Political Theory

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Autolykos — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:19:58 GMT

.500NE:
No one will argue that Bigfoot or anarchy are [not] possible.

People have indeed tried arguing (more accurately, asserting) to me that anarchy is not possible.

.500NE:
But just because something is technically possible that does not make it absolutely probable.

What do you mean by "absolutely probable"? Do you take "possible" to mean "having some level of probability"? If so, then if something is possible, there's some amount of probability to it. And it seems to me that, if something is probable to some extent, then it's probable per se. Another way of putting "probable per se", in my opinion, is "absolutely probable" - that is, having a probability greater than zero. Note that this is the same as having some level of probability.

In fairness, however, I think what you're trying to say is that having some amount of probability is not necessarily the same thing as having a high amount of probability.

.500NE:
At its core I think this whole thing is an argument of probability.

Not as far as I'm concerned. You may be arguing that anarcho-capitalism doesn't (seem to) have a high amount of probability, but that's not what I'm arguing.

.500NE:
Do you think it is possible to argue for or against the probability of bigfoots existence or that of an ancap society?

Are you asking whether I think it's possible to argue for or against something (on the order of Bigfoot's existence or an anarcho-capitalist society's future existence) having a specific probability? In logically rigorous terms, I think it would be very difficult at best. But one thing I've forgotten to mention is that, at least in a temporal sense, you're comparing apples and oranges. The subject of whether Bigfoot exists refers to the present, while the subject of whether an anarcho-capitalist society could/would/may exist refers to the future. Regardless, as I said above, I haven't been arguing about what specific probability (or range of probabilities) should be ascribed to the future existence or "viability" of an anarcho-capitalist society. I've been arguing against the notion that no anarcho-capitalist society will ever exist in the future, because the reality is that no one knows one way or the other.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

.500NE — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:52:39 GMT

The first sentence should read:"...are not possible."

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

.500NE — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:51:40 GMT

Autolykos:
With all due respect, you don't seem to have understood my point here. Indeed, your phrasing "the likely hood [sic] of the possibility of [Big Foot's] existence" seems to betray this lack of understanding. If something hasn't been proven impossible, then it must be possible. Furthermore, no amount of likelihood can be attached to possibility per se, because possibility per se is the same as likelihood per se! So whether you think or feel that it's possible is irrelevant as far as logic is concerned. But maybe you don't care about logic - if so, then it'll be pointless for me to continue debating you.

No one will argue that Bigfoot or anarchy are possible. But just because something is technically possible that does not make it absolutely probable.

At its core I think this whole thing is an argument of probability.

Do you think it is possible to argue for or against the probability of bigfoots existence or that of an ancap society?

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Jack Roberts — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:50:25 GMT

Individualist anarchism is not even individualist in the sense that it is isolationist. It is just voluntary, there is still cooperation and negotiation and contracts. This just speaks for the distorted view of collectivists and their lack of understanding of human cooperation.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Autolykos — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:43:13 GMT

.500NE:
Sorry for the late reply – real life triumphs internet banter…

No problem. I haven't been posting lately either.

.500NE:
To me amount and kind go hand in hand. The more power you get the more kinds of things you can exert control over. And the opposite holds true as well.

If Steve Jobs became president , he’d get more power which allows him to do all kinds of stuff he couldn’t do as ceo of apple. Because the power of a ceo is far less than the power of a president. Now because of our political system he can’t be a ceo and president at the same time. He has to decide which venue of power he wishes to pursue. But he only has to make that decision because of the laws of our country.

And there were some very powerful companies back in the day that owned whole towns and could kick you out of your house if you got fired…

With all due respect, it's hard for me to address this because it doesn't seem to me like you really understood the point I was making. Let me put it this way: analyzing "power" in a monolithic sort of way, where there are no distinctions being made between one person's "power" and another person's, is only going to get you so far. I say that because, based on your statement "To me amount and kind go hand in hand", this can only imply that you consider "amount of power" and "kind of power" to be the same thing.

In fact, at this point I feel obliged to ask you just how exactly you define the word "power". It seems to me that you're using it in two different ways at the same time: 1) possessing the physical ability or means to do something, and 2) being allowed to do something. Notice that these two things are not the same at all.

So with that in mind, let me also ask you why you think it's okay for some people (such as the President and people acting on his behalf) to invade a house that (ostensibly) belongs to someone else, abduct him from it, and throw him into a cage, but it's not okay for most people to do that same thing?

My point is, while Steve Jobs is considered to be allowed to force people off of his own property (again, ostensibly), he's not considered to be allowed to force people off of their own property. But the President (more accurately, his agents) is allowed to do this. I don't see how this can make sense to you from a moral/ethical standpoint. Also, I don't see how you can equate Steve Jobs and Barack Obama in terms of leadership, since Mr. Obama is not only generally considered to be allowed to do many more things than Mr. Jobs is, but those kinds of things that Mr. Obama is generally considered to be allowed to do that Mr. Jobs is not are qualitatively different from those things which both are generally considered to be allowed to do.

Hopefully this all makes sense - let me know if you're confused anywhere and I'll do my best to help you.

.500NE:
Basically –yes they do. You don’t pay property taxes – you lose what you “own”. Your land is bound by a tax you MUST pay to the state. So you do not really own it.

Now if your land is not bound by a tax or eminent domain clause. The government falls into having more of a “dominion” role. In that you are only bound by the laws governing personal behavior. But if you don’t like those laws and want to break away – you’re gonna have to sell your stuff and move. I realize some would not consider anything less than pure voluntarism to be ownership though.

Okay, so you don't think anyone owns his home, land, etc. That's fine, I can go with that. So in that case, do you see this as being okay? And if the government actually owns everything (or at least all the land/buildings we live and work in), why do people talk about "owning real estate"? Do you think maybe most people believe they do own land and buildings when, in the eyes of the government, they actually don't? Why wouldn't the government correct them on that point?

If the government owns all real estate, and you consider this to be okay (i.e. morally/ethically legitimate), then you should likewise consider it okay for the government to charge people anything and everything for the privilege of living upon its land, and you should also consider it okay for the government to impose any and all regulations on people for the privilege of doing business upon its land. The only possible moral/ethical limitation you could logically impose on government would be to not assault or murder people. Otherwise, everything should be fair game to you. So given all of this, what are your arguments for minarchism?

.500NE:
An exclusive area claimed by a group of people who got together and decided that they were going to band together for protection and made some universal rules to live by based on their common cultural mores and values.

Okay. In that case, how do you distinguish between "statism" and "state"? Or don't you distinguish between them?

Regardless, one thing to notice about the above is that it involves a monopoly over the exclusive area. That is, within the area, the only limits on legitimate force exercised by people inside that area are those placed by the organization (i.e. group of people) who owns it. In other words, the organization that exercises power is also the judge of its own power. Tell me, where then are the incentives for it to not exercise power whenever it wants to?

.500NE:
Well, if certain amendments hadn’t been incorporated to the state level then citizens in certain states would be enjoying far less individual liberty than they are now.

How do you know that?

.500NE:
A minarchist frame work would be a constitution that sets up a minimalist night-watchmen state that protects individual freedoms that a given culture deems important.

Would you agree that a constitution is a contract that is binding on future generations? Do you think such a contract is valid? Why or why not?

.500NE:
I see no reason why a Minarchy couldn’t cover the same area as the current USA. I don’t think that just because the role of a government has shrunk that would preclude it from holding sway over a large area.

I was questioning your assumption that your hypothetical minarchist government must cover the same area as the current US covers. There's no reason to make that assumption, as there's no guarantee of it holding true in the future.

.500NE:
Any government that has police and military & fire departments will create roads to ensure swift movement. And they will have a hard time telling the population at large that they can’t use the roads that their tax dollars built.

Wait, why are you now including fire departments under your definition of "minarchy"?

That aside, how do you know that this government will have a hard time telling that to the population at large?

.500NE:
But there are certain high maintenance areas that the Gov can privatise so that they don’t have to micro manage everything. Stuff like bridges and select expressways may just be more convenient and cost saving to privatise.

Oh, I see. So your definition of "privatization" doesn't concern actual transfer of ownership - it just concerns "farming out" the management of government-owned assets to non-government agents (after all, not everyone works for the government). I guess you could say that the "privately owned real estate" is really the same thing. There's a word for this: feudalism.

.500NE:
And there is no reason private companies can’t make roads, where they see a demand, and profit from it if they can.

But if they don't own the land, they'd need some kind of permission from the government to do that first, right?

.500NE:
I’d imagine it’sd be similar to how communities nowdays in the US are able to pass local and state laws

But that allows for the possibility of local communities and states to pass non-minarchist laws. Based on your earlier comments, that certainly doesn't jive with your view of minarchism, does it?

.500NE:
While the use of mercenaries in the short term can be spectacularly effective, In the long run I think that history has shown that being guarded by those who are in it exclusively for profit can end badly in many ways.

And history is also replete with examples of decentralised military coalitions being trampled by a centralised professional force.

I should've been more explicit with my earlier question. What I was really attacking was the concept of there being only certain "nations" or even certain "societies". For example, the existence of a supposed "American nation" is only valid when considering it to be the same as "the group of people who are US citizens".

That aside, you're again arguing from ignorance in claiming that centralized forces will always and necessarily win over decentralized forces in the future, based on historical experience.

.500NE:
Things can be changed by non-violent methods. Persuasive arguments, persistent arguments, and making enough noise that it is easier for others to give in than stand up, are all ways societies can change without violence.

Okay. So now my question is, do you think it's possible to constrain aggression by non-aggressive methods? Or do you think that can only be done by "fighting fire with fire"?

.500NE:
It hasn’t been proven impossible. But in my opinion, common sense is strongly against the possibility. Our country has been gone through backwards and forwards by explorers, scientists, and citizens of every kind. Our current knowledge of the continents flora & fauna, while not disproving bigfoot absolutely, make an overwhelming circumstantial case against the likely hood of the possibility of his existence.

With all due respect, you don't seem to have understood my point here. Indeed, your phrasing "the likely hood [sic] of the possibility of [Big Foot's] existence" seems to betray this lack of understanding. If something hasn't been proven impossible, then it must be possible. Furthermore, no amount of likelihood can be attached to possibility per se, because possibility per se is the same as likelihood per se! So whether you think or feel that it's possible is irrelevant as far as logic is concerned. But maybe you don't care about logic - if so, then it'll be pointless for me to continue debating you.

.500NE:
In my opinion the same logic can be applied to an Anarchistic society as preached on these boards. I believe human nature and history make a very strong circumstantial case against the likely hood of it working.

The thing is, there's no logic there at all.

.500NE:
Not that one couldn’t give it a try – but in my opinion it just wouldn’t last.

I thought I told you that was an argument from ignorance. Why are you making it again? Are you really not concerned with logic whatsoever? Is this just a way for you to stick your fingers in your ears and retreat back into the beliefs that you're comfortable with?

.500NE:
I agree with you completely about human nature. And that is the main reason I don’t believe anarchy will work. History is one big slideshow of people setting up some form of government after government.

This is just another rephrasing of your argument from ignorance. Sorry.

.500NE:
Even hunter gatherer groups like the African bushman and American plains Indians had “traditional” hunting areas that they would “defend” against outsiders. Smacks of institutionalized aggression to me…

How do you distinguish between "aggression" and "defense"? Or don't you? I mean, do you consider a person driving an intruder off of his land to be necessarily engaging in aggression?

.500NE:
One would have to show me some very specific examples for me to believe that a truly voluntary society has existed in history.

Why does it matter whether a truly voluntary society has existed in history? Would an absence thereof make it any less desirable to you? Why or why not?

.500NE:
Only concerned with :”american nation” other countries can do what they want.

I'm going to again attack this line of, frankly, stay-inside-the-box thinking. Can you identify which groups of people are the only groups that can ever be considered "countries" or "nations"? What is your basis for identifying those groups of people and no other? For example, why don't you think we can speak of a "nation of redheads" or a "nation of twentysomethings"?

.500NE:
Maybe “decentralize” is a bad word – perhaps “shrinking” the size of government, and making it more accountable to the people fits my “minarchist” outlook better.

How can a government be guaranteed to hold itself accountable every time you want it to?

.500NE:
In fact what I am generally talking about is a constitutionally limited government. Limited to the point of a “night-watchmen” type state.

My questions and comments about constitutions apply here as well.

.500NE:
Part of the confusion here is that my own ideas are not fully crystallized yet. Hopefully this exchange will help me better think through and define my own thoughts. And help me to learn to articulate my views better. (However tardy my replies may be…)

But like I said ,I have come around to certain things I was once against , so I intend to keep an open mind.

That's good. I invite you to think outside of the box. Don't limit yourself to only thinking about things in terms of what exists today. Thinking about things in a more abstract way will let you attain a deeper level of understanding about the world. Also, I'm sorry if I've been harsh at any point above, but I don't want you to simply repeat the same logical fallacies even after they've been pointed out to you as such.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

.500NE — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:23:18 GMT

Sorry for the late reply – real life triumphs internet banter…

Autolykos:
It's not just a matter of amount - it's also a matter of kind. Does Steve Jobs kick his employees out of their homes when they disagree with his decisions? No. He simply doesn't want them to work for him anymore, so he refuses to pay them anymore. If they still show up at work, of course, he could consider them to be trespassing. Why is that? Because Steve Jobs makes a distinction between Apple's property and other people's/groups' property.

To me amount and kind go hand in hand. The more power you get the more kinds of things you can exert control over. And the opposite holds true as well.

If Steve Jobs became president , he’d get more power which allows him to do all kinds of stuff he couldn’t do as ceo of apple. Because the power of a ceo is far less than the power of a president. Now because of our political system he can’t be a ceo and president at the same time. He has to decide which venue of power he wishes to pursue. But he only has to make that decision because of the laws of our country.

And there were some very powerful companies back in the day that owned whole towns and could kick you out of your house if you got fired…

Autolykos:
Let me ask you this: do you consider the US government to actually own the entire country?

Basically –yes they do. You don’t pay property taxes – you lose what you “own”. Your land is bound by a tax you MUST pay to the state. So you do not really own it.

Now if your land is not bound by a tax or eminent domain clause. The government falls into having more of a “dominion” role. In that you are only bound by the laws governing personal behavior. But if you don’t like those laws and want to break away – you’re gonna have to sell your stuff and move. I realize some would not consider anything less than pure voluntarism to be ownership though.

Autolykos:
Of course, the validity of that statement depends on how you define "statism". How do you (personally) define it?

An exclusive area claimed by a group of people who got together and decided that they were going to band together for protection and made some universal rules to live by based on their common cultural mores and values.

Autolykos:
How would you say that the Bill of Rights has "generally worked"? What would you call a "true minarchist framework"?

Well, if certain amendments hadn’t been incorporated to the state level then citizens in certain states would be enjoying far less individual liberty than they are now.

A minarchist frame work would be a constitution that sets up a minimalist night-watchmen state that protects individual freedoms that a given culture deems important.

Autolykos:
Would this limited government necessarily cover the same territory as the current United States? Why or why not?

I see no reason why a Minarchy couldn’t cover the same area as the current USA. I don’t think that just because the role of a government has shrunk that would preclude it from holding sway over a large area.

Autolykos:
Why would only certain freeways be provitaized and tolled? Do you think a government that still controls some (many?) roads to be a very limited government?

Any government that has police and military & fire departments will create roads to ensure swift movement. And they will have a hard time telling the population at large that they can’t use the roads that their tax dollars built.

But there are certain high maintenance areas that the Gov can privatise so that they don’t have to micro manage everything. Stuff like bridges and select expressways may just be more convenient and cost saving to privatise.

And there is no reason private companies can’t make roads, where they see a demand, and profit from it if they can.

Autolykos:
"Local law enforcement" implies local laws. Would there be any limitation on the scope of such? How would that be enforced?

I’d imagine it’sd be similar to how communities nowdays in the US are able to pass local and state laws

Autolykos:
Finally, why do you think "national defense" must be monopolized?

While the use of mercenaries in the short term can be spectacularly effective, In the long run I think that history has shown that being guarded by those who are in it exclusively for profit can end badly in many ways.

And history is also replete with examples of decentralised military coalitions being trampled by a centralised professional force.

Autolykos:
Do you think those things can ever be changed by non-violent methods (such as persuasive argument)? Or do you think we can only take them as given?

Things can be changed by non-violent methods. Persuasive arguments, persistent arguments, and making enough noise that it is easier for others to give in than stand up, are all ways societies can change without violence.

Autolykos:
If "the jury is still out" on the feasibility of an anarchist society, then where can there be any burden of proof in this regard? At the most, we can only talk about a burden of evidence here. But there's a difference between the question of whether "Big Foot" could exist (i.e. the possibility of "Big Foot" existing) and whether "Big Foot" does exist. Has the existence of "Big Foot" been proven impossible? As far as I know, it hasn't.

It hasn’t been proven impossible. But in my opinion, common sense is strongly against the possibility. Our country has been gone through backwards and forwards by explorers, scientists, and citizens of every kind. Our current knowledge of the continents flora & fauna, while not disproving bigfoot absolutely, make an overwhelming circumstantial case against the likely hood of the possibility of his existence.

In my opinion the same logic can be applied to an Anarchistic society as preached on these boards. I believe human nature and history make a very strong circumstantial case against the likely hood of it working.

Not that one couldn’t give it a try – but in my opinion it just wouldn’t last.

Autolykos:
Neither one of us knows how anyone, let alone everyone, in some future stateless society will act. What we can do is study human nature and (try to) formulate categorical (and thus timeless) propositions from it. I don't think human nature is infinitely flexible - do you?

I agree with you completely about human nature. And that is the main reason I don’t believe anarchy will work. History is one big slideshow of people setting up some form of government after government.

Autolykos:
Right now, I'd say I'd identify it as a lack of institutionalized aggression over a given area of land and/or group of people.

Even hunter gatherer groups like the African bushman and American plains Indians had “traditional” hunting areas that they would “defend” against outsiders. Smacks of institutionalized aggression to me…

One would have to show me some very specific examples for me to believe that a truly voluntary society has existed in history.

Autolykos:
Okay. In that case, I think you're talking about an "ultimate" authority which can somehow provide limited government. But the other governments of the world can still get as "statist" as they want, right? So it seems that you must logically favor centralization of government over decentralization. Or are you only concerned with what you perceive as "the American nation"?

Only concerned with :”american nation” other countries can do what they want.

Maybe “decentralize” is a bad word – perhaps “shrinking” the size of government, and making it more accountable to the people fits my “minarchist” outlook better.

In fact what I am generally talking about is a constitutionally limited government. Limited to the point of a “night-watchmen” type state.

Part of the confusion here is that my own ideas are not fully crystallized yet. Hopefully this exchange will help me better think through and define my own thoughts. And help me to learn to articulate my views better. (However tardy my replies may be…)

But like I said ,I have come around to certain things I was once against , so I intend to keep an open mind.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Autolykos — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:04:27 GMT

.500NE:
Today, you need to sell all your non-mobile assets and move out to opt out. But even in a voluntary society there couldn't be an infinite array of choices/services to perfectly satisfy everyone.. at some point it might be more worth your while to sell out and move to a better area reather than select from the options in one's current area.

The point is that you're not going to be kicked off of your own property if you choose not to form any contractual arrangements with others, or if you choose to legitimately break the ones you do have. Of course, that doesn't mean there won't be consequences to your actions, but those consequences will be entirely of your own doing. It's not like anyone is unilaterally imposing positive obligations on you. That's what governments do.

By the way, did you happen to see my other, longer post?

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Andrew Cain — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:27:03 GMT

"You do realize that Centinel is Rettoper..."

Wasn't he the guy who I banned and deleted? Now he is making other usernames and trolling by redundent logical fallacies?

I think I get a cookie for far-reaching insight.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

DanielMuff — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:51:03 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

You do realize that Centinel is Rettoper...

That's what I figured after he stopped capitalizing the first letter of the first word of every sentence.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

.500NE — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:49:15 GMT

Today, you need to sell all your non-mobile assets and move out to opt out. But even in a voluntary society there couldn't be an infinite array of choices/services to perfectly satisfy everyone.. at some point it might be more worth your while to sell out and move to a better area reather than select from the options in one's current area.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:25:20 GMT

You do realize that Centinel is Rettoper...

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Autolykos — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:34:01 GMT

.500NE:
So if you can leave the state anytime you want then the state is perfectly in harmony with anarchy. Yes?

Along what Skyler Collins wrote, either the state is a voluntary association of people - in which case one can simply stop associating whenever he wants - or the state is the owner of property on which those people reside - in which case one must leave the property if he wants to stop associating with the state. Which do you think is the case today?

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Autolykos — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:32:12 GMT

.500NE:
Yes Jobs is a leader, he makes certain decisions and people follow them. While mostly voluntary (because people mostly seem to like having a good job) he can probably fire those who disagree with and oppose him under certain conditions.

Obama is a much more powerful leader because he can bring a whole lot more force to bear when he makes decisions.

It's not just a matter of amount - it's also a matter of kind. Does Steve Jobs kick his employees out of their homes when they disagree with his decisions? No. He simply doesn't want them to work for him anymore, so he refuses to pay them anymore. If they still show up at work, of course, he could consider them to be trespassing. Why is that? Because Steve Jobs makes a distinction between Apple's property and other people's/groups' property.

Let me ask you this: do you consider the US government to actually own the entire country?

.500NE:
I partially agree with Centinel that a few of our founding fathers wanted to create a “cage” for Statism. But I disagree that the US government, then and now, is anywhere near a good example of that cage.

Of course, the validity of that statement depends on how you define "statism". How do you (personally) define it?

.500NE:
There are minarchist elements in the U.S. government and others that we can look to and judge their effectiveness. And certain things like the bill of rights have generally worked. I think that they would work better if they were in a true minarchist framework, but that is opinion at this point.

How would you say that the Bill of Rights has "generally worked"? What would you call a "true minarchist framework"?

.500NE:
I am in favor of some anarchist ideas, although I may not currently agree with the end goal – they have some good ideas for decentralizing government. And they point out legitimate abuses that need correction. (if possible)

Doesn't decentralizing government just increase the number of centers (monopolies)? Or do you think there's more to it than that?

.500NE:
My idea of a limited Gov is one that is very limited. They’d just run the military – local law enforcement would be contracted out as much as possible. Stuff like bridges and certain freeways would be privatized and tolled. A very low single-digit tax, etc.

Would this limited government necessarily cover the same territory as the current United States? Why or why not?

Why would only certain freeways be provitaized and tolled? Do you think a government that still controls some (many?) roads to be a very limited government?

"Local law enforcement" implies local laws. Would there be any limitation on the scope of such? How would that be enforced?

Finally, why do you think "national defense" must be monopolized?

.500NE:
Of course the biggest factor in making any society work would be the type of culture and ethics, mores, and taboos held by the vast majority of that society.

Do you think those things can ever be changed by non-violent methods (such as persuasive argument)? Or do you think we can only take them as given?

.500NE:
Ahh, you can’t prove a negative fallacy - mea culpa… I will try to be more specific when something is my opinion only.

Thank you.

.500NE:
There is nothing that can absolutely prove that an anarchistic society won’t be possible. You are correct that “the jury is still out” I completely concede this point.

But I also can’t prove that big-foot doesn’t exist either.

Like big-foot skeptics, I feel the burden of proof when it comes to an anarchistic society falls almost entirely on its advocates to prove their point.

If "the jury is still out" on the feasibility of an anarchist society, then where can there be any burden of proof in this regard? At the most, we can only talk about a burden of evidence here. But there's a difference between the question of whether "Big Foot" could exist (i.e. the possibility of "Big Foot" existing) and whether "Big Foot" does exist. Has the existence of "Big Foot" been proven impossible? As far as I know, it hasn't.

Claiming that something is impossible is a stronger claim than claiming that it's possible. If you want to talk about feasibility or workability, that's another matter. In that case, I'd like you to provide your standards for feasbility/workability.

.500NE:
I think that there are no issues in showing that “anarchism” is a natural extension or their personal philosophy.

It’s the practical application of the absolutely stateless society, where I think that a whole lot of assumptions of how people will act come into play.

Neither one of us knows how anyone, let alone everyone, in some future stateless society will act. What we can do is study human nature and (try to) formulate categorical (and thus timeless) propositions from it. I don't think human nature is infinitely flexible - do you?

.500NE:
How would you identify a “stateless” society? A short one sentence example – or historical reference would be fine…

Right now, I'd say I'd identify it as a lack of institutionalized aggression over a given area of land and/or group of people.

.500NE:
Part of our/my problem is that we may not be using certain terms to mean the same thing here. Or we may even disagree on how certain terms are used.

Indeed. That's why I ask you for your definitions of certain words.

.500NE:
Nope. It was just a document of confederation for 13 independent states, no supremacy clause, no compulsory taxation. And no ability to keep the promises made to its soldiers. The 13 colonies could still get as “statist” as they wanted.

I view “minarchy” as kind of a package deal. You don’t just get to implement a few elements and get to call yourself minarchist.

Okay. In that case, I think you're talking about an "ultimate" authority which can somehow provide limited government. But the other governments of the world can still get as "statist" as they want, right? So it seems that you must logically favor centralization of government over decentralization. Or are you only concerned with what you perceive as "the American nation"?

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Autolykos — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:04:36 GMT

vive la insurrection:
In a sense, no. Laws are determined by facts, and everything that exists is an atomic fact in itself. When I "buy a beer", I simply buy a beer as the thing I do for what it is, not a non beer - I don't think a dilectic works here. I think the word "choice" is more or less used to indicate the fact that the actor is "irrational" in the traditionally empiricle sense of the word.

I don't really understand what this is supposed to mean. As a best guess, it seems like you're foregoing the Austrian Economics notion of actions revealing the preferences of the actors.

On the other hand, just because praxeology is a science of action does not mean that preferences don't exist. It just means that they're considered to be outside of the scope of praxeology.

vive la insurrection:
You can talk about them all you want, but they are only one fact, in a potentially infinite number of combinations that factor into something. In this way they are just "words" as facts in themselves as opposed to the other billions upon billions of facts that present themselves that take place in the actual world that can be spoken of (the world of human action). The perspectives and expectations (and expectations are something that I am starting to take very seriously) that are involved can not be talked about as anything more than any other atomic fact you wish to categorize that manifests, all propositions being of equal value.

I don't consider "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", "pleasing" or "displeasing" as facts at all. There is no truth in saying "X is good/bad/right/wrong/pleasing/displeasing". That is, there are no facts or truth/falsehood about values. But that doesn't prevent me from saying that I think X is good/bad/right/wrong/pleasing/displeasing/etc.

vive la insurrection:
Moreover, I have no idea what either one's perspective or expectation of what is meant when they say good, it is impossible for me to determine. All I can do is look at how material itsef in the factual world. Our world is not the world of good or bad, but of human action.

Yet you talk about opposing political labels. So you are dealing with more than human action.

Re: "The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

Skyler Collins — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:42:05 GMT

Define "leave". When he said leave the tribe, I believe he meant disassociate with them, not necessarily moving away. You can't disassociate from the state without moving away (and sometimes not even then ^_^).