http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemony?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130425&utm_term=Kweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=5c62e959b15246a8b7fa23beef27794a
by Robert Kaplan
Everyone loves equality: equality of races, of ethnic groups, of sexual orientations, and so on. The problem is, however, that in geopolitics equality usually does not work very well. For centuries Europe had a rough equality between major states that is often referred to as the balance-of-power system. And that led to frequent wars. East Asia, by contrast, from the 14th to the early 19th centuries, had its relations ordered by a tribute system in which China was roughly dominant. The result, according to political scientist David C. Kang of the University of Southern California, was a generally more peaceful climate in Asia than in Europe. The fact is that domination of one sort or another, tyrannical or not, has a better chance of preventing the outbreak of war than a system in which no one is really in charge; where no one is the top dog, so to speak. That is why Columbia University's Kenneth Waltz, arguably America's pre-eminent realist, says that the opposite of "anarchy" is not stability, but "hierarchy." Hierarchy eviscerates equality; hierarchy implies that some are frankly "more equal" than others, and it is this formal inequality -- where someone, or some state or group, has more authority and power than others -- that prevents chaos. For it is inequality itself that often creates the conditions for peace. Government is the most common form of hierarchy. It is a government that monopolizes the use of violence in a given geographical space, thereby preventing anarchy. To quote Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English philosopher, only where it is possible to punish the wicked can right and wrong have any practical meaning, and that requires "some coercive power." The best sort of inequality is hegemony. Whereas primacy, as Kang explains, is about preponderance purely through military or economic power, hegemony "involves legitimation and consensus." That is to say, hegemony is some form of agreed-upon inequality, where the dominant power is expected by others to lead. When a hegemon does not lead, it is acting irresponsibly. Of course, hegemony has a bad reputation in media discourse. But that is only because journalists are confused about the terminology, even as they sanctimoniously judge previous historical eras by the strict standards of their own. In fact, for most of human history, periods of relative peace have been the product of hegemony of one sort or another. And for many periods, the reigning hegemonic or imperial power was the most liberal, according to the standards of the age. Rome, Venice and Britain were usually more liberal than the forces arranged against them. The empire of the Austrian Hapsburgs in Central and Eastern Europe often protected the rights of minorities and prevented ethnic wars to a much greater degree than did the modern states that succeeded it. The Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and the Middle East frequently did likewise. There are exceptions, of course, like Hapsburg Spain, with its combination of inquisition and conquest. But the point is that hegemony does not require tyrannical or absolutist rule. Stability is not the natural order of things. In fact, history shows that stability such as it exists is usually a function of imperial rule, which, in turn, is a common form of hierarchy. To wit, there are few things messier in geopolitics than the demise of an empire. The collapse of the Hapsburgs, of the Ottoman Turks, of the Soviet Empire and the British Empire in Asia and Africa led to chronic wars and upheavals. Some uncomprehending commentators remind us that all empires end badly. Of course they do, but that is only after they have provided decades and centuries of relative peace. Obviously, not all empires are morally equivalent. For example, the Austrian Hapsburgs were for their time infinitely more tolerant than the Soviet Communists. Indeed, had the Romanov Dynasty in St. Petersburg not been replaced in 1917 by Lenin's Bolsheviks, Russia would likely have evolved far more humanely than it did through the course of the 20th century. Therefore, I am saying only in a general sense is order preferable to disorder. (Though captivating subtleties abound: For example, Napoleon betrayed the ideals of the French Revolution by creating an empire, but he also granted rights to Jews and Protestants and created a system of merit over one of just birth and privilege.) In any case, such order must come from hierarchal domination. Indeed, from the end of World War II until very recently, the United States has performed the role of a hegemon in world politics. America may be democratic at home, but abroad it has been hegemonic. That is, by some rough measure of international consent, it is America that has the responsibility to lead. America formed NATO in Europe, even as its Navy and Air Force exercise preponderant power in the Pacific Basin. And whenever there is a humanitarian catastrophe somewhere in the developing world, it is the United States that has been expected to organize the response. Periodically, America has failed. But in general, it would be a different, much more anarchic world without American hegemony. But that hegemony, in some aspects, seems to be on the wane. That is what makes this juncture in history unique. NATO is simply not what it used to be. U.S. forces in the Pacific are perceived to be less all-powerful than in the past, as China tests U.S. hegemony in the region. But most importantly, U.S. President Barack Obama is evolving a doctrine of surgical strikes against specific individuals combined with non-interference -- or minimal interference -- in cases of regional disorder. Libya and Syria are cases in point. Gone, at least for the moment, are the days when U.S. forces were at the ready to put a situation to rights in this country or that. When it comes to the Greater Middle East, Americans seem to want protection on the cheap, and Obama is giving them that. We will kill a terrorist with a drone, but outside of limited numbers of special operations forces there will be no boots on the ground for Libya, Syria or any other place. As for Iran, whatever the White House now says, there is a perception that the administration would rather contain a nuclear Iran than launch a military strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear. That, by itself, is unexceptional. Previous administrations have been quite averse to the use of force. In recent decades, it was only George W. Bush -- and only in the aftermath of 9/11 -- who relished the concept of large-scale boots on the ground in a war of choice. Nevertheless, something has shifted. In a world of strong states -- a world characterized by hierarchy, that is -- the United States often enforced the rules of the road or competed with another hegemon, the Soviet Union, to do so. Such enforcement came in the form of robust diplomacy, often backed by a threat to use military power. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were noted for American leadership and an effective, sometimes ruthless foreign policy. Since the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton became president, American leadership has often seemed to be either unserious, inexpertly and crudely applied or relatively absent. And this has transpired even as states themselves in the Greater Middle East have become feebler. In other words, both the hegemon and the many states it influences are weaker. Hierarchy is dissolving on all levels. Equality is now on the march in geopolitics: The American hegemon is less hegemonic, and within individual countries -- Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Tunisia and so on -- internal forces are no longer subservient to the regime. (And states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not in the American camp to the degree that they used to be, further weakening American hegemony.) Moreover, the European Union as a political organizing principle is also weakening, even as the one-party state in China is under increasing duress. Nevertheless, in the case of the Middle East, do not conflate chaos with democracy. Democracy itself implies an unequal, hierarchal order, albeit one determined by voters. What we have in the Middle East cannot be democracy because almost nowhere is there a new and sufficiently formalized hierarchy. No, what we have in many places in the Middle East is the weakening of central authority with no new hierarchy to adequately replace it. Unless some force can, against considerable odds, reinstitute hierarchy -- be it an American hegemon acting globally, or an international organization acting regionally or, say, an Egyptian military acting internally -- we will have more fluidity, more equality and therefore more anarchy to look forward to. This is profoundly disturbing, because civilization abjures anarchy. In his novel Billy Budd (1924), Herman Melville deeply laments the fact that even beauty itself must be sacrificed for the maintenance of order. For without order -- without hierarchy -- there is nothing. Read more: Anarchy and Hegemony | Stratfor
The fact is that domination of one sort or another, tyrannical or not, has a better chance of preventing the outbreak of war than a system in which no one is really in charge; where no one is the top dog, so to speak. That is why Columbia University's Kenneth Waltz, arguably America's pre-eminent realist, says that the opposite of "anarchy" is not stability, but "hierarchy."
Hierarchy eviscerates equality; hierarchy implies that some are frankly "more equal" than others, and it is this formal inequality -- where someone, or some state or group, has more authority and power than others -- that prevents chaos. For it is inequality itself that often creates the conditions for peace.
Government is the most common form of hierarchy. It is a government that monopolizes the use of violence in a given geographical space, thereby preventing anarchy. To quote Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English philosopher, only where it is possible to punish the wicked can right and wrong have any practical meaning, and that requires "some coercive power."
The best sort of inequality is hegemony. Whereas primacy, as Kang explains, is about preponderance purely through military or economic power, hegemony "involves legitimation and consensus." That is to say, hegemony is some form of agreed-upon inequality, where the dominant power is expected by others to lead. When a hegemon does not lead, it is acting irresponsibly.
Of course, hegemony has a bad reputation in media discourse. But that is only because journalists are confused about the terminology, even as they sanctimoniously judge previous historical eras by the strict standards of their own. In fact, for most of human history, periods of relative peace have been the product of hegemony of one sort or another. And for many periods, the reigning hegemonic or imperial power was the most liberal, according to the standards of the age. Rome, Venice and Britain were usually more liberal than the forces arranged against them. The empire of the Austrian Hapsburgs in Central and Eastern Europe often protected the rights of minorities and prevented ethnic wars to a much greater degree than did the modern states that succeeded it. The Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and the Middle East frequently did likewise. There are exceptions, of course, like Hapsburg Spain, with its combination of inquisition and conquest. But the point is that hegemony does not require tyrannical or absolutist rule.
Stability is not the natural order of things. In fact, history shows that stability such as it exists is usually a function of imperial rule, which, in turn, is a common form of hierarchy. To wit, there are few things messier in geopolitics than the demise of an empire. The collapse of the Hapsburgs, of the Ottoman Turks, of the Soviet Empire and the British Empire in Asia and Africa led to chronic wars and upheavals. Some uncomprehending commentators remind us that all empires end badly. Of course they do, but that is only after they have provided decades and centuries of relative peace.
Obviously, not all empires are morally equivalent. For example, the Austrian Hapsburgs were for their time infinitely more tolerant than the Soviet Communists. Indeed, had the Romanov Dynasty in St. Petersburg not been replaced in 1917 by Lenin's Bolsheviks, Russia would likely have evolved far more humanely than it did through the course of the 20th century. Therefore, I am saying only in a general sense is order preferable to disorder. (Though captivating subtleties abound: For example, Napoleon betrayed the ideals of the French Revolution by creating an empire, but he also granted rights to Jews and Protestants and created a system of merit over one of just birth and privilege.)
In any case, such order must come from hierarchal domination.
Indeed, from the end of World War II until very recently, the United States has performed the role of a hegemon in world politics. America may be democratic at home, but abroad it has been hegemonic. That is, by some rough measure of international consent, it is America that has the responsibility to lead. America formed NATO in Europe, even as its Navy and Air Force exercise preponderant power in the Pacific Basin. And whenever there is a humanitarian catastrophe somewhere in the developing world, it is the United States that has been expected to organize the response. Periodically, America has failed. But in general, it would be a different, much more anarchic world without American hegemony.
But that hegemony, in some aspects, seems to be on the wane. That is what makes this juncture in history unique. NATO is simply not what it used to be. U.S. forces in the Pacific are perceived to be less all-powerful than in the past, as China tests U.S. hegemony in the region. But most importantly, U.S. President Barack Obama is evolving a doctrine of surgical strikes against specific individuals combined with non-interference -- or minimal interference -- in cases of regional disorder. Libya and Syria are cases in point. Gone, at least for the moment, are the days when U.S. forces were at the ready to put a situation to rights in this country or that.
When it comes to the Greater Middle East, Americans seem to want protection on the cheap, and Obama is giving them that. We will kill a terrorist with a drone, but outside of limited numbers of special operations forces there will be no boots on the ground for Libya, Syria or any other place. As for Iran, whatever the White House now says, there is a perception that the administration would rather contain a nuclear Iran than launch a military strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
That, by itself, is unexceptional. Previous administrations have been quite averse to the use of force. In recent decades, it was only George W. Bush -- and only in the aftermath of 9/11 -- who relished the concept of large-scale boots on the ground in a war of choice. Nevertheless, something has shifted. In a world of strong states -- a world characterized by hierarchy, that is -- the United States often enforced the rules of the road or competed with another hegemon, the Soviet Union, to do so. Such enforcement came in the form of robust diplomacy, often backed by a threat to use military power. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were noted for American leadership and an effective, sometimes ruthless foreign policy. Since the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton became president, American leadership has often seemed to be either unserious, inexpertly and crudely applied or relatively absent. And this has transpired even as states themselves in the Greater Middle East have become feebler.
In other words, both the hegemon and the many states it influences are weaker. Hierarchy is dissolving on all levels. Equality is now on the march in geopolitics: The American hegemon is less hegemonic, and within individual countries -- Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Tunisia and so on -- internal forces are no longer subservient to the regime. (And states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not in the American camp to the degree that they used to be, further weakening American hegemony.) Moreover, the European Union as a political organizing principle is also weakening, even as the one-party state in China is under increasing duress.
Nevertheless, in the case of the Middle East, do not conflate chaos with democracy. Democracy itself implies an unequal, hierarchal order, albeit one determined by voters. What we have in the Middle East cannot be democracy because almost nowhere is there a new and sufficiently formalized hierarchy. No, what we have in many places in the Middle East is the weakening of central authority with no new hierarchy to adequately replace it.
Unless some force can, against considerable odds, reinstitute hierarchy -- be it an American hegemon acting globally, or an international organization acting regionally or, say, an Egyptian military acting internally -- we will have more fluidity, more equality and therefore more anarchy to look forward to. This is profoundly disturbing, because civilization abjures anarchy. In his novel Billy Budd (1924), Herman Melville deeply laments the fact that even beauty itself must be sacrificed for the maintenance of order. For without order -- without hierarchy -- there is nothing.
Read more: Anarchy and Hegemony | Stratfor
Golly, this reminds me of someone here. Start with a false premise, then move into geopolitics while overplaying it's significance, segue to supremacy of a certain portion of the species. Finish with something obscure someone else said, close article.
i knew you had a little dick Habba.
@OP
Malachai you did not comment. "Do you know how I know you've not read anything about geopolitics?"
you do know what he means when he refers to anarchy in this context right?
No one with a brain likes Kaplan.
no I didnt comment.
"Do you know how I know you've not read anything about geopolitics?"
is that a quote from an earlier discussion? what are you driving at?
"you do know"
theres this new thing called bing where you type somebody's name in it and you get stuff from the intarnetz that has his name on it, it totally works for other stuff tooo. so yah I picked up on that. you should also be aware that when stratfor emails people about how anarchy is bad its prolly part of a discursive repair to the fiction of sovereignty. since this is the legitimate main official forums for every anarchist, whether they like it or not, I thought people might like to see what it looks like when you (discursively) spackle over cracks that are evidence of an unevenly sinking foundation.
you should also be aware that when stratfor emails people about how anarchy is bad its prolly part of a discursive repair to the fiction of sovereignty.
Is it really fake if enough people believe it? are religions real? They are real in the sense that we must deal with them. even if they are just beliefs that people have. What about sciece? the higgs boson? Is that real?
since this is the legitimate main official forums for every anarchist, whether they like it or not, I thought people might like to see what it looks like when you (discursively) spackle over cracks that are evidence of an unevenly sinking foundation.
ha. I love how no one can look at the world without placing their own preferences onto it amd hence judging others. You pay your taxes. So shut the fuck up with this "fiction of sovereignety" bullshit. you a fucking chickenhawk just like every other pussy taxpayer on this board. Join me in not paying taxes and convincing others not to do so (the only effective nonviolent method of crippling state power that is NEVER suggested) and we'll talk about the merits of anarchy.
AKA, If anarchy were possible I'd take it more seriously. But even anarchists pay their taxes.
Been there, done that.
Refusing to get a job does not count as a tax protest.
I wish I didn't have a job. if your employers don't "hire" you, they don't have to pay taxes either!
Is it really fake if enough people believe it?
no but it takes 100 gazillion people. srsly?
They are real in the sense that we must deal with them.
Join me in not paying taxes and convincing others not to do so
so is it real or can you opt out of the fiction and only deal with agents of the state?
the only effective nonviolent method of crippling state power
wrong. state power is a fiction. exposing the fiction weakens it, hence discursive repairs. do you even read the articles you link?
you a fucking chickenhawk just like every other pussy taxpayer on this board.
lol you have assburger's tourettes, you cant stop shitting out your mouth.
If anarchy were possible I'd take it more seriously. But even anarchists pay their taxes.
anarchy is impossible to escape. and I'm sure that if you were accosted by a minor criminal you would die or kill him before you gave up your wallet. but I wonder how it is that you think you know so much about me that I would not.
If you are saying here what I think you are saying then awesome.
you a fucking chickenhawk just like every other pussy taxpayer on this board. lol you have assburger's tourettes, you cant stop shitting out your mouth.
What? I'm urban.
o is it real or can you opt out of the fiction and only deal with agents of the state?
If it wasn't real what is there to opt out of?
If states can act (which they do to tax) how can they be fiction? Or are you saying collective state power is a fiction? If that is what you are saying then you are going to refer back to the indiviudals who have "meaningless" positions of power nothing that allow them to be convince others to exercise what exactly? i see no way of avoiding "power" existence. Collective power, when people do nothing or even encourage particular other people to act is very much a thing.
Even if people legitimize a fiction, through institutions that people do not question or challenge, the "power" the legitimizing of the power makes it real. What is real is that people do not fight back in any way. This is the power. So while individuals, ultimately exercise what is known as state power, it is the collective non-encroachment of people that amounts to the "state" part of it.
Like it or not there has never been a point in history where an entire people has said, "eh, we don't want a state." People want to be ruled and the people who know how to do it, do.
I just want to say that I adore the title of this thread. It's literally increased the quality of my day. +1 Malachi
believing in the fiction.
If states can act (which they do to tax) how can they be fiction?
states dont tax. some people, criminal aggressors, call them agents of the state, collude to extort money from people. "the state" is their alibi. I dont buy that alibi.
If that is what you are saying then you are going to refer back to the indiviudals who have "meaningless" positions of power nothing that allow them to be convince others to exercise what exactly? i see no way of avoiding "power" existence. Collective power, when people do nothing or even encourage particular other people to act is very much a thing.
that thing is reducible to the actions and decisions of individual human beings and the constraints imposed on them by reality. abstracting it into a boogeyman is statist rhetoric and doesnt help to understand things.
none of which has anything to do with me. if you dont like people believing in a fiction you peel back the veil for them. so, discursive tears in the fiction. state power is always enforced by one or more individuals. I do not subscribe to their alibi.
Like it or not there has never been a point in history where an entire people has said, "eh, we don't want a state." People want to be ruled and the people who nkow how to do it, do.
I'm not a collectivist. I dont wait for an entire people to decide whatever. I work on my own stuff. everybody wants to save the world when they cant even void their own bowels correctly.
btw if you havent figured it out yet, the act of ruling is a continuing process. people's wants arent static, they are dynamic.
No shit. I don't know if you know this, but I'm familiar with the literature on this site. When you read more and more of the stuff "outside" of it, the more there is to consider.
If opting out of believing in the fiction includes paying taxes, then you have only fooled yourself into thinking that you are independent of the system. You haven't opted out of anything. Taxation is the direct representation of people's acquiescence to a structure of power that intimidates them into "believing."
you are scared to engage in it because you've taken such a "radical" position. My "statist rhetoric" was actually a "philosophy of action dilemma." You're just weak mentally and do not want to have to find "words" (that are all social constructs) to try and explain why the "state" (another social construct) does not exist. Any philosopher will tell you that you have taken two contradictory positions on a fundamental level.
I'm not a collectivist. I don't wait for an entire people to decide whatever. I work on my own stuff. everybody wants to save the world when they cant even void their own bowels correctly.
Who wants to save the world? It is not a prerequisite that one's ambition is to save the world in order to be a leader. That is what utopian anarchists think. Most rulers, seems to me, want to rule. Not paying taxes is the direct representation of someone ignoring the leader's wish; it is a statement that one wishes to rule oneself. it is the most powerful form of disobedience (if you acknowledge the definition of that word, I don't know if power is a fiction that you'll admit the social construct of the word 'obedience' as having any merit in the real world) Social 'philosophers' are the worst.
At any rate, I'm not gonna argue this point. history is full of "fictional stories" of states, being led and administered by individuals, "acting." States simply are social constructs. Whether it be by consent (sentimentalist in my opinion), or by force, they exist. Stand up to the powers until taxation is voluntary. Until then states will continue to exist.
Looks like Aristophanes has finally become a Statist.
Yeah, my adovcation of tax protesting is totally a measure of my statism.
Always knew you were a commie socialist.
Exactly how stupid do you have to be to run around bragging about not paying taxes? Has someone taken up basketball?
We have freedom of speech in this country (right?). you're just a chump Habba. That's all.
All you have to do is read Thoreau, part of the American literary lexicon. He tells you that if you do not support the government that you should not fund it. And if you do, then you are a hypocrite. I'm pretty sure voluntarims is, like, based around voluntary behavior. How am I not in accord with that?
Also, malachi's assertion that states are fictions is kind of put to rest if people will not repudiate taxes. The power of the state, at its very core, is the power to extract money from people against their will. State efficiency might rise and fall, but its power is not in question (RE: caplan's book).
You forgot geopolitics. Something about Turkey, maybe.
go to bed.
No shit. I don't know if you know this, but I'm familiar with the literature on this site.
act like it then.
When you read more and more of the stuff "outside" of it, the more there is to consider.
do tell.
opting out of the system means opting out of the system. acquiescence or defiance of laws is a situational proposition. do you pay sales tax?
really ari? really? are you really that threatened by my intellect that you have to lose the plot completely? youre smarter than this. now drop the derogatory remarks and tell me what contradictory positions I have taken.
I already explained how the state doesnt exist. your counterpoint consisted of vague allusions to works you have read outside of the austrian paradigm. wow I guess you showed me.
leaders and rulers are two different roles. leaders have followers, rulers have subjects.
At any rate, I'm not gonna argue this point.
yes, I noticed.
history is full of "fictional stories" of states, being led and administered by individuals, "acting."
history is full of individuals acting. the rest is smoke and balderdash.
States simply are social constructs. Whether it be by consent (sentimentalist in my opinion), or by force, they exist.
the existence of social constructs is confined to the realm of ideas. anytime someone is forced or coerced into something, there is an acting man doing to force or coercion. thats what exists. this verbal shortcut actually takes the focus off of the criminal.
Stand up to the powers until taxation is voluntary.
isnt it voluntary already?
Also, malachi's assertion that states are fictions is kind of put to rest if people will not repudiate taxes.
see, youre a collectivist. you need other people to affirm your rejection of the state or it doesnt mean anything to you.
The power of the state, at its very core, is the power to extract money from people against their will.
that power consists of the idea that there are necessary (or highly likely) consequences for non-payment of taxes. that idea is not an accurate representation of reality. state power consists of a system of ideas (or doctrine). since we see how it freaks people out to question these ideas, we can apply the label "dogma" here as well. state power is a dogma that is bound to fall because it isnt true.
State efficiency might rise and fall, but its power is not in question
no, it isnt in question because its just a measure of how deeply people subscribe to the dogma. its subject dependent. for you, state power is so great and ineffable that you brag about your decision to opt out of taxes. for me, it doesnt even exist.
I knew that consumption taxes would get used against me. i refer to income or labor taxes. Consumption taxes are already avoidable if you do not consume (or share things on the net).
you are scared to engage in it because you've taken such a "radical" position. My "statist rhetoric" was actually a "philosophy of action dilemma." You're just weak mentally and do not want to have to find "words" (that are all social constructs) to try and explain why the "state" (another social construct) does not exist. Any philosopher will tell you that you have taken two contradictory positions on a fundamental level. really ari? really? are you really that threatened by my intellect that you have to lose the plot completely? youre smarter than this. now drop the derogatory remarks and tell me what contradictory positions I have taken.
This wasn't "losing the plot," this was a comparison of one social construct to another; the word to the state. Communication of ideas, in either capacity, is people's acknowledgement of them. The philosophy of action comment was in regards to the idea of individuals acting versus collectives acting. it is obvious that individuals act, but the words (social constructs) that people affirm by their common use are the same concept as state power which people affirm by their acquiescence to an idea.
I already explained how the state doesnt exist. your counterpoint consisted of vague allusions to works you have read outside of the austrian paradigm. wow I guess you showed me
Which, to me, is an idiotic thing to even say. Where do Mises or Rothbard say that states do not exist other than euphemistically. Bastiat says something like it, but in an satirical sense, i.e., non literal. ((Do "laws" exist?)) you are trying to take it literally and thus take some super radical extreme "I'm so different" position that I think is nonsensical. States exist because people affirm their existence through their behavior. I am not trying to compare the state to gravity, as a natural force that exists independent of people. Just the same as "God" exists beacuse people affirm it through their thoughts and behavior. In a physical sense it does not, but as far as society goes it does, it does. As you call it...dogmatic...
pish posh.
Says you. and as you say I don't have good enough counterexamples. your opinion on this is balderdash. Is "cooperation" an extant thing?
he existence of social constructs is confined to the realm of ideas. anytime someone is forced or coerced into something, there is an acting man doing to force or coercion. thats what exists. this verbal shortcut actually takes the focus off of the criminal.
And how is power not a social contruct? How is coercion not a social construct? Force, I'll give you since it is a part of physics (you see? I am not just trying to be difficult).
Not if you ask, 95% of the people who affirm the principle that it is a requirement. And, I'm not sure what the Code says anymore or how judges or lawyers would react to the question. But, I'm going with "no."
Also, malachi's assertion that states are fictions is kind of put to rest if people will not repudiate taxes. see, youre a collectivist. you need other people to affirm your rejection of the state or it doesnt mean anything to you.
ha. We're talking about the state which is by its nature collectivist. Social constructs are necessarily collectivist. Meaning that "words" are collectivist institutions (we can have private languages - which you are positing that you do, but PL will get you nowhere in any field of "cooperation" with other humans). State power fits into this category. it has nothing to do with me or you it has to do with everyone that agrees to definitions of words.
And your propsition is false. Other people's renunciation of the state means nothing to me if they still pay taxes (hypocrites). I'm fine with my situation.
I do not think we are in disagreement here. You are simply calling "dogma" what I am calling "social constructs." Yes, common usage of words is a form of dogma (look at how the FED defines money and credit - somehow money is not the same thing as credit; dogma or utilitarian justified social constructs).
"Subject dependent" refers to subjective perspectives, but how are words used? Intersubjectively. It doesn't matter that there is not an entity in nature that is "a word" or "the state" what matters is that people agree to recognize them. You can say that it doesn't exist, but you are just affirming a private language for yourself - which is I suppose rebellious. I liken PL in my mind to the stage of thinking before you attach words to describe it which is very different from the way you seem to say it.
Further, "economics" doesn't exist either, but people recognize so called "laws of economics"....because there are "necessary consequences" of ignoring them. Do you want to get into causality? Consequences must originate somewhere, no?
I knew that consumption taxes would get used against me.
I'm not talking about your tactical position in this debate. "I knew the stormtroopers would penetrate my right flank but thats ok cause I live in the hq building."
you acknowledge that there are practical considerations to tax protesting. now I want you to acknowledge that everyone's situation is different. some people might be making so much money that they have to pay some tax. compliance or violation of the dictates of criminals is situational. whats his name above said he would eat shit. I wouldnt. I might give up some federal reserve notes if there was a personal threat. you might not. but my point through this whole discussion is that when you refuse to acknowledge the state you reduce the interactions to agents of the state, you realize that many if not most laws are unenforceable except in special cases. your information profile has a lot to do with whether you are a special case or not. that alone should tell you that the power elites care very much about public opinion, which gives lie to the idea that state power is something that can be taken for granted.
ok good. now I decline to acquiesce to that idea. henceforth any agent of the state who wishes to aggress against me or harm me in any way cannot use the state as a justification if they aggress against me, in order to justify it to me. I reserve the right to use tactical deception.
does that explain my position? its not a political stance, its individualist. it only applies when people want to deal with me.
isnt it voluntary already? Not if you ask, 95% of the people who affirm the principle that it is a requirement. And, I'm not sure what the Code says anymore or how judges or lawyers would react to the question. But, I'm going with "no."
you opted out of taxes already, except for the aformentioned consumption taxes with white market businesses. taxes are voluntary if you can un-volunteer.
Subject dependent" refers to subjective perspectives, but how are words used? Intersubjectively. It doesn't matter that there is not an entity in nature that is "a word" or "the state" what matters is that people agree to recognize them. You can say that it doesn't exist, but you are just affirming a private language for yourself - which is I suppose rebellious. I liken PL in my mind to the stage of thinking before you attach words to describe it which is very different from the way you seem to say it.
I refuse to recognize the state. its the opposite of a private language, its the renunciation of someone else's attempt at a shared reality. the state isnt real to me because I dont recognize it. I am fully aware of the existence of agents of the state, and that their belief in this fictional state motivates theyr behavior to some extent. I know government exists, and I know the state is fiction.
causality is where it is at. the verbal shortcut helps to avoid focusing on the proximal cause, acting man, and if you dig deeper I am still right. acting man is motivated by self interest. his belief in the state is an ideology that conflates his concept of self-interest with enforcement of what he considers to be the dictates of the state. thats the ultimate cause of state sponsored violence and thats what all this language and conditioning is designed to armor and camouflage.
economics laws are either descriptive or definitional. if they describe a logical (cause/effect) relationship, then good. if they are tautologous, then good as well. accepting one fiction does not obligate me to accept another.
thanks for replying, Aristophanes. youll see I'm not afraid of discovering that I am wrong. I am afraid of failing to discover that fact.