Someone on another thread just briefly mentioned polylogism and it got me thinking about the concept of culture. I reject the concept of culture as the term is usually used. Culture is often used as kind of "package deal" for a collection of arbitrary ideas. Some will say that it is wrong to criticize, as an example, the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia because that is part of Saudi "culture". Well, I can appreciate the contributions of algebra and yogurt without wanting to accept a package deal that includes treating women like chattel. Isn't this type of attitude of cultural relativism akin to polylogism?
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Polylogism claims that whether or not a logical statement is true depends on cultural factors. For example, 2+3=4 may be true for some cultures.
But social mores are not true or false. They do not fall under the umbrella of polylogism.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I am not talking about mores such as taking your shoes off before entering someone's home. I am talking about rights. If a person has a right to do X without being beheaded in North America does not that person have the same right to do X in Saudi Arabia? Minor differences in mores are not what I am talking about.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Your whole idea of "rights" are a reflection of Western cultural
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Silly argument. Cultural relativists resort to it a lot, but it does nothing because they must either invalidate the argument on logical grounds or admit defeat. They can always "repudiate" logic, and I can always ask them then "does that mean you both repudiate and not repudiate logic?"
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Polylogism. In short, many logics. The theory that the logical structure of the human mind differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a result the ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the specified classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are differences according to social classes. Others claim there are differences according to race, religion, nationality, etc.
from Mises Made Easier
Ethnocentricity sucks!
Individualism Rocks
I would think that the criticism of polylogism works against racism just as much as it would against anything else (since racial polylogism treats different races holistically as if they have different logical structures of the mind).
This could explain why there are many different cultures instead of a single human monoculture.
Ironically, I know a few muslims who would argue with you that women in the west are treated like sex objects, and shunned if they are not physically attractive, and Islam doesn't usually distinguish along those lines.
I hope you're aware that women could own property in Islamic countries long before they could in the West. Since much of liberty is tied to property rights, I think this is a very important thing to consider.
This is not a defense or promotion of Islam, I just think it's very arrogant of those of us in the West to assume our culture is superior to others, when most of what many of us know, is based on propaganda meant to encourage myths like"Western freedom and democracy" or in the case of my southern cousins, "American exceptionalism".
Not all muslims conform to, or believe in sharia law. It's a mistake to lump all 1.5 billion of them into the same group based on vague collectivist perceptions.
liberty student: Ironically, I know a few muslims who would argue with you that women in the west are treated like sex objects, and shunned if they are not physically attractive, and Islam doesn't usually distinguish along those lines. I hope you're aware that women could own property in Islamic countries long before they could in the West. Since much of liberty is tied to property rights, I think this is a very important thing to consider. This is not a defense or promotion of Islam, I just think it's very arrogant of those of us in the West to assume our culture is superior to others, when most of what many of us know, is based on propaganda meant to encourage myths like"Western freedom and democracy" or in the case of my southern cousins, "American exceptionalism". Not all muslims conform to, or believe in sharia law. It's a mistake to lump all 1.5 billion of them into the same group based on vague collectivist perceptions.
When a given society is wrong, it is wrong cardinal directions have nothing to do with it. I have plenty of criticisms of the arbitrary group of ideas you label "Western Culture". I am not a Pat Buchanan or Mark Steyn. I am someone who judges individual ideas individually and individual people individually. When the Middle East is ahead of "The West" on something: Bully for them! Likewise when the "West" is ahead of the curve: Bully for them! Again: cardinal directions have nothing to do with it. My argument is simple: we need to stop accepting package deal arguments. We need to judge ideas independent of “cultures”.
Edit: When did I ever say all Muslims conform to, or believe in Sharia law? I know very well they do not all do so. I work with Muslims. Stop assuming you can read my mind, obviously you can't.
ryanpatgray:Edit: When did I ever say all Muslims conform to, or believe in Sharia law? I know very well they do not all do so. I work with Muslims. Stop assuming you can read my mind, obviously you can't.
When did I say, that you said, that all Muslims comform to, or believe in Sharia law?
I didn't.
And I agree with you on package deals. However, I'm not sure where projecting your morality on others fits into the liberty paradigm. "Wrong" is strictly your definition. It's based on your perception and cultural values. Just because you can acknowledge that your culture is not 100% correct, doesn't mean you aren't judging it and other cultures through your own cultural prism.
Byzantine said it best recently. Anarchy means no one has a monopoly on violence.
And thus, no person or group has a monopoly on ethics and values.
liberty student: ryanpatgray:Edit: When did I ever say all Muslims conform to, or believe in Sharia law? I know very well they do not all do so. I work with Muslims. Stop assuming you can read my mind, obviously you can't. When did I say, that you said, that all Muslims comform to, or believe in Sharia law? I didn't. And I agree with you on package deals. However, I'm not sure where projecting your morality on others fits into the liberty paradigm. "Wrong" is strictly your definition. It's based on your perception and cultural values. Just because you can acknowledge that your culture is not 100% correct, doesn't mean you aren't judging it and other cultures through your own cultural prism. Byzantine said it best recently. Anarchy means no one has a monopoly on violence. And thus, no person or group has a monopoly on ethics and values.
Which would stand to reason that in a free market or anarchism, it would be possible that a certain amount of people would either cling to an ever "failing" or "shrinking" State (in light of the competive societies and/or models around it), or would make their own while possibly understanding that respecting free association may be the only way in which they could survive. I could see minarchists possibly doing that, if they respect the non-monopoly over ethics, values, & violence; it would be hyprocritical of one to advocate anarchism & force those who disagree to fall in line somehow.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Polylogism pertains to the logical structure of the mind, i.e. drawing inferences from premises. Whether the mind differs physically in this or that way is irrelevant: what polylogism entails is that different minds reason differently, and not in the everyday sense of the word "reason". But I am pretty sure it is true that brains differ in their ability to reason well due to genetic endowments, and not just as a matter of nurture.
The way I see it is this. Anarchy means there is a reset. And from that reset, smaller more local structures, based on voluntaryism will emerge. Although I imagine that coercive structures will also emerge.
There is this idea that BP used to have, that anarchy would eventually remove all of the negative societal traits he personally found distasteful. I don't agree with that. Your values, my values, RPG's values are not necessarily going to survive or thrive.
A big mistake (IMO) is trying to predict what will come out of anarchy. It's very possible there will be a new state, with even harsher institutions.
You're misrepresenting me. I never claimed that. I have claimed that long-term social evolution will cause some of our traditions to disintegrate though and that clinging to such traditions is unhealthy and causes stagnation, and I have claimed that the incentives of a free society runs entirely counter to the goals of ethnic nationalists. That's hardly the same thing as thinking that anarchy is an immediate transformation into social utopia.
Brainpolice:That's hardly the same thing as thinking that anarchy is an immediate transformation into social utopia.
Eventually = immediate transformation?
Brainpolice:You're misrepresenting me. I never claimed that. I have claimed that long-term social evolution will cause some of our traditions to disintegrate though and that clinging to such traditions is unhealthy and causes stagnation, and I have claimed that the incentives of a free society runs entirely counter to the goals of ethnic nationalists.
I can't even read this. It doesn't make sense.
Btw, you might want to read the forum rules on signatures.
??? What are you asking? I think that certain cultural traditions and bigotries are counterproductive to the likelyhood and sustainability of a free society. I think that clinging to such traditions causes stagnation, and that (all else being equal) such things are likely to be outcompeted over the course of a very long-term process if left to freedom of association.
Not my problem. I don't think I'm using too esoteric language, especially for libertarian dialogue. You made a misrepresentation of my position from which I have no idea where you inferred, a claim about what I think. I clarified what I think. You proceed to brush it off or lack understanding. There's nothing I can do about that besides try to clarify.
I'll get to that. In the meantime, stop trolling me.
Brainpolice:??? What are you asking?
Where did I say "immediate transformation"? I let you slide on utopia. Only your ego would assume your vision of a free world would prevail, and that it is utopian.
Brainpolice:Not my problem. I don't think I'm using too esoteric language, especially for libertarian dialogue. You made a misrepresentation of my position from which I have no idea where you inferred, a claim about what I think. I clarified what I think. You proceed to brush it off or lack understanding. There's nothing I can do about that besides try to clarify.
Yeah, I can't understand libertarian dialogue, or socialist monologues.
Brainpolice:In the meantime, stop trolling me.
Or what? Is your Dad going to beat up my Dad?
I never assumed such. I responded to you implicitly straw manning me as such.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Seems like trolling.
I don't function on the basis of threats.
If either of you has a problem with the other, please take it to PMs and let's return to the topic of this thread.
Jon Irenicus: If either of you has a problem with the other, please take it to PMs and let's return to the topic of this thread. -Jon
No problem. It would certainly help though if he would stop taking pot shots at me out of nowhere.
You're right Jon. I apologize for making a mess of the thread.
LibertyStudent:Anarchy means there is a reset. And from that reset, smaller more local structures, based on voluntaryism will emerge. Although I imagine that coercive structures will also emerge.
There is this idea that BP used to have, that anarchy would eventually remove all of the negative societal traits he personally found distasteful.
Juan, when you stop scrunching up your posts so I can quote them easily, I will respond to you. This is a freebie. Get your posting routine together, will ya?
Juan:Well, that's your personal definition of anarchy ?
I guess.
Juan:I thought people here used anarchy as synonym of free society (I may be wrong...)
Cool.
Juan:You mean, traits like coercion ?
No.
Juan:That doesn't even make sense does it ?
Yes.
Juan:So out of a free society (anarchy) will come a state ?
Possibly.
Juan:Freedom leads to monopoly ?
Freedom leads to the opportunity to establish monopoly. Freedom does not censor monopolists. They are free to give it a shot.
Juan:War is peace ?
Peace is love. War is love. War is terror. Love is terror. This is kinda fun.
Juan:What ?
Where?
Freedom leads to the opportunity to establish monopoly. Freedom does not censor monopolists.
I don't follow.
Under a free market, all models might be tested. That's not to say that they will all thrive or survive, but if enough people with guns get together, with people seeking security, and decide to have elections and democracy, and the people go along with it, you're going to get a state. If they are all (insert any religion here) you might end up with a theocracy.
It can happen. Will it last? Is it right? That's not what I wrote. Only that a free market will allow people to practice socialism for example, the only difference being, they won't have a monopoly on violence, and thus, they won't have a monopoly with their form of government, or culture or whatever.
LibertyStudent:Under a free market, all models might be tested.
if enough people with guns get together, with people seeking security, and decide to have elections and democracy, and the people go along with it, you're going to get a state.
a free market will allow people to practice socialism for example,
Juan:Models which operate using violence can't be regarded as part of the (free) market.
Sure they can. Anarchy just means there is no monopoly on force. It doesn't mean everyone is going to resolve their disputes with pillow fights and kool-aid.
Juan:Of course. That's exactly the current situation. Which I'd never describe as a consequence of a free society/market/anarchy.
That's irrelevant. I already cautioned against assuming you know what will happen under anarchy. You do not. A bunch of people might say, "Freedom is scary, I want police and a Senator!". And the market will fill that need.
Juan:If you're talking about coercive socialism then it won't, by definition. Again, if we're talking about a framework in which coercion is used then we're not talking about a free market. Now, if by anarchy you mean "might makes right" then your description is correct.
Well once socialism is established, and there is the first dispute about property with capitalists, then it's gunna be people busting caps and Reisman trying to lay the smackdown with his Tech 9. Whoever is better at violence, is probably going to win the property battle. And it might be a violent, coercive, socialist state.
Look, I am all for the wonderful anarchy you are hoping for. I'm all for non-violence. But I don't think it is going to happen.
LS: J: Models which operate using violence can't be regarded as part of the (free) market. Sure they can.
J: Models which operate using violence can't be regarded as part of the (free) market.
Anarchy just means there is no monopoly on force.
Look, I am all for the wonderful anarchy you are hoping for.
I'm all for non-violence. But I don't think it is going to happen.
I don't know how you do it, but please stop scrunching up your replies. It's a big waste of time to go through to find the breaks between you and I in the quotes.
This is the text in the quote window, all scrunched together.
This is text cleaned up by me, but how it probably should look.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan:No they can't. The market is the network of volunary exchanges. Force is excluded by definition.
Only among the people who agree not to use force. Not everyone is going to play by the rules. Statism might be dead, but people with statist mentalities towards power and control will likely persist. It's a question of being able to resist those people if they don't have or gain a monopoly on violence.
Juan:Your definition, which you seem to have borrowed from Byzantine, is wrong.
Assertion or argument?
Juan:What I'm hoping for is a free society - a society where violence is minimized. Libertarians think that the best way to minimize violence is by abolishing the state, but abolishing the state is a means, not an end. If abolishing the state would lead to more oppresion, as you seem to believe, then there would be no point in aboloshing it.
Well, in the west, the state is not very violent, it just threatens violence. People in the west don't know what living under violence, whether it is night time raids on your house by soldiers, or bombs dropping on you, or lifetime imprisonment without trial is. They pay their taxes because they are afraid of the IRS, not because the streets run red from the blood the IRS spills. Coercion doesn't have to be violence, just the threat of violence. There are a LOT of ways to threaten people.
I'm not saying it will lead to more oppression, but that is a possibility. An end to the monopoly on violence, might mean that people choose to fight back every time someone tries to tax. There might be more violence in protest. That is a possible scenario.
Juan:How do you know ? Oh I see. You're a conservative after all.
Ad Hom? Weak stuff Juan. I don't know, but if you have more people able to protect themselves with violence, you might see more violence. I'd love for us all to get along and no one gets hurt. Unfortunately, there are bad people who would like to bully, rape and rob us, so we might have to fight them, and we might lose. I don't think I am describing anything too far fetched.
liberty student: I don't know how you do it, but please stop scrunching up your replies. It's a big waste of time to go through to find the breaks between you and I in the quotes. This is the text in the quote window, all scrunched together. This is text cleaned up by me, but how it probably should look. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Juan:No they can't. The market is the network of volunary exchanges. Force is excluded by definition. Only among the people who agree not to use force. Not everyone is going to play by the rules. Statism might be dead, but people with statist mentalities towards power and control will likely persist. It's a question of being able to resist those people if they don't have or gain a monopoly on violence. Juan:Your definition, which you seem to have borrowed from Byzantine, is wrong. Assertion or argument? Juan:What I'm hoping for is a free society - a society where violence is minimized. Libertarians think that the best way to minimize violence is by abolishing the state, but abolishing the state is a means, not an end. If abolishing the state would lead to more oppresion, as you seem to believe, then there would be no point in aboloshing it. Well, in the west, the state is not very violent, it just threatens violence. People in the west don't know what living under violence, whether it is night time raids on your house by soldiers, or bombs dropping on you, or lifetime imprisonment without trial is. They pay their taxes because they are afraid of the IRS, not because the streets run red from the blood the IRS spills. Coercion doesn't have to be violence, just the threat of violence. There are a LOT of ways to threaten people. I'm not saying it will lead to more oppression, but that is a possibility. An end to the monopoly on violence, might mean that people choose to fight back every time someone tries to tax. There might be more violence in protest. That is a possible scenario. Juan:How do you know ? Oh I see. You're a conservative after all. Ad Hom? Weak stuff Juan. I don't know, but if you have more people able to protect themselves with violence, you might see more violence. I'd love for us all to get along and no one gets hurt. Unfortunately, there are bad people who would like to bully, rape and rob us, so we might have to fight them, and we might lose. I don't think I am describing anything too far fetched.
Very odd; this never happens to me LS, what browser are you using?
Nitroadict:Very odd; this never happens to me LS, what browser are you using?
FF 2.x
It only happens on Juan's and RyanPatGray's quotes, although I noticed it stopped on RPGs awhile ago.
If it is me, I owe Juan a big apology.
liberty student: Nitroadict:Very odd; this never happens to me LS, what browser are you using? FF 2.x It only happens on Juan's and RyanPatGray's quotes, although I noticed it stopped on RPGs awhile ago. If it is me, I owe Juan a big apology.
Hmm... from the screenshot it looks like the composing mode isn't activated for Juan, as my composition background is white. Or it could be a difference in theme colors, but if its the lack of composition mode then the reason it keeps appearing as scrunched together would be because the quotes are presented in plain text (i.e. no formatting by default). It's rather anoyying, and I remember it hapenning to me awhile ago with a different forum. I sadly don't remember how it was fixed.I also use FF (2 & 3, doesn't occur on either), so I'm at a lost for solution here... :\