."
Bullshit. Show me where I signed up? Show me where I sold my home to government? Show me where I agreed that the minimum wage was a crime? Show me where I agreed to pay taxes. By your logic, you can't even be a Minarchist, lest you be a dirty hypocrite.
Anonymous has beaten me to it, but really, I don't agree with most British laws and regulations, yet I am compelled under the threat of violence to adhere to them.
There is absolutely NO mutual agreement involved. I have to adhere to the rules of not only others, but the rules created by people who tend to exempt themselves from those rules.
We have (notionally) a representative democracy. This means that as little as 35% of the population decides the 0.001% of the population who gets to make the rules that 100% of the population has to live by. I haven't signed up to pretty much any of the laws created by New Labour, and yet I'm still bound by them.
At the point of a gun.
"lest you be a dirty hypocrite."
You the guy on UKlibertarian who started a slanging match at anyone who did not agree?
I can see where this is going and it serves me right for replying to anonymous to begin with.
Yeah, I often see truth in front of me then decide to ignore it. As I have said before, I don't see why me selecting the Anonymous option annoys you when I am happy to reveal my name and address, it just seems to be a petty argument.
So please, do tell, and I will avoid insults in response, how exactly is it not hypocritcal for you to say that democracy is mututally agreed upon by everyone in the country, but that the choices currently being made by that democracy aren't what you want?
If that isn't hypocrisy (using one argument agaisnt us, but not yourself) then I really don't know what Hypocrisy is.
Obnoxio, great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj6lRFXC5rA&feature=player_embedded
Moreover I recommend the Cato Institute in the US and the IEA in the UK as places to further your knowledge. They are both really good sources for libertarian minded people.
Post a Comment