Being new to this forum, I'm learning quite a bit, most recently that there is a distinction made between anarchy and chaos. I have listed the etymological roots of both for the sake of context:
So I have to ask, what, if anything, is wrong with chaos? Why stop at anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism)?
I have never actually suggested anyone read Hobbes, but read Hobbes' Leviathan.
Aristophanes: I have never actually suggested anyone read Hobbes, but read Hobbes' Leviathan.
I read it back in my bachelor degree days years back. From what I recall, people are inherently competitive and will do anything to anybody at any time to survive or prosper, or to better one's circumstances, right? It's been a while, I might need some clarification.
In a state of nature (anarchy), there is 'a war of all against all.' it is not just competition, but avarice (as he claims) that cause civil war, etc. People enter into a "social contract" in order to avoid the pitfalls of the strong dominating the weak and creating disharmony. It is BS, but it is a decent refutation of the promotion of chaos.
Look at Pythagoras, "There is no sin greater than anarchy." What he meant was chaos and refers to the state of reality, not of nature on Earth, but of all matter in the universe.
So I have to ask, what, if anything, is wrong with chaos?
Well, you either have a moral problem with it or not. I happen to like the division of labor and cooperation, and I also happen to support the golden rule. There is no reason why anyone should support these ideas, except that you find them to be good and moral. So, if you support things like the golden rule, then chaos is wrong.
Why stop at anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism)?
Chaos and anarcho-capitalism have nothing to do with each other.
Here's a good critique of Hobbes: Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State
You're right on the bellum omnium contra omnes.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Aristophanes: In a state of nature (anarchy), there is 'a war of all against all.' it is not just competition, but avarice (as he claims) that cause civil war, etc. People enter into a "social contract" in order to avoid the pitfalls of the strong dominating the weak and creating disharmony. It is BS, but it is a decent refutation of the promotion of chaos. Look at Pythagoras, "There is no sin greater than anarchy." What he meant was chaos and refers to the state of reality, not of nature on Earth, but of all matter in the universe.
Interesting.
I actually believe that there is nothing but chaos. Only in chaos is there freedom. Even in our state of existence, where there is plunder of individuality, liberty and property, we still have natural rights. Everyone is born free, born an individual and has the cognitive and physical faculties needed for gaining private property. Simply because someone or some group interferes is due to their ability to interfere and their choice to do so. Nevertheless, chaos still exists.
In chaos, there is no order. Man can will chaos as he chooses to form order in his mind, but he does so in chaos. But the order exists in mind, and that's it. In chaos, anything can happen and it would still be chaos. The most perfect triangle could be drawn, the strongest building could be built, and if mankind eventually did not exist, it would demote back to its origin: chaos.
Chaos is inevitable, and the order we experience, the plunder of our natural rights, the enslavement we experience is all a consequence of one person willing himself over another. It doesn't make it right; it just is, and only a stronger force against that movement can succeed.
This is where I see anarcho-capitalists as being oddly ethical. They believe in right and wrong: right to be free and own property and wrong to be a slave, to enslave and to steal. These are principles, and while I believe they are natural (and agree with AnCaps on this matter), I realize the truth: chaos still exists.
Thus I was curious: why is it that when AnCaps seek truth, they limit themselves to ethics when constructing society? Truth is in chaos.
gotlucky: Chaos and anarcho-capitalism have nothing to do with each other.
I understand. Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all?
A logic of justification of arguments (ethics) is implied by logic.
There never was a Hobbesian state of nature. There never was a social contract. Humans develop self-enforcing, peaceful relations between eachother. The Hobbesian idea that there needs to be a third-party enforcer results in an infinite regress since in order for the first and second parties to be able to contract with the third party, there must also be a fourth and fifth party to enforce that agreement and so forth. The state is based only on the forceful domination of one party over another, and is not at all necessary for an ordered society - nor, I should add, is it sufficient.
If this is a response to what I posted ... pretty much everything you've said is in that article. And I don't disagree with you.
Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all?
Because we are not animals.
chaos still exists.
Absurd. I'm writing an essay in my spare time comparing Lockean and Pythagorean anarchy. Chaos is unreal, according to Pythagoras, because matter is finely tuned mathematically to exist as we understand it (See: the phi ratio). Locke takes ... I'm not giving you all of my points until it is finished, but nevertheless Locke and Pythagoras disagree on what "it" is called, but both advocate reason as the main driver of what makes society function.
reason -> moderation -> common equity.
Anarchy is true, but you are confused about what "chaos" has meant historically (philosophically speaking). Chaos would mean that physical reality in all of its totality is an accident. Very few people throughout history have had the gall to claim that they know that the existence of physical reality is an "accident" or a product of chaos. It only seems like it from our perspective.
Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius...
- Thoth Hermes Trismegistus (Probably not actually)
triknighted: I understand. Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all?
You either have a philosophy for your morality or you don't. However, everyone has some kind of morality, even if you don't agree with their morality. So the question really is: whose ethics do we use?
I support the golden rule, and the NAP is just a legal realization of the golden rule. Not everyone shares my opinion though.
Lew Rockwell explains the nature of social order here:
Economic law is something that surrounds us constantly as a fact of life and a driving force of the material world. To deny economic law is akin to denying gravity or the change of seasons. But its principles remain abstract enough to require careful thought in order to discern them and comprehend their meaning.
And here:
Ludwig von Mises said that the great accomplishment of economists was to draw attention to the extreme limits on the power of government. His point was not merely that government should be limited, but that it is limited by the very structure of reality. It cannot make all people rich by its own initiative. It cannot provide universal housing, literacy, and health. It cannot raise wages across the board. It cannot ban products. Those who seek to accomplish economic ends such as these are choosing the wrong means. That is because there is something more powerful than government: namely economic law. And what is economic law? It is a force that operates within the structure of all societies everywhere that governs the production and allocation of material resources and time according to strict bounds of what is possible. Some things are just not possible. It just so happens that this includes most of the demands that are made by the public and pressure groups on the government. This was the great discovery of the modern science of economics. This was not known by the ancients. It was not known by the fathers of the early church. It was the discovery of the medieval schoolmen, and the insight was gradually elaborated upon and systematized over the centuries, culminating in the classical and Austrian traditions of thought. The power of government to do what we desire is strictly limited. Those who do not understand this point do not understand economics. And the economic teaching has a broader implication that concerns the organization of society itself. Government is not free to make and unmake society as it sees fit. It is not a tool we can use to fulfill our private dreams. Society is too complicated, too far reaching, too much a reflection of the free volition of individual actors, for government to be able to accomplish its ends. Most often, what government attempts to do — whether abolish poverty, end liquor consumption, or make all citizens literate and healthy — ends up backfiring and generating the exact opposite.
And what is economic law? It is a force that operates within the structure of all societies everywhere that governs the production and allocation of material resources and time according to strict bounds of what is possible. Some things are just not possible. It just so happens that this includes most of the demands that are made by the public and pressure groups on the government. This was the great discovery of the modern science of economics. This was not known by the ancients. It was not known by the fathers of the early church. It was the discovery of the medieval schoolmen, and the insight was gradually elaborated upon and systematized over the centuries, culminating in the classical and Austrian traditions of thought.
The power of government to do what we desire is strictly limited. Those who do not understand this point do not understand economics. And the economic teaching has a broader implication that concerns the organization of society itself. Government is not free to make and unmake society as it sees fit. It is not a tool we can use to fulfill our private dreams. Society is too complicated, too far reaching, too much a reflection of the free volition of individual actors, for government to be able to accomplish its ends. Most often, what government attempts to do — whether abolish poverty, end liquor consumption, or make all citizens literate and healthy — ends up backfiring and generating the exact opposite.
I would draw an analogy between the social order and language. Do economic, that is, social laws exist? There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, doubt and confusion within academia regarding the answer to this question. Moral, legal, cultural and even logical nihilism have tremendous sway in the social sciences. But if economic and social laws do not exist, we may as well ask ourselves do words exist? What is a word? Who defines words? Who enforces their usage? Steven Pinker - an expert on language - says no one does.
"Chaos" as an ordering principle of society is no more than a metaphysical possibility - just like physics without gravity or human society without words. So, the question in the OP is moot - it's like asking, "What, if anything, is wrong with antimatter?" I don't know and the answer to the question is irrelevant because this universe is composed of matter and non-chaotic societies.
Clayton -
gotlucky: You either have a philosophy for your morality or you don't. However, everyone has some kind of morality, even if you don't agree with their morality. So the question really is: whose ethics do we use?
I like the Golden Rule myself. In fact, I live by it. Regardless, I came to believe that was the best way of living by my own choice. I certainly didn't simply adopt it from Jesus because he's Jesus. I would restate your latter enquiry as, instead of "whose ethics do we use?" to being "why ethics period? And if ethics, which works best?"
Aristophanes: Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all? Because we are not animals.
Interesting. Then why are human labeled under the kingom "animalia"?
Aristophanes: Chaos is unreal, according to Pythagoras, because matter is finely tuned mathematically to exist as we understand it (See: the phi ratio).
Chaos is unreal, according to Pythagoras, because matter is finely tuned mathematically to exist as we understand it (See: the phi ratio).
Pythagoras said chaos is unreal, therefore it must be right. Government said it needs to protect us from ourselves, therefore it must be right. Hmm. . . .
Ethos doesn't go very far, mate.
Aristophanes: Anarchy is true, but you are confused about what "chaos" has meant historically (philosophically speaking). Chaos would mean that physical reality in all of its totality is an accident. Very few people throughout history have had the gall to claim that they know that the existence of physical reality is an "accident" or a product of chaos. It only seems like it from our perspective.
What do you mean by "anarchy is true"?
Also, I posted the etymological root of chaos at the beginning of this thread. If that's not good enough, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines chaos as the unordered, unformed, undifferentiated beginning of things and as an antonym to cosmos, the ordered universe. I'm not saying that physical reality is an accident; only that it is formless and without design and that order doesn't exist any more than we perceive it to exist. Physical order is non-existent. "Accident" can be a loaded word, mate.
While I believe in God, I am not a teleologist. I'm surprised that you are one. You don't have to be a teleologist to believe in God, you know.
triknighted:So I have to ask, what, if anything, is wrong with chaos? Why stop at anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism)?
Do you mean this as a descriptive question, or as a normative one?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I think it may be "wrong" by definition. So it is a word used to describe a bad or unpleasant situation.
Frankly, I think anarchy is / was the same, until it was misued by a couple people in the 19th century.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
triknighted: Regardless, I came to believe that was the best way of living by my own choice. I certainly didn't simply adopt it from Jesus because he's Jesus.
Regardless, I came to believe that was the best way of living by my own choice. I certainly didn't simply adopt it from Jesus because he's Jesus.
Precisely. It's the same with everyone. People either believe the golden rule is just, or they don't. You either want to live harmoniously with others, or you don't. Most people do want to, so when someone explains the golden rule (whether it was Jesus or Confucius or someone today), they typically accept it. The problem, in my opinion, is that many people do not understand the implications of the golden rule, and they are indoctrinated for years to believe that aggression is the way to a harmonious existence with others.
triknighted: I would restate your latter enquiry as, instead of "whose ethics do we use?" to being "why ethics period? And if ethics, which works best?"
I would restate your latter enquiry as, instead of "whose ethics do we use?" to being "why ethics period? And if ethics, which works best?"
No, I think my question is accurate. To ask, "why ethics?" is to miss the point. Ethics is just moral philosophy. Not everyone agrees on what is morally good, but everyone has some kind of morality. Even if you think it's wrong, they still have it. And to ask, "which works best?" also misses the point. Best according to whom?
I believe my question gets to the heart of the matter. Do we use your ethics, mine, or some combination? Because there are people, there will be morality, it's just a question of whose morality. I don't believe in utopia. I don't think that all aggression will be eradicated from humanity. But I want a society where people are free to pursue their own goals unless they are aggressing against others. Basically, I don't want centralized ethics. I don't want there to be one person or a group of people ruling over everyone and saying "this is what is good and this is what is wrong".
I hope this makes sense.
You are a retard. Can animals perceive time?
If that's not good enough the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines
You see what you did there? (Hmm...) Hypocrite much? If chaos is so real, then why are trying to define something. You think it is blue, i think it is red. You tell me why society cannot function if no one agrees on anything.
only that it is formless and without design and that order doesn't exist any more than we perceive it to exist.
............................................................................. - You are a ... well you get the idea.
You are pretending that there is some significance to something (chaos) that by definition doesn't exist. You are not insightful.
Autolykos: triknighted:So I have to ask, what, if anything, is wrong with chaos? Why stop at anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism)? Do you mean this as a descriptive question, or as a normative one?
Autolykos, you ask a lot of questions instead of giving answers. Other people answered my question, why do you refuse to? Are you unable to answer it?
I can play your game, so how about this: answer my question as though it is both descriptive and normative.
We are waiting . . . yet again.
I don't think a question can be both descriptive and normative, so I won't answer it that way. Try again.
I'm not playing any games. I think your question is ambiguous and I'm asking for clarification.
Aristophanes: Interesting. Then why are human labeled under the kingom "animalia"? You are a retard. Can animals perceive time?
You're the retard who made a black or white distinction between humans and animals when they are part of the same kingdom. I properly classify us and the village idiot calls me a retard? Did Pythagoras tell you that in his brilliant discourse as well? Do you even know what ethos is, son?
Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be hand fed too much: Humans are animals, but not all animals are humans, so specify next time instead of generalizing. We're not exactly talking about a stroll to the park in this thread, you know.
Aristophanes: If chaos is so real, then why are trying to define something. You think it is blue, i think it is red. You tell me why society cannot function if no one agrees on anything.
If chaos is so real, then why are trying to define something. You think it is blue, i think it is red. You tell me why society cannot function if no one agrees on anything.
Who says you can't define things in chaos? You seem to be confused. Simply because something is one way does not mean it has to stay that way. In essence, nothing is static. In essence, you need to study more before auditioning for your high school debate team next year.
Aristophanes: only that it is formless and without design and that order doesn't exist any more than we perceive it to exist. ............................................................................. - You are a ... well you get the idea. You are pretending that there is some significance to something (chaos) that by definition doesn't exist. You are not insightful.
Even your ad hominem arguments know that humans are animals. See how illogical retorts go nowhere? No you have thus learned, grasshoppa.
Autolykos: I don't think a question can be both descriptive and normative, so I won't answer it that way. Try again. I'm not playing any games. I think your question is ambiguous and I'm asking for clarification.
I'm not suggesting that a question can be both; that's irrelevant, no red herrings here, mister. You resort to ambiguity for a straight forward question? This is baffling. How about this, since you're a semantics relativist:
Give me your definition of the two types of questions in consideration, and then I will proceed with your little game if I so choose. . . .
You reply to the ad hominem but not your own claim that the universe is not ordered even though its order is mathematically calculable. Chaos is only an idea. And it is an idea that no one agrees on. You also did not reply to your obvious hypocricy in appealing to authorities either. Hmm...
Even your ad hominem arguments know that humans are animals.
What? Are you about to say that an argument can have conscious thoughts? o_O
My rhetoric could have been more precise, sure. Humans are differentiated between every other animal on Earth because we can perceive time.
You asked a fucking stupid question (which was answered by Hobbes and Locke 500 years ago. And even they were talking about chaos in relation to anarchy, not about the order of the universe).
You asked what was wrong with chaos? Let me ask you, what is wrong with math? Hmm? You cannot ask a normative question about something that has no normative value, dumbass. That is my assumption as to why auto is trolling you. (Talk about being spoon fed.)
Aristophanes:You are a retard.
Triknighted:You're the retard.
triknighted:I'm not suggesting that a question can be both; that's irrelevant, no red herrings here, mister.
I see no other way to parse this statement of yours:
Do you?
triknighted:You resort to [sic] ambiguity for a straight forward question? This is baffling.
Obviously, if I thought the question was straightforward, I would've answered it already. You can claim that your question is straightforward all you want - I'm in no way obligated to agree with you.
triknighted:How about this, since you're a semantics relativist: Give me your definition of the two types of questions in consideration, and then I will proceed with your little [sic] game [sic] if I so choose. . . .
Give me your definition of the two types of questions in consideration, and then I will proceed with your little [sic] game [sic] if I so choose. . . .
I don't feel insulted by being called a "semantics relativist". I recognize the inherent arbitrariness of semantics, so I take you pointing that out as a compliment.
I define "descriptive question" as "a question about the nature of (part of) reality", and "normative question" as "a question about what one expects of (part of) reality".
Buzz Killington: Aristophanes:You are a retard. Triknighted:You're the retard.
LMAO I don't think his momma tucked him in last night, so he's grumpy today.
Triknighted:See how illogical retorts go nowhere?
Aristophanes:You cannot ask a normative question about something that has no normative value, dumbass.
Autolykos:I define "descriptive question" as "a question about the nature of (part of) reality", and "normative question" as "a question about what one expects of (part of) reality".
Aristophanes: Aristophanes:You are a retard. Triknighted:You're the retard. Triknighted:See how illogical retorts go nowhere? Aristophanes:You cannot ask a normative question about something that has no normative value, dumbass. Autolykos:I define "descriptive question" as "a question about the nature of (part of) reality", and "normative question" as "a question about what one expects of (part of) reality".
I don't view Autolykos to be a troll . . . but I gather that many people on here gang up on him a lot of the time. I might disagree with the bloke but we don't troll each other.
As for the Hobbes reference, people on here tend to simultaneously hate him and his work yet reference him at a moment's notice. Why?
As for asking a stupid question . . . really mate, you take way to much seriously. Lighten up a bit. I didn't ask a stupid question; you simply became touchy when I questioned why you resorted to proclaiming someone's credibility to answer a question. How about resorting to reason and leaving the argumentative fallacies--particular ad hominem--for the midgets and other inferior life forms? I'm simply asking questions that come to mind; not such a bad thing to be honest.
I like Auto's responses most of the time. My usage of 'trolling' wasn't necessarily pejorative.
I realize this, however, I use the Establishment reasoning for all kinds of things. Z. Brzezinski is one of my 'go to' persons for debating politics at about any level. I use him (as I use Hobbes) because there are many who are in denial (or in Hobbsean case, ignorant) of what they are talking about.
I didn't ask a stupid question
Yes. You did. Just as Auto pointed out, you failed to clarify which of the two broadest categories of inquiry one can have. Are you talking about chaos as 'a value system' or chaos as a 'feature of nature'. I answered as if you had asked about values and referenced Pythagoras due to his immense influence on Plato and hence the Catholic Church. Chaos was/is equated to anarchy which was a sin. I also pointed out that when discussing anarchy, Pythagoras said the same things that John Locke did (about morals), even though they view the concept of anarchy in a starkly opposite fashion. Chaos was a "sin" because nature is mathematically precise.
What is wrong with math?
Do you see how that is a dumb question?
Also,
I think it may be of use as to seeing where the imperative to act within the Austrian framwork lies. If it is "nothing is more to me than myself" - which it is, it essentially states that one is automatically acting in an "anarchic" way, the consequences of which are "order" if we are to make sense of anything at all.
We name and make sense of things, because we act. The words come out because we act socially.
Logic and words always affirm the reality of action
triknighted:I understand. Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all?
Here, here! +1
Aristophenes seems to be suffering from acute Humanism. Do animals have a concept of time? LOL, never heard of "migratory species", huh?
"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1:28
Compare that with the relative animism of the Greeks he claims to admire so.
Aristophanes: I like Auto's responses most of the time. My usage of 'trolling' wasn't necessarily pejorative. As for the Hobbes reference, people on here tend to simultaneously hate him and his work yet reference him at a moment's notice. Why? I realize this, however, I use the Establishment reasoning for all kinds of things. Z. Brzezinski is one of my 'go to' persons for debating politics at about any level. I use him (as I use Hobbes) because there are many who are in denial (or in Hobbsean case, ignorant) of what they are talking about. I didn't ask a stupid question Yes. You did. Just as Auto pointed out, you failed to clarify which of the two broadest categories of inquiry one can have. Are you talking about chaos as 'a value system' or chaos as a 'feature of nature'. I answered as if you had asked about values and referenced Pythagoras due to his immense influence on Plato and hence the Catholic Church. Chaos was/is equated to anarchy which was a sin. I also pointed out that when discussing anarchy, Pythagoras said the same things that John Locke did (about morals), even though they view the concept of anarchy in a starkly opposite fashion. Chaos was a "sin" because nature is mathematically precise. What is wrong with math? Do you see how that is a dumb question?
I didn't ask it, as far as I can see. I asked what is wrong with chaos, yes in a descriptive way. I just don't like prefacing simple questions with stupid rules. It's tedious, and most people on here are plenty intelligent enough to know what I'm asking. Why not answer the thing and if it's not sufficient I can say so?!
As for the dumb question, again, I see where you wrote "What is wrong with math?" but even still, no, I don't see how it's dumb. Anyhow. . . .
Jackson LaRose: triknighted:I understand. Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all? Here, here! +1 Aristophenes seems to be suffering from acute Humanism. Do animals have a concept of time? LOL, never heard of "migratory species", huh? "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1:28 Compare that with the relative animism of the Greeks he claims to admire so.
God forbid someone state a fact for specificity. Might not want to, you'll be acused of being a retard. Oh no! http://us12.memecdn.com/special-boy_c_221579.jpg
Migration, huh? Or hibernation? Those are examples of animals conceptually understanding time? Or are they habitual activities that animals unconscoiusly do (biological clocks)? There is a difference between biological clocks, like 'hunger' and 'sleepy', and conditioning.
God forbid someone state a fact for specificity. Might not want to, you'll be acused of being a retard. Oh no!
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1325458/can_animals_grasp_the_concept_of_time/
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/dogs-perceive-time2.htm
People can time travel cognitively because they can remember events having occurred at particular times in the past (episodic memory) and because they can anticipate new events occurring at particular times in the future. The ability to assign points in time to events arises from human development of a sense of time and its accompanying time-keeping technology. The hypothesis is advanced that animals are cognitively stuck in time; that is, they have no sense of time and thus have no episodic memory or ability to anticipate long-range future events. Research on animals’ abilities to detect time of day, track short time intervals, remember the order of a sequence of events, and anticipate future events are considered, and it is concluded that the stuck-in-time hypothesis is largely supported by the current evidence.
morons...
So, humans get to define "time", design the tests, and draw the conclusions? Doesn't sound very objective...
What a weak ass response. Have another try.
I would just like to say that I think Aristophanes is largely right when it comes to animals and time. Some of you might find this interesting, it is from a while ago, but it's entirely relevant:
The reason this is so interesting is because it was unheard of for another animal to really plan for the future. So, most animals don't really have the same concept of time as humans, but it is entirely possible that there are some primates that do.
triknighted: Aristophanes: Perhaps a better, rephrased question is: why settle for ethics at all? Because we are not animals. Interesting. Then why are human labeled under the kingom "animalia"?
All I pointed out is that humans are animals. I didn't say a damn thing about whether or not they can perceive time; frankly it's completely irrelevant to whether or not animals are humans. That's what I was pointing out, yet somehow Aristophanes thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a retard of some kind or another. Whatever, it doesn't matter. Y'all need to get the focus back on chaos.