NAP, State and Society

Hashem, if you are not trolling me on purpose, I dont know what to tell you. You have been quite discourteous and disrespectful and I feel justified in telling you that you have no reason to expect a response from me anymore, even if you should address me directly. This is not to say that I will not respond, simply that, henceforth, I reserve the right to ignore you or respond in any manner I choose.

My position is that homo sapiens tends to conquer. I'm unsure what your contention is,

incredible. If, at some future date, you desire to remedy this uncertainty, I refer you to my above posts.

why any questions you've asked so far are relevant

the specific meaning of the terms used in your thesis, as well as the historical evidence upon which it is based, are both germane to this discussion.

I'll answer any relevant questions you have if you will please answer these two (relevant in the context of your disagreement to the following to the extent that such disagreement may be applied to my stated position):

incredibly, I already asked the questions that are relevant to my understanding of your thesis. Since I'm your counterparty in this discussion, and the one who, ostensibly, is the target of persuasion of the validity of your thesis, I would naturally be the best judge of what particular questions would help me to understand your thesis. Its disrespectful of you to expect me to submit to your questions as a precondition to you answering my questions, given that I asked my questions days ago. I also find it astonishing that you could question the necessity or relevance of defining terms that are integral to your thesis or the justification thereof.

Do you deny that homo sapiens—in addition to organizing on mutually voluntary bases—also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies?

yes.

Do you deny that members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange?

To the extent that members of an empty set can do anything, they can engage in mutually voluntary exchange, so "no." all statements about the members of an empty set are by definition true.

Anyone can disect these down to infinitely smaller questions;

but only you can define the terms as you intended them to mean. Surely you can see the relevance of this task.

we could talk about the fact that humans are composed of atoms and that 2 years from now we may be composed of entirely different atoms and therefore what we are isn't what we're made of

one wonders why you might take the effort to type out statements of this nature instead of simply providing the specific definitions from dictionary.com that you intended. Surely the meaning of the words that you chose to use is more relevant than "particular molecules vs types of molecules blah blah blah."

we could think on any number of levels, but I'm not trying to be that complex

What are you trying to be?

The questions seem to me to be pretty straightforward so please address them assuming you understand them to the best of your ability given your understanding modified only by qualifications I've included (e.g. the meaning of members/society for the purpose of that question).

are your questions (in your opinion) more straightforward than questions like:

1)what is a "hegemonic dominance hierarchy"?

2)what constitutes membership in a hierarchy?

its hard for me to understand how I could be expected to answer questions about members of the Set of Square Circles if I havent been given a process for determining whether something is a member of the Set of Square Circles.

If you disagree, then I'd like to answer relevant questions

Its hard to see why I would have to commit to disagreement in order for you to explain yourself. I would rather you simply justify your thesis instead of wasting my time like this.

and get on with finding where the confusion stems from

I refer you to the posts in this thread I have made over the past week or so.

since I don't believe it's realistic to deny the above questions.

I dont think its realistic to expect people to answer your questions when you wont answer theirs. So I guess we both learned something here.

so moses was not just a member of a tribe of levi, he was the tribe of levi?

he was a part of the tribe. He wasnt the whole tribe.

as obama is a citizen of illinous state, but he is not the state of illinois.

Pres obama isnt "part" of the state. He is the head of state, a specific type of agent of the state.

a tribe is a social group, so how can one person be a tribe? seems moses was a part of the tribe of levi and obama is a part of the state of illinois as a citizen and a part of the usa as a citizen.

it seems like youre struggling to find some way that my statements wont make sense. I said the members of the tribe make up the tribe, I didnt say that one member equals the tribe.

we do have some religion states that have a goal of worldwide dominance. the pope and caliphate could be two examples i think with a goal of everyone under a hedgemonic heiarchy and expanding imperialistic power.

"the pope" isnt a state. If you want to try and estalish that some church or religious unit has personhood, then fine. Whats this evidence for again?

technology has allowed for states to have more power and build MAD weapons, which has turned most wars back into smaller intrastate wars or states with less technology.

actually most of these smaller wars are between states and non-state entities.

If you don't know what society, hegemony, dominance, and hierarchy are, you're welcome to refer to a dictionary. Really though, it's insulting of my intelligence for you to ask me to define them. Our disagreement stems from the fact that you either don't know what they are and, refusing to learn, have demanded that I teach you, or else you use them to mean something that would, by your definition, mean my position is untenable (in which case we need to choose words we can agree on the meaning of). The latter is an example of the confusion caused by your erroneous use of the term "voluntaryism", which you were originally conflating with "voluntarism", because you failed to recognize they are separate concepts.

1)what is a "hegemonic dominance hierarchy"?

Dominance hierarchies are a common topic in biology/psychology/political philosophy. The main thing to note here is that I add the word "hegemonic" to emphasize the violent, non-mutually-voluntary nature, since domination is sometimes used to mean passive domination, or coercion, e.g. females "dominating" males by refusing to mate with them. But I trust you'll prove how this relates to your disagreement with my position that homo sapiens tends to conquer, so the direct answer to your question is: a hierarchy marked by hegemonic dominance.

Feel free to educate yourself on the topic because I'd enjoy helping you to locate your error, but I'm not willing to teach you stuff you should either know about or is self-evident or is readily available through a dictionary or google search.

2)what constitutes membership in a hierarchy?

This is ridiculous. I'm not your teacher. You are welcome to study psychology, biology, evolution, anthropology, political philosophy, and history. You will not fail to come across concepts about hierarchies. At worst, you could at least refer to a dictionary. I trust you'll prove how this relates to your disagreement with my position that homo sapiens tends to conquer, so the direct answer to your question is: existing as an individual part of it.

Malachi:

hashem:

Do you deny that members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange?

no

Very well. Otherwise you'd be in the akward position of denying that prisoners engage in mutually voluntary exchange.

Malachi:

hashem:

Do you deny that homo sapiens—in addition to organizing on mutually voluntary bases—also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies?

yes.

Well prisons (one example of hegemonic dominance hierarchies) exist, so you've made an error somewhere. Help me help you find your error.

its hard for me to understand how I could be expected to answer questions about members of the Set of Square Circles

Again, appeal to personal incredulity. It isn't my burden that you've neglected or failed to learn about dominance hierarchies.

Having read the entire conversation, I think Malachi's questions are entirely justified.

hashem:

Dominance hierarchies are a common topic in biology/psychology/political philosophy. The main thing to note here is that I add the word "hegemonic" to emphasize the violent, non-mutually-voluntary nature, since domination is sometimes used to mean passivedomination, or coercion, e.g. females "dominating" males by refusing to mate with them. But I trust you'll prove how this relates to your disagreement with my position that homo sapiens tends to conquer, so the direct answer to your question is: a hierarchy marked by hegemonic dominance.

This paragraph is a clear example of the importance of defining terms and actually explaining what one means. Let's look at some defitions (from wiktionary):

hegemony:

 

Noun

hegemony (plural hegemonies)

1. (formal) Domination, influence, or authority over another, especially by one political group over a society or by one nation over others.
2. Dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group or hegemon acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force.

 

 

Verb

dominate (third-person singular simple present dominates, present participle dominating, simple past and past participle dominated)

1. To govern, rule or control by superior authority or power
2. To exert an overwhelming guiding influence over something or someone
3. To enjoy a commanding position in some field

 

Noun

hierarchy (plural hierarchies)

1. A body of authoritative officials organized in nested ranks.
2. Any group of objects ranked so that every one but the topmost is subordinate to a specified one above it.

Seeing how "hegemony" is defined by "domination", I don't see how "domination dominance hierarchies" reveals anything about your position. And of course, you will note your example about women and domination (kinky) - you acknowledge that domination is used in multiple ways. Seeing the wiktionary definition, we can see that you are correct, that domination can be defined by either physical power over another or by overwhelming influence. But that only supports Malachi's stance that you need to define your terms. After all, right there you demonstrate that you understand there are different uses and definitions of the word "domination". Now, you just tell Malachi to look up words in a dictionary, but that really doesn't tell him which definition you are using.

hashem:

But I trust you'll prove how this relates to your disagreement with my position that homo sapiens tends to conquer

What definition of conquer are you using?

conquer:

 

Verb

conquer (third-person singular simple present conquers, present participle conquering, simple past and past participle conquered)

1. to defeat in combat; to subjugate

   In 1453, the Ottoman Empire conquered Istanbul.

2. to overcome an abstract obstacle

   Today I conquered my fear of flying by finally boarding a plane.

3. to gain, win, or obtain by effort
4. to acquire by force of arms, win in war

So, homo sapiens as a species tends to conquer? Does this mean all humans or just some? If some, do you mean most, seeing as you used the phrase "tend to"? Regardless, conquer what? Other humans? Animals? Plants? Abstract obstacles? After all, I have already looked it up, and I can see 4 different defintions. So, do humans tend to "defeat in combat"? Well, if that's the case, then are you saying that only 50% of humans conquer? If we have 100 people, can't only 50 of them conquer? I mean, I guess they could all conquer each other, but in what manner? We need more info.

Maybe you mean humans tend to "overcome abstract obstacles"? Do we all tend to conquer our fears? Maybe, maybe not. But we need empirical evidence for these claims.

Anyway, I guess I'll just go ahead and "insult your intelligence" by asking you to define what you mean by those terms. What's amazing is how there are some people here who welcome and encourage discussions about terminology, and then there are people who think it is insulting to define their terms.

I can't be held accountable for Malachi's ignorance on the subject of dominance hierarchies. Basically what's been going on for the last several posts between us is his denial of their existence (seemingly based upon either or both: his lack of knowledge on the subject and/or his use of conflicting definitions) and repeated demanding that I educate him. I don't think the burden is on me to either define or to teach, because it is him who is denying a basically accepted tendency, and him who is using words to mean something weird purely for the sake of defining others out of their positions (see his post refusing to acknowledge the meaning of voluntaryism, because it would mean either he was confused or else wrong). If he wanted to know why I include the term "hegemonic", that would make sense, but all he had to do was ask, hashem, why do you include the term "hegemonic".

Otherwise, welcome to the thread. If I haven't already said that by conquer I mean overcome, please forgive me. I'm talking about the fact that homo sapiens tends to conquer everything, limited mainly by his society and environment. This, as strictly opposed to every other organism, homo sapiens is the animal that constantly builds more and more tools to overcome more and more obstacles, and that he does tend to violently subjigate other humans as a means toward that end when his society and environment (among other factors) permit it.

 

obama is a citizen  of his state and the federal government, how does he not count as a individual making up the state? the state can't be some entity without government and without individuals that make up the state. a corporation can't have 0 members or representitives in it.

the caltholic church is a state as much as any govenment is a state. churges get registered as corporations are. at least they are both fictional entities that don't exist on their own without people in them. a living society without any members does not make much sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation, this says the pope( or church)  is a corporation  such as governments are corporations. perhaps saying the pope is the head of state of the catholic church would work.

A church is a corporate body, that doesnt necessarily make it a state. The catholic church has its own sovereign territory, it qualifies. Most churches are incorporated with charters from the government, at least in the united states. Those papers may make legal fictions, but courts have a history of dissolving limited liability arrangements when it suits their purposes.

that said, a corporation could have one owner, look up sole corporate. Well, what if that ownership is vacant because an estate is being settled? Theres a corporation with 0 members, but it could "own" what are practically countries.

vacant estates have a curator while the estate is being settled. those smaller corporations are sections off the state which is a corporation. there is a body of people holding up the fictional entity on paper or in their minds.

now with this heiarchy thing, if states are evolved oppression, and there are many large states now, that seems to show a tendency for hedgemony and to conquer. a minority of people may be doing the conquering, but then a majority of people would have to accept being conquered. each person would have different desires to be successful, some people find success in authority and power over others.

with all these state and non-state conflicts, a lot of the nonstate people either want to become a state, or have power over the people in their local community.

not sure how much of the world has real self soverenty, but it does not seem like a big amount in history.

now with this heiarchy thing...

Seriously...? You didn't even define "now" or "thing". How can you expect Malachi to know what you're talking about?

hashem:

now with this heiarchy thing...

Seriously...? You didn't even define "now" or "thing". How can you expect Malachi to know what you're talking about?

At least its now obvious that youre more concerned with talking shit than with any sort of productive discussion.

there is a body of people holding up the fictional entity on paper or in their minds.

contrast this with tribal societies where the same would not apply. Not because there arent/werent outsiders around to keep it alive, but because a tribe isnt a social fiction that can be kept alive without members of the tribe to make the tribe real.

now with this heiarchy thing, if states are evolved oppression

thats kind of the thing. States are a social agreement. They facilitate the manufacture of consent. Pre-state governments were more oppressive because they didnt have people agreeing to go along with the plan.

and there are many large states now, that seems to show a tendency for hedgemony and to conquer.

so, that tends to show a tendency to cooperate. It tends to show that exploitation on a larger scale is facilitated by consent and cooperation.

a minority of people may be doing the conquering, but then a majority of people would have to accept being conquered.

so this would imply more than one behavior/tendency about humans, right?

with all these state and non-state conflicts, a lot of the nonstate people either want to become a state, or have power over the people in their local community.

I think the latter is more justifiable than the former.

What it was a joke come on... My last response to you was completely genuine, I'm looking forward to learning some more debate contortion devices from your reply.

Jargon:

Pretend for a moment that you do not subscribe to the NAP.

Would you still want a Minarchical government, or would you prefer something different? Would your ideal society have Nat'l defence, infrastructure, and courts & police? Or only one or two of those, or more than the three of those? Would you add branches of government beyond the 'nightwatchman state' because you believe that a more desirable outcome could be attained? Or do you just reject the idea of 'designing society' from the start as an inherently elitist concept?

EDIT: To rephrase: do you believe the NAP 'holds you back' from envisioning an optimal society? Or is a society which abides by NAP the optimal one.

If I suddenly got amnesia, and forgot all about the ethical principles of libertarianism, and looked at the world with fresh eyes and asked "what rules of behavior should people follow to yield the best outcome?" I would eventually arrive right back at those same ethical principles I had previously forgotten; as I favor libertarian ethics precisely because I believe that their adoption would yield the best possible world which I can imagine.