Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchism-Practical?

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique View Post
    How does it matter? Government can take on any number of forms, aggression may or may not be a component of it, singular leadership by one individual may or may not be part of it.
    The point here is that the very definition of "state" or "government" as Autolykos defines the term, requires that aggression be present. If there is no aggression, there is no state. That's the whole point.

    But, of course, we have to define aggression. Personally, the best definition I can come up with is that it is an unwarranted and unwanted incursion upon the person or property of an individual or group of people.

    No, not all organizations of individuals, socially speaking, employ aggression to maintain an internal order. That they don't or wouldn't makes them NOT state as I'm sure Autolykos defines the term.

    So what I'm seeing here is that you still refuse to accept that people can organize in a way that doesn't equal state, and/or that the definition of state necessarily includes aggressive behavior to exert its own legitimacy.

    In all likelihood, like your Microsoft example, a bit of both is employed.
    How would Microsoft be employing aggression against it's competitors?

    In either way, be it out of aggression or out of a communal agreement that one particular individual would be best to represent the interests of a particular group, it is the beginning of a new government.
    I strongly disagree given the above. If we follow this line of logic, you must believe that a married couple constitutes state... I can't imagine that you would believe that.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  2. #22
    Will ADMIN 4 Gas Money

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchism-Practical?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    The point here is that the very definition of "state" or "government" as Autolykos defines the term, requires that aggression be present. If there is no aggression, there is no state. That's the whole point.

    But, of course, we have to define aggression. Personally, the best definition I can come up with is that it is an unwarranted and unwanted incursion upon the person or property of an individual or group of people.

    No, not all organizations of individuals, socially speaking, employ aggression to maintain an internal order. That they don't or wouldn't makes them NOT state as I'm sure Autolykos defines the term.

    So what I'm seeing here is that you still refuse to accept that people can organize in a way that doesn't equal state, and/or that the definition of state necessarily includes aggressive behavior to exert its own legitimacy.
    I don't refuse to accept that people can organize without their organization raising to the level of 'state'.

    Let's look at this from the hypothetical that Auto put forth--a gradual elimination of modern states to a situation of anarchy. Let's assume this all happens in a coordinated and peaceful manner and with full cooperation of all governments AND people at the time (if we don't take this as an assumption the entire concept falls apart anyway).

    So, in time people form small, cooperative groups to secure their interests, provide basic protection, whatever. These small groups pop up all over and we'll assume they have some way to work out conflicts without some centralized legal structure that provides uniform, unbiased decision making without the threat of force to back up its decisions. Everything is fantastic, no one lives in fear of 'aggression' from a government entity.

    Oh, but wait, Joe Warlord has been reading too many books about Genghis Kahn and decides he wants to unite the tribes. Unlike other people who have tried, this guy is charismatic and ruthless, and before you know it he's got control of a big section of people and is looking to make moves against other groups with his superior numbers and coordination. Those other small groups, seeing that they'd better organize or be assimilated, form their own defensive initiatives to help fight him back. Heck, maybe another guy has been reading about Alexander the Great and does the same thing.

    Point being it is common in human nature to want to take control, to take advantage of those weaker, to use aggressive tactics if necessary to take that which you covet. One may fail, hundreds may fail, but all it takes is one to succeed and all the sudden what you're going to have is one government antagonizing this Utopian anarchy you've worked up and the whole thing falls apart.

    Tell me why we should believe the history of humanity will suddenly turn on its head? As I've said before, human history shows the continued development of more and more intricate governmental entities. You're proposing that entire history suddenly turn on its head, and furthermore, you're assuming everyone else doesn't want to live beneath a governmental institution as well.

    How would Microsoft be employing aggression against it's competitors?
    Having spoken with you many times, LP, I'm fairly certain you know how Microsoft employed aggressive tactics against competitors. I'm fairly certain we could both agree that aggression doesn't require guns or weapons.

    I strongly disagree given the above. If we follow this line of logic, you must believe that a married couple constitutes state... I can't imagine that you would believe that.
    A married couple may appear like a state if one member of the couple dominates the decisions of the couple as an entity.
    -= Phrique =-

    I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew.
    - The Beastie Boys

  3. #23
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchism-Practical?

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique View Post
    I don't refuse to accept that people can organize without their organization raising to the level of 'state'.
    Ok. Then I don't think I understand what you mean by "the level of state." Because from what I can tell this:

    Government can take on any number of forms, aggression may or may not be a component of it, singular leadership by one individual may or may not be part of it.
    ... would seem to indicate that you think a "neighborhood watch" would constitute a "state." Or a "homeowners association." Or that the very fact that people, as a group, can influence someone (a business owner, or even a neighbor) by refusing to do business with them, makes them a "state." Does any of that fall in line with what you're thinking here?

    Let's look at this from the hypothetical that Auto put forth--a gradual elimination of modern states to a situation of anarchy. Let's assume this all happens in a coordinated and peaceful manner and with full cooperation of all governments AND people at the time (if we don't take this as an assumption the entire concept falls apart anyway)
    I fail to understand how this has to be an "all or nothing" scenario. I'd be willing to bet that if the US went through that transition, that some country like Colombia, assuming they still have a state which is willing to wage aggressive war, would be a serious threat to the assumed developed anarchist society of what would be the former US.

    So, in time people form small, cooperative groups to secure their interests, provide basic protection, whatever.
    I can dig this.

    These small groups pop up all over and we'll assume they have some way to work out conflicts without some centralized legal structure that provides uniform, unbiased decision making without the threat of force to back up its decisions.
    The concept of private justice. I can dig that too.

    Everything is fantastic, no one lives in fear of 'aggression' from a government entity.
    Still following you...

    Oh, but wait, Joe Warlord has been reading too many books about Genghis Kahn and decides he wants to unite the tribes. Unlike other people who have tried, this guy is charismatic and ruthless, and before you know it he's got control of a big section of people and is looking to make moves against other groups with his superior numbers and coordination. Those other small groups, seeing that they'd better organize or be assimilated, form their own defensive initiatives to help fight him back. Heck, maybe another guy has been reading about Alexander the Great and does the same thing.
    I can't argue that this wouldn't happen. Are you arguing here that people would sooner lay down and take it from mini-genghis?

    Point being it is common in human nature to want to take control, to take advantage of those weaker, to use aggressive tactics if necessary to take that which you covet. One may fail, hundreds may fail, but all it takes is one to succeed and all the sudden what you're going to have is one government antagonizing this Utopian anarchy you've worked up and the whole thing falls apart.
    I do believe that the use of the word utopia here is wholly unfounded. In a utopian society everyone does their part and everyone is equally provided for. If you think that is what is being advocated here, or that this is the "dream" we aspire toward, I think you wholly misunderstand what we're trying to represent to you here.

    Tell me why we should believe the history of humanity will suddenly turn on its head?
    What about human history? That like technological advancement, we've lived through many distinct levels of social advancement through to course of human history? I don't see how this runs contrary to such a notion.

    As I've said before, human history shows the continued development of more and more intricate governmental entities.
    And how much of that has lead to more death, more destruction, more slavery, more despotic rulership? Warlords today flourish. Why? Because people can't defend themselves and they'd rather be slaves than die for freedom. Would you agree?

    You're proposing that entire history suddenly turn on its head, and furthermore, you're assuming everyone else doesn't want to live beneath a governmental institution as well.
    Nope. Again, here's where you're wrong. I'm actually quite offended that you think I would make a choice for anyone else as to how they should live their lives. The whole POINT is that people make their own decisions. For a million reasons I would NEVER seek to FOIST anarchy on someone who wasn't prepared for it. It would so wholly defeat the purpose of what I was trying to achieve... Not to mention, that to do such a thing would be exactly the type of aggression I would decry. Think about that.

    Also, I can't imagine how you'd think we'd advocate turning "human history" on its head... We're not suggesting a total breakdown of social order here. We're not talking about anarcho-primativism. We're not talking cataclysm. Do you think that all of our history and all of our knowledge and all of our technology would just disappear suddenly?

    Having spoken with you many times, LP, I'm fairly certain you know how Microsoft employed aggressive tactics against competitors. I'm fairly certain we could both agree that aggression doesn't require guns or weapons.
    Nope, I want you to explain this to me, like I'm a child. Seriously. I want to know exactly what I'm arguing against before I open my mouth here.

    A married couple may appear like a state if one member of the couple dominates the decisions of the couple as an entity.
    Does the non-dominant member of the married couple have the option of leaving the dominance of the other member?
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  4. #24
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchism-Practical?

    Immediately? Probably not, eventually? Absolutely. Eventually someone is going to want to have control over others. It is more an exceptional individual, and not a normal individual that seeks no control or power over others, and in this basic tenant of humanity we see why Anarchism would never work from a practical perspective, because eventually there will be someone who wants to take control of others out of selfishness or other motives.
    well lets assume that people instead of taking power create buisnesses instead
    therefore making money a form of government
    hear me out
    people want stuff [sorry for bad grammar]
    but how do they get it?
    scince a barder system eventually would crash they would need to invent money
    then people start working for money
    and suddenly money comes very important so people start to steal it
    then the people make a police force to stop that
    and the police would want more money because they protect people
    just keep going with this scenario, and either way you put it a government forms

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Dear Anarchist:
    By Dela Cruz in forum General Debate
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2008, 07:10 AM
  2. Practical Evolution
    By chadn737 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2007, 08:46 AM
  3. Equality : A Practical and Ethical Plan to Save the World!
    By Hope in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 9th, 2006, 12:30 AM
  4. An Argument For Market Anarchism
    By LeoGold in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: July 25th, 2006, 01:09 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •