Political Theory

Re: A question for anarchists

A.L.Pruitt — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:43:15 GMT

Trianglechoke7:
Anarchists are heartless albeit non-violent. They are heartless because it seems they must stand by while parents feed their children blow and meth. If they do not, then they violate their own principles of non-violence.

It is possible to take positive action without infringing the property right's of the parents. Social ostracization for example. Also, are you assuming the parent's and children have no contact with the outside world? Is it not safe to say that friends, neighbors, people who like to get involved in other's lives wouldn't do so? Communicate with the parents? Also why would the parent's do this? How likely is this scenario?

Re: A question for anarchists

Matthew Graybosch — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:50:05 GMT

Nathyn:
Rousseau's "general will," isn't exactly a collective necessarily, but an aggregate of individual wills, working together democratically through a harmony of interests.

That sounds like Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market" to me.

Re: A question for anarchists

Matthew Graybosch — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:48:35 GMT

Rhotair:
Ain't no such thing as "society". Just six billion individuals who happen to live on the same planet. Each and everyone with full responsibility for his acts.

Society doesn't exist as an entity of its own, despite the opinions of those who insist on reifying the sum of all interactions between individuals. However, the word "society" has its use when describing aggregated social interactions between individuals.

Re: A question for anarchists

Bostwick — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:15:04 GMT

Nathyn:
allixpeeke:
Rhotair:
Ain't no such thing as "society".
We libertarians need to get away from claiming that there is no such thing as society.

To quote economist Destutt de Tracy, "Society is purely and solely a continual series of exchanges" (Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, 2007, p. 32).

What we should say is that although society exists, it is not itself a conscious entity and therefore does not possess a Rousseauian "general will."

Why, then, is Libertarianism more predominant in some areas but not others?
Rousseau's "general will," isn't exactly a collective necessarily, but an aggregate of individual wills, working together democratically through a harmony of interests.

So what?

Re: A question for anarchists

Nathyn — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:51:11 GMT

allixpeeke:
Rhotair:
Ain't no such thing as "society".
We libertarians need to get away from claiming that there is no such thing as society.

To quote economist Destutt de Tracy, "Society is purely and solely a continual series of exchanges" (Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, 2007, p. 32).

What we should say is that although society exists, it is not itself a conscious entity and therefore does not possess a Rousseauian "general will."

Why, then, is Libertarianism more predominant in some areas but not others?

Rousseau's "general will," isn't exactly a collective necessarily, but an aggregate of individual wills, working together democratically through a harmony of interests.

Re: A question for anarchists

allixpeeke — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:36:37 GMT

Rhotair:
Ain't no such thing as "society".

We libertarians need to get away from claiming that there is no such thing as society.

To quote economist Destutt de Tracy, "Society is purely and solely a continual series of exchanges" (Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, 2007, p. 32).

What we should say is that although society exists, it is not itself a conscious entity and therefore does not possess a Rousseauian "general will."

Re: A question for anarchists

CurtHowland — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:48:13 GMT

Rhotair:
Nope.

Yup. See, two can play at that game.

You just teach that disobedience causes pain. If you try to teach reasonable behavior, try to LIVE it. By the way, children aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Teach them to use knives, to feel if the oven might be hot - but use your mind instead of just yelling "no".

Like I've said twice before: Anyone who never spanks a child is either a saint, or childless.

The accusation that I do not use my mind, teach repercussions, and think kids are stupid, is a reflection of the fact that you know me about as well as you know parenting.

Re: A question for anarchists

Rhotair — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:54:01 GMT

CurtHowland:

Or maybe, just maybe, the fifth time the child is reaching into the knife drawer after being stopped and told "No" four times already, a slapped hand finally gets the child's attention enough to realize that this is not reasonable behavior.

Nope. You just teach that disobedience causes pain. If you try to teach reasonable behavior, try to LIVE it. By the way, children aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Teach them to use knives, to feel if the oven might be hot - but use your mind instead of just yelling "no".

Re: A question for anarchists

ozzy43 — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:54:49 GMT

Rhotair:
What you might miss is the fact that most people who use force (any way) against children aren't able to raise them. They mostly did not positively want to have children in the first place. They breed just because either they don't care or they don't think why they should want children. Maybe they see a religious duty in crowding the world with unwanted children, maybe they want to produce fresh meat for the social insecurity scam.
What those folks definitely don't think about is that it is a human being, what they're beating up. Maybe 'cause they don't care. Maybe 'cause they are sadists. Maybe both.

Wow, that's a serious mouthful of nonsense and dishonesty.

The fact that you feel the need to conflate 'spanking' and 'beating up' as though these were the same thing indicates you can't make your argument on the basis of logic and reason (little of which is evidenced in your post), and therefore must resort to dishonest semantical tactics.

Your speculations as to the underlying desires and motivations of people in having children are ludicrous and patently non-factual.

Your final two sallies - that those who spank (aka beat up) their kids don't care or are sadists are even more absurd. Get a grip, dude.

Re: A question for anarchists

Brainpolice — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:43:22 GMT

Trying to say societies don't exist because they are composed of individuals is like claiming that church congregations don't exist for the same reason.

Perhaps a better way to put it is that societies, nations, races, states, etc., do not exist as individual or sovereign entities in themselves. It's not that they "dont exist" so much as they do not exist as anything more then aggregations of variant individual components. It is therefore fallicious to speak of them as if they are actors themselves. Unless there is absolute unanimity in their thoughts and actions, they cannot reasonably be collectively held responsible for anything.

Re: A question for anarchists

Bostwick — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:21:14 GMT

Rhotair:
Accepted by whom?

A great deal of people.

Rhotair:
Ain't no such thing as "society". Just six billion individuals who happen to live on the same planet. Each and everyone with full responsibility for his acts.

There clearly are such a thing as "societies." (I never used that word. Not sure why you brought it up)

Trying to say societies don't exist because they are composed of individuals is like claiming that church congregations don't exist for the same reason.

Re: A question for anarchists

Nathyn — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:02:10 GMT

Rhotair:
Nathyn:
If you go to Zimbabwe, they're not likely to speak English or wear blue jeans.

You can bet your next ten years' income tax that they still speak English there, maybe sort of different English, but still clearly recognizable.

We can pick another African country, then. Like Somalia.

Rhotair:
Nathyn:
Acknowledging the existence of society doesn't necessarily negate or contradict the existence of the individual.

That's why "society" is a meaningless word.

Not exactly. Because society is defined as the interactions between individuals.

The term "economy" is very similar. What distinguishes economy from society is that economy is defined strictly by economic interactions.

To object to the term society would seem to imply an objection to the term "economy."

It seems silly.

Re: A question for anarchists

CurtHowland — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:11:53 GMT

Rhotair:
What those folks definitely don't think about is that it is a human being, what they're beating up. Maybe 'cause they don't care. Maybe 'cause they are sadists. Maybe both.

Or maybe, just maybe, the fifth time the child is reaching into the knife drawer after being stopped and told "No" four times already, a slapped hand finally gets the child's attention enough to realize that this is not reasonable behavior. Or playing with the knobs on the stove. Or jogging out into the street without looking. Or pulling glassware off the store shelves.

I repeat: The people who decry the occasional and purposful spank are either saints or they are childless. And I am very glad to say from experience that spanks very quickly become un-necessary, because the child gains a concept that "This Is Important".

Edit: I am not talking about hitting an infant. Punishing someone who cannot learn is just torture. A spanking only works after a child has demonstrated willful action and is not learning the lesson any other way.

Re: A question for anarchists

Rhotair — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:07:18 GMT

Nathyn:
If you go to Zimbabwe, they're not likely to speak English or wear blue jeans.

You can bet your next ten years' income tax that they still speak English there, maybe sort of different English, but still clearly recognizable.

Nathyn:
Acknowledging the existence of society doesn't necessarily negate or contradict the existence of the individual.

That's why "society" is a meaningless word.

Re: A question for anarchists

Nathyn — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:36:52 GMT

Rhotair:
JonBostwick:

By "most parenting" I meant the accepted norms of parential behavior..
Accepted by whom?
Ain't no such thing as "society". Just six billion individuals who happen to live on the same planet. Each and everyone with full responsibility for his acts.

Acknowledging the existence of society doesn't necessarily negate or contradict the existence of the individual.

A society is essentially defined by how people interact in a given region. If you go to Zimbabwe, they're not likely to speak English or wear blue jeans. Similarly, in America, you shouldn't expect to find very many people who speak Zimbabwean or wear African robes.

Clearly, then, there are some general trends in human behavior, from area to area. This is no way contradicts the existence of the individual, because there is nothing about being an individual that prevents many individuals from acting in tandem.

For instance, you choose to post on this forum. Many others do as well. The fact that we all share this same regular behavior and this forum bears the same symbolic meaning to all of us, means that we can therefore call this forum a "community." But recognizing this place as a community doesn't stop me from recognizing you as an individual person, or vice-versa.