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 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Anarchy.

  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Like I said: The boring US
    Posts
    62
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    No laws; only chaos.
    There is an upside: a life without a government that won't exploit us. I never really thought our system was perfect; but if you think about it, we already take care of that by combining anarchy with our constitution.
    We constantly try to police the world, but we can't even enforce ourselves. We want to push our ways on lands that have little to no respect to our people as a mass, and yet we have ten year old kids shooting each other in LA.
    Yes, chaos is bad; but a life of servitude to fat cats who waste our labor on luxury is harmful to our union as a country.
    Hate me.

  2. #62
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    The topic is that even Hitler believed he was doing what was best for "society" by ridding it of the jews. Naturally, you disagree, but Hitler did not afford the jews any sort of moral consideration, they were not human in HIS eyes. They may as well have been flies to him. Surely, extermination of millions of flies is not something you would find repulsive, eh? It's morally reprehensible in my opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that he believed he was doing the "right" thing. Just like YOU believe you are doing the "right" thing by encouraging "state." History may one day judge your actions differently than you do.
    MY stated goal is that society should promote the best interests of EVERYONE (not just doing what one happens to think is "right" or even "best for society"). Clearly, killing a significant portion of the population is not doing what is best for everyone (since those who are killed are included in "everyone"). So what Hitler did does not, except by the most ludicrous stretching of logic (and with that kind of stretching you could say Hitler was abiding by almost any stated goal), comply with what I forwarded. Even Hitler knew that he was not acting in the best interests of a significant portion of the population.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I disagree on both counts. You claim that I am somehow morally bound to save lives if I am able to. You lay out the logic for that, explicitly, right here.
    Okay. Let me give a scenario.

    A hundred people (or a thousand or ten thousand - the principle is the same whatever the number) are locked in a room and in one minute poison gas will fill the room, killing them all. You are placed in front of a switch and if you flip the switch, the people will be saved. You will be subjected to no risk, punishment, reward, or anything whether you flip the switch or don't flip the switch (so the effects of flipping or not flipping, for you, is completely neutral - you gain or lose nothing regardless of your decision).

    So the only issue is whether you save those people's lives. And I say, all else being equal, flipping the switch (and saving those lives) is more moral than not flipping the switch (and letting them die).

    And likewise in ANY situation, where one can save a life, morality leans more towards saving the life than not saving it. There can be extenuating circumstances in the real world where it's entirely excusable to not attempt to save a life (too much risk to your own life, very low probability of succeeding, the person doesn't want to be saved, etc) but all else being equal, saving a life is more moral than not saving a life.

    So all else being equal, you are morally obligated to save a life if the opportunity presents itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So what if it is? If he's not taking from people without their consent, why am I somehow obligated to judge his behavior as immoral?
    If the people view the apples as "theirs" and it's just his guard's force that is keeping them from getting apples and then he ships the apples out of the area, he is taking the people's apples without their consent.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Again, I disagree. You're arguing from a very socialist perspective. "You exist, therefore I (and everyone else) must do everything possible to insure you continue to exist." I will not accept such a moral edict as valid, ever.
    That's not what I said, though. My scenario is that he's denying them apples with the intent of killing them by starvation. So he's not just neglecting to take action to help them - he's taking action to kill them.

    I mean parents have been arrested for intentionally starving their children to death and that act would be immoral even if it somehow became legal (like the state recognized the principle of the parents not being obligated to part with their earnings by buying food for their children).


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    That doesn't make sense. To form a monopoly is to embark on a business venture. Business exists to make money. You can't make money if you're killing your customers.
    To repeat:

    And if that's the very reason he formed a monopoly, to kill a lot of people (or perhaps he just refuses to sell to those of other races so really his intention is genocide), then it's alright that he formed a monopoly?

    I didn't say he killed his customers. In fact, those he refuses to sell to are not his customers. And he makes plenty of profit from selling to those he does not seek to kill.

    So now answer the question - is it morally alright for this person to create and run the monopoly in that fashion (with the intention and effect of killing off an entire race)?



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So it's tragic that these people refuse to figure out ways to feed themselves without resorting to stealing. Tragic, indeed. And I certainly wouldn't ever do business with someone who behaved in that way. But I absolutely refuse to believe that he should be somehow compelled to provide for a people who refuse to provide for themselves. There is no way that a single man could physically control (own, rightfully or otherwise) all food resources in the entire world to the exclusion of every other person, or the land for that matter. If that were at all possible, I'd wonder why everyone in the world thought it would be a good idea to sell/trade/give all of their property (and means of producing food) to a single man in the first place. But seriously, it's not going to happen like that, anarchy or otherwise.
    But we're arguing principles here. If "no theft" is the highest moral consideration then IF someone were to own all of the food and everyone else, no matter how much they tried (so it's not a case that they refuse to provide for themselves), could not get food without buying it from this man and he refused to sell them food, the people taking food (ANY food for it it's food, he owns it) without his consent is a less moral action then his actions of intentionally starving them to death (and again, he's starving those of a certain race - intentionally committing genocide)?



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Who says men aren't killing each other while supposedly being subject to the law? If this is a critical flaw in an anarchist system, this is a critical flaw in all systems.
    But if rule of law decreases killings and likewise ensure appropriate punishment for killing someone, then rule of law is better.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I can certainly draw conclusions about how people would behave based on how they behave today, and draw logical conclusions about how that behavior could (not necessarily WOULD) change if certain forces acting upon "society" were to change.
    But you seem to be assuming no change whatsoever. I don't see why if there's no law against killing and likewise no police force to mete out punishment and therefore if one (or one's gang) is the strongest force in an area, why this gang can't kill with impunity (as there is just no one around who has the muscle to mete out punishment for their crimes).


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Are you really suggesting that the only means of ownership of anything, period, is bestowed upon us by the "good graces" of the state?
    Not "good graces". It's not perfect, but generally the rules our society has is the rules that people want so the reason we have "official" ownership is because the people want such a thing. We want it so that if I buy your car, there can be no legal dispute on who owns the car and that ownership is basically enforced by the entirety of society (if someone steals it from me, there is no debate that the car is legally mine and therefore the person who took stole it, as opposed to has gained ownership of it).

    So I own what I own, in this society, because WE ALL say so. There is basically 100% agreement and consent within this society that I own my car.





    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    It is not immoral to be lacking in compassion, in my opinion. It is not immoral to behave in a way that others find distasteful. It is immoral to convert the proeprty of others without their consent. I'm struggling to see how this is so confusing.
    Maybe because I don't agree with your use of "immoral".


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Interesting. You're playing fast and loose with "equality." Men and women (and their individual skills) are not valued equally, inherently or otherwise. I value my doctor more than I value the guy who sprays chemicals on my fruit so it will "look good" when I see it in the grocery store. Those people are not equal. Likewise, I'm not equal, to say Aspo, in terms of ability to speak more than one language. Aspo's ability to speak more than one language fluently makes her more valueable (to some) than I am.
    Those things make people better in certain contexts. I assume we are both better than each other at our respective professions than the other is. Perhaps you're a better golfer but I'm a better swimmer. Maybe you make more money than me but my friends like me more than yours do. Okay, now if we aren't equal, who is "better"? Which one of us, in fact, is more deserving to live?

    And unless you can come up with a justifiable answer, then we are indeed equal (and that's what I mean when I use the word "equal"). It's the same kind of "equal" as used in the DOI ("all men are created equal")


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    The law does not dicate ownership. And if you want to toy with the definition of ownership to make it so that you can (morally) steal from me, I'll disagree with you, and I'll do whatever I am physically able to in order to prevent that theft... within certain limits... but those limits are wholly self-imposed. I wouldn't seek to limit how and when others defend their own property against theft.
    If you don't own it, then it cannot be stolen from you.

    And in this society, it is the law that dictates who owns what. So without legal ownership, if there is to be ownership, it has to be determined by another principle. I'm arguing that there is no consistent principle to back up ownership in an Anarchy.

    If you are saying otherwise, then tell me what that principle is.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So he's a spoiled brat, that's not my concern. He traded, fairly, something of value for something else of value, and he didn't lie, cheat, or steal. You're suggesting that the children of affluent folks should be denied their affluence simply because other people are born without?
    Let me repeat your principle for ownership that I responded to:

    If we assume that a man can own something, we assume that he, at the very least, owns his body. If a man owns his body then it is quite reasonable to assume that he also owns the skills and abilities of that body. He alone is entitled to the benefits of that body. If this is true, why shouldn't he be able to trade those benefits to those of whom would find them valuable for that which he finds valuable?

    The "spoiled brat" I forwarded did not use his body to obtain the orchard. He did nothing to earn the orchard so he is not morally entitled to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    If I've clearly stated, which I believe I have, that the only real immorality is an attempt to convert property against the wishes of the owner, than it would reasonably follow that "moral means" would indicate anything that didn't violate the will of the owner from whom the property was acquired. If my morality is in question, that's one thing. But there's no secret here as to what I mean by "moral means."
    Well, I do question your morality. I've presented a hypothetical scenario of a man intentionally starving a local population to death and I think what he's doing is much more immoral than a man stealing one of his apples to save his child's life.

    When an aggressive act is to be considered immoral, who it is being done to is to be considered. Shooting someone in the head against their will is surely aggressive but if it's done to a mass murderer to mete our justice it is less immoral than to shoot some innocent person.

    And really without rule of law, then when a father considers stealing an apple as a moral act, he has a whole plethora of moral issues to weigh:
    1. The act of "stealing" the apple
    2. Saving his child
    3. Who it's being taken from (in this case a truly horrible man)
    4. Is the man's "ownership" of the apples legitimate (that is open to debate)?
    5. The fact that the apple "owner" is intentionally trying to kill the child by denying the apple.

    So in considering the man's moral decision, I see no reason, from a moral standpoint, that the man must make #1 the overriding moral issue and based on that alone, decide that the other issues are to be ignored and has no choice but to decide that to take taking the apple is too immoral to do.

    I mean if you think that #1 is the most primary moral issue, then your opinion is noted. But I see no reason why I should agree with you on this. I mean if you're just saying "that's my opinion", then your opinion is noted and we're done (as purely subjective opinions are never objectively right or wrong and therefore you cannot be proven wrong and you cannot prove yourself to be right).
    And?


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I don't claim that my answer is the only answer. You're asking me to assume a capitalist anarchist society exists, that there's this orchard owned by this dude, or a bread company which is the only bread company. I've stated that for such a society to exist, certain assumptions have to be made. You're still denying those assumptions. If you continue to deny them, then there's no point in bringing up a hypothetical, because you're obviously working from a different starting point than I am.
    I don't see how that answers my question. So let me restate it.

    Under anarchy there is no rule of law so the monopolist does not own the orchard "under law" and likewise no one is legally obliged to recognize his ownership. So the people who live on the land decide that whatever grows on their land is theirs (and if they are not free to hold this opinion, then they are not living in an anarchy). So:

    The owner sincerely feels he owns the apples and the people sincerely feel they own the apples. And all you're really doing in calling one action (taking the apple) "aggressive" and the other action (dragging people out of the orchard) "not aggressive" is just providing your own opinion that the monopolist is the owner of the apples and the people are not the owners. So why do you get to be the decider? Why are you more correct about this than someone who decides the people are the rightful owners and the monopolist is the aggressor?

    And if you can't come up with an objective reason why one is more right than the other than taking apples is no more or less aggressive than dragging people from the orchard.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I should rep you for the "Bush" jab, though. That was ridiculously brilliant. And I mean that sincerely. My husband calls me "the decider" all the time... amazingly, more often than not it's during these sorts of conversations.
    Well, it's a good thing you didn't give me the rep. I was not thinking of Bush when I said "decider" - just a fortunate accident. Still, I'm glad it amused you.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Legitimacy only deals with what a group designates as a permissible behavior.
    Okay. I fully accept that definition.

    And in my scenario the group of people who live on the land designate the monopolist attempting to deny them food in an attempt to kill them is not permissible behavior and likewise designates that they are entitled to the apples and therefore taking them is not stealing.

    So by the people's designation, they are legitimate owners of the apples and the monopolist is not the legitimate owner of the apples. And therefore the people taking the apples is not aggressive (since they are the legitimate owner of the apples) and the monopolist's guards dragging them from the property is aggressive (as the guards have no legitimate reason to physically force them to do anything against their will).

    RIGHT?

    Now, I understand the monopolist sees it differently but I see no reason that anyone else (like you or I) should agree with him. Is there any reason that I should see it his way? I mean he's a complete bastard for sure (I invented him that way) but that doesn't mean he's not technically right in his claim that he owns the apples. But I don't even see why I should think he's technically right. I mean it's nothing more than his opinion that he owns the apples and that what he did to get the apple orchard (inherited it from his Dad) gives him any more of a legitimate claim to the orchard than the people who live on the land's belief that their occupancy gives them a legitimate claim to the apples.




    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I don't play the game of more moral or less moral. Immoral is immoral. There's no reason to quantify, in my opinion.
    Except in situations where you don't have any moral options. A father letting his son die, when he could save him, is immoral. Likewise stealing food is immoral. And doing nothing is not an option (since doing nothing is letting his son die).

    And I don't care if you don't consider letting one's son die to not be "immoral". It clearly fits the definition of the word as I understand the word so short of you proving that I'm not using the word correctly, it does stand as defined.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I do not judge the actions of the owner of the orchard (who, by your very admission did not STEAL from anyone to acquire the orchard) as immoral. Period. My morality does not dictate that his behavior is "wrong." Unfortunate, cold, sure, but not "immoral." Not every action that is "unpleasant" is "immoral." That's not how my moral compass works.
    Well, let's test this. Here's an alternative hypothetical.

    There are two apple orchards and these orchards clearly belong to the people. Now, two bad men, Joe and Moe, invade the land and steal the orchards from the people and likewise divide the people into two camps, one run by Joe and the other run by Moe. Now, at this point I assume that there's no debate that both Joe and Moe are immoral and equally so.

    In Joe's camp, he regularly collects apples and feeds them to the people. Moe, on the other hand, does not collect apples and forbids the people from entering the orchard. They are free to find food wherever else they can, but the reality is that there is no other food so without Moe giving the people apples, those in his camp will all die from starvation.

    Now, I'm sure there's no debate that Joe and Moe are immoral, but I think it's safe to say that Moe is worse than Joe. But then beyond the exact same actions that Joe took (stealing the orchard from the people and restricting their movements) Moe has done nothing different than the hypothetical monopolist has done (refused to give food to starving people).

    So are you really going to say Moe (who has intentionally let half the town starve to death) is just as moral as Joe (who has fed people)?

    If so, not only does your moral compass differ from mine, it differs from practically everyone.




    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Crimes which are arbitrarily defined by a bunch of people *I* didn't vote for and are selectively enforced by both police (who, by all accounts, have a great deal of descretion) and judges. That hardly seems like a good (or equitable, since you seem to be concerned about equality) situation.
    BS. Murder is the crime that:
    1. Is most severely punished in society
    2. Is most uniformly illegal in all societies
    3. Is seen as the "worst" crime by people in general.

    So this is a coincidence or is it that what people in general find to be the most horrendous of crimes are the ones that are most often illegal and carry the most severe punishment?

    If, in this society, the leaders did arbitrarily decide what is illegal and what should be punished, then not only would murder and singing in the shower be just as likely to be illegal and have random punishments, the people would quickly vote these jokers out of office and install legislators who would outlaw and give punishments for what the people want to be illegal.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    There isn't?? Where does "anarchy" exist that we see this happen, right now? Again with the ignoring assumptions. If you don't accept fundamental assumptions necessary to discuss hypothetical anarchist scenarios, no rebuttal I make to this is going to amount to a hill of beans.
    Where does anarchy exist anywhere? And I see no reason to assume my scenario cannot happen. If it's not impossible, then it's possible.

    For instance, in this society, an outlaw gang taking over a small town long-term is impossible. Even if the local police force is not strong enough to oppose them, then a stronger law enforcement contingent will be sent in, even the national guard if necessary. No matter what, the society will muster enough force to put down the gang.

    But under anarchy, there is no guarantee that the local police force can handle the gang and likewise there is no guarantee of help coming from other areas that is strong enough to take down the gang.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    No killing is preferrable, period. And the rule of law didn't stop those seven killings.
    Yes, but it stops such a series of killings from happening more frequently.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So you're god now?
    No, I'm using logic and facts to support my argument.

    If someone wants to do something, is capable of doing something, and there's nothing preventing them from doing it, they are very likely to do it.

    So why wouldn't a society that has no rules against monopolies have more monopolies? I mean what businessman not want to have a monopoly and guaranteed profits (for he has the market locked up).


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    How are we insured of such an unavoidable outcome? Surely, if we are, there's absolutely no hope for anything. I may as well die for all the difference my life would make, right? (No, I'm not remotely suicidal or nihilistic, just making a point.)
    Monopolies are completely avoidable by having laws against monopoly.

    So if you got your head in the oven, you can take it out.
    Last edited by mican333; February 3rd, 2010 at 04:42 PM.

  3. #63
    ODN Administrator

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

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    MY stated goal is that society should promote the best interests of EVERYONE...
    And if my best interests are different than yours?

    Even Hitler knew that he was not acting in the best interests of a significant portion of the population.
    Hitler didn't consider the jews a part of "the population."

    Okay. Let me give a scenario.
    That's not laying out the logic behind your reasoning. Give me your first assumptions (premises) then tell me how your reasoning necessarily follows from them.

    So the only issue is whether you save those people's lives. And I say, all else being equal, flipping the switch (and saving those lives) is more moral than not flipping the switch (and letting them die).

    And likewise in ANY situation, where one can save a life, morality leans more towards saving the life than not saving it. There can be extenuating circumstances in the real world where it's entirely excusable to not attempt to save a life (too much risk to your own life, very low probability of succeeding, the person doesn't want to be saved, etc) but all else being equal, saving a life is more moral than not saving a life.

    So all else being equal, you are morally obligated to save a life if the opportunity presents itself.
    So you've restated your moral judgement. That's not laying out the logic.

    If the people view the apples as "theirs" and it's just his guard's force that is keeping them from getting apples and then he ships the apples out of the area, he is taking the people's apples without their consent.
    I don't care if the people view the apples as theirs, actually. Tell me how they came to possess the apples.

    That's not what I said, though. My scenario is that he's denying them apples with the intent of killing them by starvation. So he's not just neglecting to take action to help them - he's taking action to kill them.
    So now acting is equal to not acting? If I am morally obligated to save those people I am likewise morally obligated to save everyone who is at risk for death. That's a ridiculous expectation. Again, such refusal to act is disgusting, in my opinion, but not immoral. He did not harm those people by failing to save them. The people in the gas chamber scenario were harmed by the person who put the gas in the chamber, period, not by me because I failed to push the button.

    I mean parents have been arrested for intentionally starving their children to death and that act would be immoral even if it somehow became legal (like the state recognized the principle of the parents not being obligated to part with their earnings by buying food for their children).
    Parents starving their children to death often deny their children the ability to acquire food elsewhere, in an active sense. The situations are not the same.

    And if that's the very reason he formed a monopoly, to kill a lot of people (or perhaps he just refuses to sell to those of other races so really his intention is genocide), then it's alright that he formed a monopoly?
    Why do you always jump to a monopoly appears out of thin air? Tell me how that's remotely possible. Then tell me why people are patronizing a business when they know his intentions.

    I didn't say he killed his customers. In fact, those he refuses to sell to are not his customers. And he makes plenty of profit from selling to those he does not seek to kill.
    If you're proposing this scenario in an anarchist society, I find it hard to believet that his "customers" would continue to patronize a "monopoly" if his stated purpose was to kill off a segment of the population by being in business.

    So now answer the question - is it morally alright for this person to create and run the monopoly in that fashion (with the intention and effect of killing off an entire race)?
    If his only "crime" is refusal to associate (sell) to those individuals, and he didn't acquire his property (the orchard) by lying/cheating/stealing, I can't say his actions are immoral. It's not something I personally would encourage by buying anything from the man, and I would probably go out of my way to make sure every person entering his store knew what his plans were, but I don't consider refusal to act (sell or trade property with someone he doesn't want to sell or trade property with) the same as "murder," a positive action that deprives a person of life.

    But we're arguing principles here. If "no theft" is the highest moral consideration then IF someone were to own all of the food and everyone else, no matter how much they tried (so it's not a case that they refuse to provide for themselves), could not get food without buying it from this man and he refused to sell them food, the people taking food (ANY food for it it's food, he owns it) without his consent is a less moral action then his actions of intentionally starving them to death (and again, he's starving those of a certain race - intentionally committing genocide)?
    Did he acquire his property by lying/cheating/stealing?

    But if rule of law decreases killings and likewise ensure appropriate punishment for killing someone, then rule of law is better.
    In YOUR opinion, perhaps.

    It may be that I am less concerned with the deaths of people who commit acts of aggression than you are, because I wouldn't argue that there should be fewer acts of self-defense (which would probably result in more death of aggressors). There would be fewer deaths at the hands of aggressors if aggressors were effectively stopped by their intended victims the first time. Fewer people would find aggressive acts worth the risk to their lives. In that way, I don't think "fewer killings (period)" is preferrable to "fewer murders (which are inherently aggressive)." But I don't believe that state offers me either solution, readily.

    But you seem to be assuming no change whatsoever. I don't see why if there's no law against killing and likewise no police force to mete out punishment and therefore if one (or one's gang) is the strongest force in an area, why this gang can't kill with impunity (as there is just no one around who has the muscle to mete out punishment for their crimes).
    It's arbitrary when police have the ability to decide who they give a ticket, or who they charge with possession, or judges who they give probation and who they give jail time.

    Not "good graces". It's not perfect, but generally the rules our society has is the rules that people want so the reason we have "official" ownership is because the people want such a thing.
    I don't want such a thing. Where's my consideration?

    So I own what I own, in this society, because WE ALL say so. There is basically 100% agreement and consent within this society that I own my car.
    Except the asshole who's trying to steal it from you while you sleep. Where's he included in "all?"

    Maybe because I don't agree with your use of "immoral".
    If you don't agree with my moral compass, there's really nothing that I can say that's going to change that. I assume that people should not be compelled to associate (and likewise not associate) with whomever they choose, for whatever reason. You obviously disagree. I don't think arguing about it here is going to change that fact.

    Those things make people better in certain contexts. I assume we are both better than each other at our respective professions than the other is. Perhaps you're a better golfer but I'm a better swimmer. Maybe you make more money than me but my friends like me more than yours do. Okay, now if we aren't equal, who is "better"? Which one of us, in fact, is more deserving to live?
    How does being "better" ever equate to "being more deserving of life?" I believe everyone is equal in their "right" (read entitlement) to provide for their own lives to the best of their ability. But I don't believe anyone is inherently entitled to life, period. Such an entitlement would obligate me to provide for that life. By that line of reasoning, all of my possessions must be necessarily dedicated to the preservation of the lives of everyone as a whole. Therefore property, itself, is immoral, because ownership of property (control of property to the exclusion of others) is inherently immoral.

    I obviously don't buy that line of reasoning. You certainly shouldn't be murdered (have your property aka your body violated without your consent), but you certainly aren't entitled to my property to sustain your life.

    If you don't own it, then it cannot be stolen from you.
    And I've defined "ownership" as "control of a thing to the exclusion of all others." So if I didn't control something, myself, I surely didn't own it. Is that what you're talking about here? I'm too lazy to look two posts ago to figure it out.

    And in this society, it is the law that dictates who owns what. So without legal ownership, if there is to be ownership, it has to be determined by another principle. I'm arguing that there is no consistent principle to back up ownership in an Anarchy.
    There is. No anarchist society, nay no society would exist without a common understanding of property ownership, despite whether or not I agree with that "understanding" in general. Such a people would be chaotic and bloody. If, as in the case of today, property is defined as "legal possession" then naturally, without the law, the concept of property would disintegrate, and there would be turmoil until such time as a common understanding of property emerged. But "anarchy" as I have always described it, is not simply chaotic bloodshed in the absence of state. That's "chatoic bloodshed" and in those situations there is surely a "ruler" of one sort or another. An "Anarchist society" (if one existed) would have gotten beyond that already, and thus would have established a common understanding with regard to ownership (if it should even exist at that point).

    Let me repeat your principle for ownership that I responded to:

    If we assume that a man can own something, we assume that he, at the very least, owns his body. If a man owns his body then it is quite reasonable to assume that he also owns the skills and abilities of that body. He alone is entitled to the benefits of that body. If this is true, why shouldn't he be able to trade those benefits to those of whom would find them valuable for that which he finds valuable?

    The "spoiled brat" I forwarded did not use his body to obtain the orchard. He did nothing to earn the orchard so he is not morally entitled to it.
    Ah! So you're saying that my principle leaves out gifting. I see. If you don't believe that my principle affords such, then assume the spoiled brat traded his company with his parents for the property he received.

    Well, I do question your morality. I've presented a hypothetical scenario of a man intentionally starving a local population to death and I think what he's doing is much more immoral than a man stealing one of his apples to save his child's life.
    I have already stated that I don't play this "quantification of immorality" game. If two acts are immoral they are both immoral, but, absent lying/cheating/stealing, the man who owns the orchard is not obligated to feed the "hungry" form his orchard, in a moral sense. Therefore his refusal to act is not immoral. The positive action of forcing his hand (by way of theft) is.

    When an aggressive act is to be considered immoral, who it is being done to is to be considered. Shooting someone in the head against their will is surely aggressive but if it's done to a mass murderer to mete our justice it is less immoral than to shoot some innocent person.
    If he's in the act of killing someone, shooting him in the head to stop him would absolutely be a moral act. Doing so when he is not an active threat to someone (or you) is "revenge." I'm sure you have moral contempt for revenge.

    And really without rule of law, then when a father considers stealing an apple as a moral act, he has a whole plethora of moral issues to weigh:
    1. The act of "stealing" the apple
    2. Saving his child
    3. Who it's being taken from (in this case a truly horrible man)
    4. Is the man's "ownership" of the apples legitimate (that is open to debate)?
    5. The fact that the apple "owner" is intentionally trying to kill the child by denying the apple.

    So in considering the man's moral decision, I see no reason, from a moral standpoint, that the man must make #1 the overriding moral issue and based on that alone, decide that the other issues are to be ignored and has no choice but to decide that to take taking the apple is too immoral to do.
    There are so many problems here, and you're still refusing to acknowledge the very real difference between positive action and refusal to act. The two are not equal, even devoid of moral consideration. There's a fallacy for that, you know. The fallacy of the beard.

    There are only two moral considerations in my world:

    1) Is the act of taking the apple a violation of another's property?
    2) Did the owner of the orchard commit an act that violated the property of the child?

    If I answer yes, then the act is immoral. However, given what you've posed, only the first is "yes." So only the first is the immoral act, no matter how distasteful the child's death is, or how heartless the man is for refusing to give the apple to the child in the first place.

    I mean if you think that #1 is the most primary moral issue, then your opinion is noted. But I see no reason why I should agree with you on this. I mean if you're just saying "that's my opinion", then your opinion is noted and we're done (as purely subjective opinions are never objectively right or wrong and therefore you cannot be proven wrong and you cannot prove yourself to be right).
    It's not a matter of primary, Mican, it's a matter of only. The only questions of morality, are (in my opinion) questions of property ownership (or the violation thereof). Everything else is an emotional appeal.

    Under anarchy there is no rule of law so the monopolist does not own the orchard "under law" and likewise no one is legally obliged to recognize his ownership. So the people who live on the land decide that whatever grows on their land is theirs (and if they are not free to hold this opinion, then they are not living in an anarchy).
    If ownership is defined as "control of a thing to the exclusion of others" then the law doesn't dictate ownership, possession does.

    The owner sincerely feels he owns the apples and the people sincerely feel they own the apples.
    Who actually possesses the apples and how did that person come to be in possession?

    So why do you get to be the decider? Why are you more correct about this than someone who decides the people are the rightful owners and the monopolist is the aggressor?
    I make me right. My position is the most logically consistent given my basic assumptions. You're not going to find a logical flaw in my position, GIVEN my basic assumptions. What you're trying to do here is take my position with YOUR assumptions and cry foul. Of course my position doesn't follow logically from YOUR premises. YOU assume that I am obligated to save lives if I am able to save lives. I reject that premise. Our positions are never going jive without fundamental changes in first assumptions. This whole thing is really an exercise in futilty.

    And if you can't come up with an objective reason why one is more right than the other than taking apples is no more or less aggressive than dragging people from the orchard.
    You're asking me to judge a situation, morally. I have done so. Morality is ridiculously subjective, on the whole. I know you are aware of this. I'm not arguing that my moral compass is THE CORRECT (TM) moral compass.

    Well, it's a good thing you didn't give me the rep. I was not thinking of Bush when I said "decider" - just a fortunate accident. Still, I'm glad it amused you.
    That's too bad. Here I thought you had a sense of humor!!

    Okay. I fully accept that definition.

    And in my scenario the group of people who live on the land designate the monopolist attempting to deny them food in an attempt to kill them is not permissible behavior and likewise designates that they are entitled to the apples and therefore taking them is not stealing.
    I don't agree with them.

    Now, I understand the monopolist sees it differently but I see no reason that anyone else (like you or I) should agree with him. Is there any reason that I should see it his way? I mean he's a complete bastard for sure (I invented him that way) but that doesn't mean he's not technically right in his claim that he owns the apples. But I don't even see why I should think he's technically right. I mean it's nothing more than his opinion that he owns the apples and that what he did to get the apple orchard (inherited it from his Dad) gives him any more of a legitimate claim to the orchard than the people who live on the land's belief that their occupancy gives them a legitimate claim to the apples.
    If you accept my definition of ownership, legitimacy doesn't mitigate taking from him as somehow not "theiving." If you don't accept my definition of "ownership," please offer one.

    Except in situations where you don't have any moral options. A father letting his son die, when he could save him, is immoral. Likewise stealing food is immoral. And doing nothing is not an option (since doing nothing is letting his son die).
    There are ALWAYS moral options. They may suck balls, but they always exist.

    And I don't care if you don't consider letting one's son die to not be "immoral". It clearly fits the definition of the word as I understand the word so short of you proving that I'm not using the word correctly, it does stand as defined.
    So to you, the father commits an immoral act by not stealing in order to feed him? I can't agree with that.

    There are two apple orchards and these orchards clearly belong to the people. Now, two bad men, Joe and Moe, invade the land and steal the orchards from the people and likewise divide the people into two camps, one run by Joe and the other run by Moe. Now, at this point I assume that there's no debate that both Joe and Moe are immoral and equally so.
    Sure.

    In Joe's camp, he regularly collects apples and feeds them to the people. Moe, on the other hand, does not collect apples and forbids the people from entering the orchard. They are free to find food wherever else they can, but the reality is that there is no other food so without Moe giving the people apples, those in his camp will all die from starvation.

    Now, I'm sure there's no debate that Joe and Moe are immoral, but I think it's safe to say that Moe is worse than Joe. But then beyond the exact same actions that Joe took (stealing the orchard from the people and restricting their movements) Moe has done nothing different than the hypothetical monopolist has done (refused to give food to starving people).
    You're trying to get me to tell you which is "more immoral?" I do believe I've told you that I don't work like that. The immoral means of acquiring property isn't suddenly mitigated by the fact that one feeds the starving from the orchard he stole. They are both immoral. They are both liable for their individual thefts. "But I was nice to her after I raped her" doesn't mitigate rape, does it?

    So are you really going to say Moe (who has intentionally let half the town starve to death) is just as moral as Joe (who has fed people)?

    If so, not only does your moral compass differ from mine, it differs from practically everyone.
    I never claimed my ideas were popular.

    BS. Murder is the crime that:
    1. Is most severely punished in society
    2. Is most uniformly illegal in all societies
    3. Is seen as the "worst" crime by people in general.

    So this is a coincidence or is it that what people in general find to be the most horrendous of crimes are the ones that are most often illegal and carry the most severe punishment?
    Murder is defined, legally as "illegal killing." That means that because there are laws against sucide, no one can consent to being killed (legally), and people like Kavorkian are thrown in jail (assuming all of his patients really did want to die). It also means that *I* can be kidnapped (thrown in jail or held focibly in a mental institution) for trying to end my own life. In societies past, prolific ones at that, suicide was an honorable way to die. What "the law" chooses to define as "murder" is very subjective.

    If, in this society, the leaders did arbitrarily decide what is illegal and what should be punished, then not only would murder and singing in the shower be just as likely to be illegal and have random punishments, the people would quickly vote these jokers out of office and install legislators who would outlaw and give punishments for what the people want to be illegal.
    Ok, so their arbitrary behavior is "popular." That doesn't make it less arbitrary.

    Where does anarchy exist anywhere? And I see no reason to assume my scenario cannot happen. If it's not impossible, then it's possible.
    You cannot assume what "will" or "must" be in a specific situation. Possible, absolutely. Not likely, however, in an anarchist society. Let me go back to a previous post of mine...

    Quote Originally Posted by LP
    If we're talking about a successfully established anarchist society, the first conditions which must be met are a commonly held (not universally, mind you, just generally) belief that aggressive acts are immoral and that it is every individual's responsibility (not only right) to defend against aggressive violence, even if that defense means employing deadly force.
    "Commonly held" does not equal "universally held." So don't try to take that out of context. In such a society, it would be difficult to convince people, who had already believed, strongly, for a long time, that "harm" is immoral to commit "harm" for you (or some ideal). If gangs are necessarily so easy to form and so impossible to squash... then I may as well just give up. Because you're arguing that I have no hope of preventing such things from happening.

    For instance, in this society, an outlaw gang taking over a small town long-term is impossible. Even if the local police force is not strong enough to oppose them, then a stronger law enforcement contingent will be sent in, even the national guard if necessary. No matter what, the society will muster enough force to put down the gang.

    But under anarchy, there is no guarantee that the local police force can handle the gang and likewise there is no guarantee of help coming from other areas that is strong enough to take down the gang.
    So, in the case of a gang taking over an anarchist "community," the gang necessarily outnumbers the non-gang people in the community? The people living in an anarchist "community" aren't at all armed or otherwise prepared to defend their property? Are these assumptions you're asking me to make?

    Yes, but it stops such a series of killings from happening more frequently.
    So the Bloods and the Cryps are a figment of my imagination.

    No, I'm using logic and facts to support my argument.
    No, you're trying to apply your premises in place of my own, and tell me that I employ faulty logic. There may well be an error in my logic that I am unaware of, but you haven't brought anything to the table I haven't already considered. You cannot judge my conclusions by your premises (well, I guess you can, but it'd be a pointless endeavor).

    "x+1=y"

    LP: I assume x = 1, therefore y = 2.
    Mican: I assume x =2, therefore y=3.

    That's what we're doing here. Naturally our conclusions are going to differ. Unless one of us accepts the other's x, no matter how many times we add 1, y is going to be different.

    If someone wants to do something, is capable of doing something, and there's nothing preventing them from doing it, they are very likely to do it.
    I don't assume there's nothing preventing them from doing it. You assume that there are no consequences absent "law."

    So why wouldn't a society that has no rules against monopolies have more monopolies? I mean what businessman not want to have a monopoly and guaranteed profits (for he has the market locked up).
    No he isn't "guaranteed profits." I'm not going to entertain this idea again. A person who has a monopoly must still have customers. A monopoly is a business, a business which must make money to continue to exist. Not only does he FIRST have to have customers, he has to CONTINUE having customers. If at any point he doesn't have enough customers to at least equal the cost of sustaining that business, he's going to go out of business. Therefore, even as a monopoly, a business has incentive to not mistreat their customers.

    Monopolies are completely avoidable by having laws against monopoly.
    So there are no monopolies in the US today?

    ---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

    I guess that in the end, what should be stated here is that your argument against anarchy is that it's not preferrable. I've agreed that it's not "popular," in that we can conclude most people would agree with your assertion that anarchy is not preferrable.

    I find that anarchy is preferrable.

    Your argument is that *I* shouldn't find anarchy preferrable because anarchy would necessarily lead to more monopolies. I have argued that such may be true, but that doesn't change whether or not *I* find anarchy preferrable.

    Everything else is starting to obscure the topic to the point of not being related. If you want to continue, I'm fine with that. I just thought I'd point it out.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  4. #64
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    And if my best interests are different than yours?
    So we both don't need food and shelter and occasional medical attention?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Hitler didn't consider the jews a part of "the population."
    Hitler certainly realized that there were Jews living in the society and his decision was not to set policy that benefited everyone within the society but to get rid of a significant portion of the society.

    Like I said, it takes an extreme twist of logic (and now as you've demonstrated, semantic games), to make what I forwarded apply to what Hitler did.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So you've restated your moral judgment. That's not laying out the logic.
    Then you are asking me to do the impossible and likewise something you cannot do. No moral position can be logically proven as ultimately it all comes down to an opinion.

    I mean even saying it's better to save a child than to kill a child is morally correct is not proven. It's just an opinion that I hold. Sure, every sane person likewise holds the same moral position, but multiple opinions are just opinions and therefore are not provably correct .

    So if you're not even going to grant me the axiom that "It's better to save a life than take a life", then likewise your position that "aggression is bad" cannot be upheld as correct and therefore your whole argument, which is based on a moral position cannot be accepted.

    So I'll tell you what, first you logically show that "aggression is bad", then I'll logically show that "saving lives is morally correct."


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I don't care if the people view the apples as theirs, actually. Tell me how they came to possess the apples.
    The only literal definition of "possess" is what one has in his hands at the time. So by the literal definition, as soon as someone pulls the apple from the tree, they possess it. But of course you are talking about a more conceptual definition of "possession". And conceptually, the people hold the concept that "those who live on the land possess what the land bears" just as the monopolist holds the concept "Land ownership belongs to the person who financially paid for the land if he consents to give it to someone else, that person is the owner".

    Now under our current rule of law system, the monopolist is pretty much "the winner" as the law does say that legal ownership is based on a legal document (deed, I think it's called) and if the deed owner consents to sign the deed over to someone else (regardless of whether it's because he was paid of just volunteered to do so, like the monopolist's Dad gave the orchard to him), then legally the deed-owner is the possessor.

    But under Anarchy, there is no rule of law so no one is obliged to recognize the deed and, objectively, the people's concept of possession is no less valid than the monopolists. You weighing in on the side of monopolist is nothing more than your personal choice.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So now acting is equal to not acting? If I am morally obligated to save those people I am likewise morally obligated to save everyone who is at risk for death. That's a ridiculous expectation. Again, such refusal to act is disgusting, in my opinion, but not immoral. He did not harm those people by failing to save them. The people in the gas chamber scenario were harmed by the person who put the gas in the chamber, period, not by me because I failed to push the button.
    Again, I reject your definition of morality. I showed that the dictionary definition of morality boils down the nothing other than "right" or "wrong". And while no moral position can be proven to be correct, it's safe to say that everyone (with minor exceptions) would view having the option, at no risk to oneself and no sacrifice whatsoever, to save numerous lives but refraining to do so to be "wrong".

    Now, as I said, multiple moral opinions are still just opinions and you can no more prove any moral position than I can, so I will just forward that your version (or definition) of morality, as stated, is radically different than most people's.

    And I think going by what most people (especially a vast majority) would consider moral should be the "accepted" definition of morality for this debate.

    Otherwise, what is there to go on for accepted definition of what's moral? As far as I can see, it's nothing at all and therefore we must end the debate as there is no accepted definition of morality for this debate and therefore a moral debate is futile.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Why do you always jump to a monopoly appears out of thin air? Tell me how that's remotely possible. Then tell me why people are patronizing a business when they know his intentions.
    Well, my scenario is that the monopolist inherited it from his Dad. So his Dad formed the monopoly from buying out all competition (that's possible). Then Dad gave the monopoly to his son (also possible). Then the son decided to use the monopoly as a means to kill off everyone of a certain race by setting policy that those people shall not be sold to (also possible). And as far as why those who are allowed to buy will buy - if he's the only source of food, then they either buy or they die and people seem to rate survival as a primary motivation.

    And even if the son destroys the monopoly with his new policy, it doesn't matter in terms of the debate. The question is whether what he is doing is right or wrong. And clearly it is wrong. It IS immoral (maybe not by your definition, but by practically everyone else' definition it is).



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    In YOUR opinion, perhaps.

    It may be that I am less concerned with the deaths of people who commit acts of aggression than you are, because I wouldn't argue that there should be fewer acts of self-defense (which would probably result in more death of aggressors). There would be fewer deaths at the hands of aggressors if aggressors were effectively stopped by their intended victims the first time. Fewer people would find aggressive acts worth the risk to their lives. In that way, I don't think "fewer killings (period)" is preferrable to "fewer murders (which are inherently aggressive)." But I don't believe that state offers me either solution, readily.
    No, I believe laws against murder results in fewer deaths of innocent people, not aggressors. There's already laws allowing for self-defense killings so the current laws make it much more illegal to kill an innocent than kill an aggressor.

    Make it not illegal to kill either, then the comparative deaths of the innocent should rise.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    It's arbitrary when police have the ability to decide who they give a ticket, or who they charge with possession, or judges who they give probation and who they give jail time.
    The police give speeding tickets to people who are speeding, not to drivers at random (and I have done ride-alongs with police and I've noticed they are very consistent on pulling over people who go over the speed limit by a certain amount - I've never seen them pull over someone who was going less than ten miles under the speed limit or refrain from pulling someone who was going more than ten miles over the speed limit).

    The police arrest those who have drugs on them for possession, not people at random.

    And a judge does not give out parole based on a lottery, but based on guidelines. If someone is not eligible for parole for twenty-five years, he won't be out on parole after ten years.

    I'm not saying there is never any chaos or randomness in law enforcement, but the general descriptor of "arbitrary" in no way stands up to scrutiny.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I don't want such a thing. Where's my consideration?
    Well, where's your consideration for everyone else? If people don't want to live under anarchy, then why are you advocating it in general?

    I mean I think there should be more room for compromise and that you should be able, to some extent, disengage from this society, like start a commune somewhere that is free from much of our society's edicts and live in a more anarchist fashion (but still, if your commune is killing its own members I'm all for US law enforcement intervening).

    But my point is rule of law serves the interests of the people better than anarchy does.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Except the asshole who's trying to steal it from you while you sleep. Where's he included in "all?"
    Actually, he does recognize it as my property when he steals it. If he actually thought it belonged to him, he'd accuse me of stealing his property.

    Burglars know they are taking things that don't belong to them.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I assume that people should not be compelled to associate (and likewise not associate) with whomever they choose, for whatever reason. You obviously disagree. I don't think arguing about it here is going to change that fact.
    I do not disagree. But I think sometimes there are higher considerations. For instance, locking someone in prison is forcing them to associate with people they don't want to associate and I recognize that as a negative thing about locking people up in prison. But I think there's a higher concern justifying locking up criminals in prison that overrides that negative.

    I think that's a common difference in our positions here. You seemed focused on one moral issue only as if it's #1 and all else is a "lesser" consideration. While I do acknowledge that (generally) what you consider to be immoral is immoral, I recognize numerous other moral issues (some of which you, despite practically unanimous agreement by others that are "immoral", do not recognize) that may override that concern.

    Again, just because I think locking up criminals is worth the immorality of forced association does not mean that I don't think forced association is immoral. Sometimes there are no clearly moral options and it's just deciding what is the lesser of two weavels (tossing in a joke there which you may or may not get).



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    How does being "better" ever equate to "being more deserving of life?" I believe everyone is equal in their "right" (read entitlement) to provide for their own lives to the best of their ability. But I don't believe anyone is inherently entitled to life, period.
    I didn't say everyone was entitled to life, but that everyone is "equal".

    Let me put it this way, are you entitled to life anymore than I am, or Joe is, or Mary is, or Frank is?

    If not, which one of us is more entitled to life? If you say we are "equally" entitled to life, then we are all equal. If you don't say we are equally entitled to life, then why is one of us more entitled than someone else?


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    And I've defined "ownership" as "control of a thing to the exclusion of all others." So if I didn't control something, myself, I surely didn't own it. Is that what you're talking about here? I'm too lazy to look two posts ago to figure it out.
    Well, by that definition, once someone gets the apple out of the orchard they have control it to the exclusion of all others" (even if the apple is legally owned by someone else) and therefore owns it.

    Now, I'm not trying to be cute, here. I'm guessing we're miscommunicating.

    You earlier said that that is one legitimately owns something, then they are the owners and as I've pointed out, "legitimacy" is in the eye of the beholder (especially moreso when there's no rule of law "officially" making someone the owner).

    So in the apple orchard scenario, I see no reason to objectively consider a person taking the apple from the orchard to feed his child either "theft" or particularly immoral (at least so immoral that it overrides the moral positives of his action).




    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    No anarchist society, nay no society would exist without a common understanding of property ownership, despite whether or not I agree with that "understanding" in general. Such a people would be chaotic and bloody.
    And it's not a given that anarchy will not be chaotic and bloody so this is not a valid argument about why anarchy will have recognized ownership amongst the people.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    If, as in the case of today, property is defined as "legal possession" then naturally, without the law, the concept of property would disintegrate, and there would be turmoil until such time as a common understanding of property emerged.
    But if it's there's rules on what defines property and ownership that people inherently obey, then you have rule of law.

    I mean I can certainly understand a scenario that within a certain community, to keep the peace, that people voluntarily recognize others' property as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    But "anarchy" as I have always described it, is not simply chaotic bloodshed in the absence of state.
    I agree that there are many other ways of living that would fit the definition of anarchy, but chaotic bloodshed everywhere would certainly fit the definition of anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    That's "chatoic bloodshed" and in those situations there is surely a "ruler" of one sort or another.
    I don't need to follow a ruler to kill my neighbors.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    An "Anarchist society" (if one existed) would have gotten beyond that already, and thus would have established a common understanding with regard to ownership (if it should even exist at that point).
    But regardless, the only recognized ownership is what one chooses to recognize. Once one person ceases to recognize ownership of a particular something, then it is no longer owned.

    For instance, if you and I live in the same community and you are always driving around in this car, we, the community, may recognize it as "your" car because it just makes life easier to do so and because we hold enough respect for you to grant you ownership of something you seem to care about. But there is no outside force making us grant you ownership of the car and if we, for some reason, decide to not recognize your ownership, then that's all it takes for you to no longer own the car (in our eyes).

    And it's the same thing with the apple orchard. It's up to the people to decide if the monopolist, in their eyes, owns the apple orchard. And if they do not recognize his ownership nor do they believe it is in their best interest to grant him "ownership" (and if he's starving them, it's clearly not in their best interest), then he no longer owns the apple orchard as far as they are concerned. And likewise if I, as a neutral observer (let's say I'm brought in from somewhere else entirely to observe the situation), am under no obligation whatsoever to take the monopolist's side in the issue of who owns the apple orchard. Is there any reason, without rule of law, I must side with the monopolist?



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Ah! So you're saying that my principle leaves out gifting.
    Because it does. You do not earn what is gifted to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    If you don't believe that my principle affords such, then assume the spoiled brat traded his company with his parents for the property he received.
    Well, if you'll concede that if he got the land as a gift he has no moral ownership of the land, then I'll make that assumption.

    If you don't concede that, then you need to make a counter-argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I have already stated that I don't play this "quantification of immorality" game.
    No, you're playing the semantics game instead.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    If two acts are immoral they are both immoral, but, absent lying/cheating/stealing, the man who owns the orchard is not obligated to feed the "hungry" form his orchard, in a moral sense. Therefore his refusal to act is not immoral. The positive action of forcing his hand (by way of theft) is.
    But then I am not going by your definition of morality.

    It is wrong to buy up people's access to food and then starve them to death by refusing to allow them access to food, even if they are willing to make some effort to earn the food (such as paying for it). Again, I am quite positive that everyone, if asked whether this is immoral, would say "yes".

    If you want to challenge this assertion, I'd be happy to make an ODN poll about this.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    If ownership is defined as "control of a thing to the exclusion of others" then the law doesn't dictate ownership, possession does.
    But the only objective definition of "possession" is physical possession of an object. A person grabs an apple from the tree and while it's in his hand, he has possession of it. "I own it because I live on the land" and "I own it because my Dad gave me this orchard" are both conceptual versions of ownership and neither are objectively superior to the other.

    I mean I side with the first reasoning and you apparently side with the second reasoning. And unless either of us can objectively prove that our preferred reasoning is correct (and I concede I cannot do so and believe you cannot neither), all we have are opinions.

    As a matter of fact, I Challenge to support a claim. you to show that what I assume is your preferred rationale for ownership is objectively superior to mine. If you can't, then you must concede that neither are objectively superior and therefore the monopolist does not objectively have more of a right to the apples than the people do.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    That's too bad. Here I thought you had a sense of humor!!
    I do. Check out the jokes and videos I contributed to the humor forum (as well as my weavel joke above - but if you didn't see the movie it's from, it probably doesn't make much sense)


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    If you accept my definition of ownership, legitimacy doesn't mitigate taking from him as somehow not "theiving." If you don't accept my definition of "ownership," please offer one.
    Sure, if it's commonly recognized with in a society that someone owns something, then he owns it. So in the car scenario above, even under anarchy if your community consents that you own that car you drive, then you own it. And in a rule-of-law society, people generally agree with the society's rules of ownership so it's pretty easy to figure who owns what (usually - nothing's perfect).

    And in my apple orchard scenario under anarchy, if the people do not commonly recognize the monopolist's ownership of the apple orchard, it can't be said that he officially owns it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    You're trying to get me to tell you which is "more immoral?" I do believe I've told you that I don't work like that. The immoral means of acquiring property isn't suddenly mitigated by the fact that one feeds the starving from the orchard he stole. They are both immoral. They are both liable for their individual thefts. "But I was nice to her after I raped her" doesn't mitigate rape, does it?
    No, but I'm sure everyone will agree that raping and killing her is more immoral than just raping her.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Murder is defined, legally as "illegal killing." That means that because there are laws against sucide, no one can consent to being killed (legally), and people like Kavorkian are thrown in jail (assuming all of his patients really did want to die).
    Actually, now euthanasia is legal in many states. And if your point is that rule-of-law is not perfect, I'll concede that right now.

    I'm just saying it's better than anarchy. I mean under anarchy, if a nursing home decides to go out of business and figures it'd be easier to euthanatize all of its residents, it won't be illegal and if the owner gets away fast enough, there's much less of a chance of him ever being punished for it than in a rule-of-law society (which likewise makes such a thing happening more likely).



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Ok, so their arbitrary behavior is "popular." That doesn't make it less arbitrary.
    If you do it for a reason, then it's not arbitrary. And laws being made that reflect the will of the people are being made for a very specific reason.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    "Commonly held" does not equal "universally held." So don't try to take that out of context. In such a society, it would be difficult to convince people, who had already believed, strongly, for a long time, that "harm" is immoral to commit "harm" for you (or some ideal). If gangs are necessarily so easy to form and so impossible to squash... then I may as well just give up. Because you're arguing that I have no hope of preventing such things from happening.
    I'm not saying what definitely will or will not happen, only what is more likely to happen under anarchy. And under anarchy, a gang taking over a town is more likely than it is under rule of law.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So, in the case of a gang taking over an anarchist "community," the gang necessarily outnumbers the non-gang people in the community? The people living in an anarchist "community" aren't at all armed or otherwise prepared to defend their property? Are these assumptions you're asking me to make?
    All I'm saying is that such a thing is possible under anarchy. So unless you are telling me that such a thing is impossible under anarchy, then it remains possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So the Bloods and the Cryps are a figment of my imagination.
    They are not. Nor do they rule an entire city. Under anarchy, it might be different story.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I don't assume there's nothing preventing them from doing it. You assume that there are no consequences absent "law."
    Show me where I said that. I said that monopolies are more likely to occur when there are no rules against them and that makes all of the sense in the world.




    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    No he isn't "guaranteed profits." I'm not going to entertain this idea again. A person who has a monopoly must still have customers. A monopoly is a business, a business which must make money to continue to exist. Not only does he FIRST have to have customers, he has to CONTINUE having customers. If at any point he doesn't have enough customers to at least equal the cost of sustaining that business, he's going to go out of business. Therefore, even as a monopoly, a business has incentive to not mistreat their customers.
    I am going to support my argument that as long as you are selling something that people need, you have a monopoly and are taking any reasonable action to make a profit (obviously if you never sell your product you won't make a profit), you ARE guaranteed profits and if you don't rebut it, it stands (so even if you ignore the argument, you are not rebutting it and it stands).

    First off, if people need what you sell (like food), there is a guaranteed customer base for your product. Right?

    So if you sell food and there's nowhere else besides your monopoly where people can get food, it's guaranteed that people will buy food from you (I mean we aren't going to discount the survival instinct overriding all else in at least some people).

    So with guaranteed customers and selling food at a price where you are taking in more money than it takes to produce and sell the food, profits are guaranteed.

    Seriously, short of everyone losing their survival instinct or the owner of the monopoly not selling food or choosing to not sell it at a price that earns him a profit, how can he not make a profit if he has a monopoly (and saying people will get their food from elsewhere is not a valid answer as that would indicate that he doesn't have a monopoly)?


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Your argument is that *I* shouldn't find anarchy preferrable because anarchy would necessarily lead to more monopolies. I have argued that such may be true, but that doesn't change whether or not *I* find anarchy preferrable.

    Everything else is starting to obscure the topic to the point of not being related. If you want to continue, I'm fine with that. I just thought I'd point it out.
    Well, I'm basing my argument on what is preferable for most people, not you.

    If people, in general, would be happier with rule of law than anarchy, then rule-of-law is the way to go.

    So really, the arguments about what people in general prefer or consider "moral" is relevant.

    I mean if this debate is centered on your opinion only, then there is nothing to debate. I mean even "murder is wrong" is not something I can support if you feel it's not wrong and the only criteria is whether you think it's right or wrong. If you think it's not immoral to murder then there's nothing to debate as it's an indisputable fact that whatever opinion you hold is the opinion you hold.

    But I said from the get-go that I'm forwarding what is in the best interest of people in general and therefore I am forwarding fact-based arguments on what I believe is best for people based on what people seem to desire (like not getting killed and "officially" owning property and having competition in industry instead of monopolies.

    So if you want, I'll gladly concede that whatever opinion you hold is your opinion and there's no way to change it.

    BUT I do not at all concede my argument that, for people in general, what we have now is preferable to anarchy. As far as I'm concerned, I've successfully made my case for this and it stands until it's rebutted.

  5. #65
    ODN Administrator

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

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I'm basing my argument on what is preferable for most people, not you.
    Then there's really nothing to argue. I conceded how many posts ago that most people prefer not to live in anarchy...?

    If people, in general, would be happier with rule of law than anarchy, then rule-of-law is the way to go.
    I agree that this is the popular opinion. What I'm not going to agree to is that "might equals right" is either a logical or moral basis for "designing" a social structure.

    I mean even "murder is wrong" is not something I can support if you feel it's not wrong and the only criteria is whether you think it's right or wrong. If you think it's not immoral to murder then there's nothing to debate as it's an indisputable fact that whatever opinion you hold is the opinion you hold.
    No, and I'm going to counter what you said that I've clipped about logical conclusions.

    I've been wondering for a time if you and I employ "logic" similarly. It would seem that we don't. This really helps me to understand better where you're coming from.

    It is my understanding that logic is simply the measuring of consistency of conclusions with premises. It is quite possible for us to determine "logical truth" without determining factual (or empirical) truth. We have no hope of determining the factual truth of morality, you're absolutely right. But we can absolutely use logic to determine the consistency of morality from starting assumptions or premises.

    But I said from the get-go that I'm forwarding what is in the best interest of people in general and therefore I am forwarding fact-based arguments on what I believe is best for people based on what people seem to desire (like not getting killed and "officially" owning property and having competition in industry instead of monopolies.
    "Fact-based" and "I believe" don't belong in the same sentence. If it's "fact-based" it's not something you "believe" it's something you "know." But I think that's another conversation for another day. I haven't argued that most people prefer anarchy, so this counter is to an argument I haven't made.

    So if you want, I'll gladly concede that whatever opinion you hold is your opinion and there's no way to change it.

    BUT I do not at all concede my argument that, for people in general, what we have now is preferable to anarchy. As far as I'm concerned, I've successfully made my case for this and it stands until it's rebutted.
    I have never once argued against that people, today, prefer what we have now to anarchy.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  6. #66
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I agree that this is the popular opinion. What I'm not going to agree to is that "might equals right" is either a logical or moral basis for "designing" a social structure.
    But the axiom I'm forwarding is not "might makes right" but "what works best for most of the people is the correct system to go with". The fact is unless you are going to live all alone somewhere, you have to deal with other people and that there has to be a way to deal with conflicting desires and needs (and certainly who owns what has a lot of potential for conflict) and mistreatment from other citizens (murder, rape, theft, etc) and I think whatever system works the best for the largest amount of people is the best way to go.

    I'm not saying this is what would happen, but let's say we instituted anarchy and it did turn into a bloody chaotic mad-max situation (where might truly makes right). Now, even with this horrible situation, there would still be the benefit of no government intrusion into one's privacy or coercion by the state regardless of the negatives of being run down by Lord Humongous' hordes. But if it turns out that people are suffering greatly under anarchy and that they'd gladly trade the negatives for the rule of law for the positives, then rule of law is preferable.

    So to make is clear, the axiom I'm going by is "what works best for most of the people is the correct system to go with". There can be debate on "what is best for the people", but if your challenging the axiom, then you need to either provide an objective moral reason for this being an incorrect axiom (as opposed to just opining that you prefer something else) or else you must accept it for the basis of this debate (and then debate that anarchy is best for most of the people). If you don't accept the axiom as the basis for the debate (or objectively counter it), then we are not having the same debate.

    I mean I've already conceded that your opinion is your opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    It is my understanding that logic is simply the measuring of consistency of conclusions with premises. It is quite possible for us to determine "logical truth" without determining factual (or empirical) truth. We have no hope of determining the factual truth of morality, you're absolutely right. But we can absolutely use logic to determine the consistency of morality from starting assumptions or premises.
    And my starting assumption is "what system is the best for most people is the preferable system". And I really don't see how this can be that controversial.

    I mean I do think, within the system, there should be the way for those who prefer anarchy to live like they want to (in a separate community) and while I do advocate rule of law, I think power should be more decentralized than it is now in our society (more power at the local level instead of the federal level). So I'm not saying our current system it perfect by any means but in general having rule of law is preferable to no rule of law.

    So I'm even for allowing those who want to live in anarchy to be able to do so (since that would make an even better system for the most people) but I'm saying in general, anarchy is not preferable to rule of law because it will, in general, not benefit most people and the system that will benefit most people is the preferred system.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    "Fact-based" and "I believe" don't belong in the same sentence. If it's "fact-based" it's not something you "believe" it's something you "know." But I think that's another conversation for another day.
    1. I really don't mind that you skipped over almost everything I wrote last time to make things more concise (I felt generating responses was taking more time than I wanted to spend), but I don't see much reason to make one of the things you leave in irrelevant nit-picking.

    2. And those two things certainly can go in the same sentence. I organized facts into an argument that I believe is correct. Just because an argument is based on facts does not mean it's automatically correct - perhaps there's a logical flaw or perhaps the facts don't back up the argument like I think they, do. Just because my argument employs facts, it does not mean that I have no room for doubt and therefore I can certainly say I believe my argument is correct instead of saying I know it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I have never once argued against that people, today, prefer what we have now to anarchy.
    But then if all you're telling me is what you prefer, then you haven't given me anything I can debate.

    I mean what is my rebuttal? "No, you don't prefer anarchy"???

    So I'll tell you what. Assuming the axiom "what works best for most people is the best system to have" is a correct axiom, do you concede that anarchy is not better than rule of law?

    And I should point out, it's not a question of popularity. If people thinkrule of law is better but in actuality they would be happier under anarchy (they just don't know it), then anarchy is better per my axiom. As an example, most people are not for drug legalization but I think legalizing drugs is preferable and it would be better for people in general so I forward that under the same axiom (and believe that once they experience the effects of legalization, people will see that I was right and those who are against it were wrong).

    So do you concede that based on my axiom, anarchy is not preferable to rule of law (when rule of law is employed for the general benefit of the people, that is)?
    Last edited by mican333; February 5th, 2010 at 11:18 AM.

  7. #67
    ODN Administrator

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

    Re: Anarchy.

    This...
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "what works best for most of the people is the correct system to go with".
    Does not equal...

    "what system is the best for most people is the preferable system".
    "works best" is not the same as "is best."

    What's more, if you really want me to make this assessment without including what people think is best for them (i.e. appealing to popularity), you're smuggling the premise that I can judge (objectively or otherwise) what is best for OTHER people. Since I would reject any attempt by others to make such an assumption on my behalf, I refuse to make such a judgment for anyone but myself.

    I'm not saying this is what would happen, but let's say we instituted anarchy and it did turn into a bloody chaotic mad-max situation (where might truly makes right).
    So you're saying that it's not an anarchist society? Because anarchy literally means "without rulers." If I recall, "society" in Mad Max was ruled by street thugs.

    But if it turns out that people are suffering greatly under anarchy and that they'd gladly trade the negatives for the rule of law for the positives, then rule of law is preferable.
    So you ARE appealing to popularity. "If the PEOPLE think it's best, then it's what we should go with."

    So to make is clear, the axiom I'm going by is "what works best for most of the people is the correct system to go with". There can be debate on "what is best for the people",
    But you made both of these statements in your reply as "the axiom" you're going with. Not that it matters. Both share equally in a conceit I cannot entertain.

    you need to either provide an objective moral reason for this being an incorrect axiom (as opposed to just opining that you prefer something else) or else you must accept it for the basis of this debate (and then debate that anarchy is best for most of the people). If you don't accept the axiom as the basis for the debate (or objectively counter it), then we are not having the same debate.
    "Objective moral reason..." You know as well as I do that this isn't possible. There is no such thing as objective morality. So you're saying here is effectively, "Accept these premises or there is no debate..." Which you could have just said. I've said it on a number of occasions in this very thread. You can't debate hypotheticals about MY idea of what an anarchy would be without accepting MY premises. It's simply not possible.

    So in the end, the answer is that I will not accept the smuggled premise that I must decide what is (or works) best for other people.

    I mean I do think, within the system, there should be the way for those who prefer anarchy to live like they want to (in a separate community) and while I do advocate rule of law, I think power should be more decentralized than it is now in our society (more power at the local level instead of the federal level). So I'm not saying our current system it perfect by any means but in general having rule of law is preferable to no rule of law.

    So I'm even for allowing those who want to live in anarchy to be able to do so (since that would make an even better system for the most people) but I'm saying in general, anarchy is not preferable to rule of law because it will, in general, not benefit most people and the system that will benefit most people is the preferred system.
    Noble to be sure, but unlikely given the nature of state, as we know it today. Still, I appreciate it.

    1. I really don't mind that you skipped over almost everything I wrote last time to make things more concise (I felt generating responses was taking more time than I wanted to spend), but I don't see much reason to make one of the things you leave in irrelevant nit-picking.

    2. And those two things certainly can go in the same sentence. I organized facts into an argument that I believe is correct. Just because an argument is based on facts does not mean it's automatically correct - perhaps there's a logical flaw or perhaps the facts don't back up the argument like I think they, do. Just because my argument employs facts, it does not mean that I have no room for doubt and therefore I can certainly say I believe my argument is correct instead of saying I know it is.
    It wasn't clear to me what you were declaring you "knew" and what you "believed." I imagine it could have be worded better. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that you "believed" the "facts."

    And I should point out, it's not a question of popularity. If people thinkrule of law is better but in actuality they would be happier under anarchy (they just don't know it), then anarchy is better per my axiom. As an example, most people are not for drug legalization but I think legalizing drugs is preferable and it would be better for people in general so I forward that under the same axiom (and believe that once they experience the effects of legalization, people will see that I was right and those who are against it were wrong).

    So do you concede that based on my axiom, anarchy is not preferable to rule of law (when rule of law is employed for the general benefit of the people, that is)?
    Ok... You've done two things in this paragraph.

    1) You're telling me here that I needn't appeal to popularity, but earlier you implied that I should. I'm really rather confused. Either it is best, or it works best... either the people think it's best, or I think it's best... I'm really unclear what's expected of me here.

    2) You're suggesting that I can assume, as a part of my argumentation, a shift in the beliefs of "people" in a general sense. If that's the case, why is it so difficult for you to accept the premise, "if an anarchist society were to exist, we must assume that most people shared a common moral contempt for aggressive violence?" There's no difference between that and, "given time, people would no longer have moral contempt for the legality of drugs." At least, not that I can tell.

    ---------- Post added at 09:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 AM ----------

    I'm going to add to this an afterthought...

    With the comment, "what works best for most people is the best system to have" there is another smuggled premise. In saying "works" you're asking me to assume that there are two things which have existed to be compared. I do not accept that an "anarchist society" as I envision it has ever existed, and therefore there is nothing to compare. Logically, that's fine, because we don't want to appeal to tradition by saying, "Well it hasn't ever worked before therefore it cannot work." But I want to make sure you acknowledge I'm talking about assumptions and speculations, not observed (empirical) examples which have come to pass during the course of human existence.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  8. #68
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    This... Does not equal... "works best" is not the same as "is best."
    I don't see the difference. The system that works best is the best. And the one that is the best will work the best.

    Frankly, if all that's left to debate here is such minutia, let's hang it up. And if it's REALLY important to settle on one of those two words, I'll settle on "IS".

    I've made it clear what my position is and I have to assume you know what I mean and likewise basing the preferable system on what IS best for most people is very reasonable criteria to determine what is "best" in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    What's more, if you really want me to make this assessment without including what people think is best for them (i.e. appealing to popularity), you're smuggling the premise that I can judge (objectively or otherwise) what is best for OTHER people. Since I would reject any attempt by others to make such an assumption on my behalf, I refuse to make such a judgment for anyone but myself.
    But I am not going by what's most popular, but what will work the best for people (even if they don't know that it will work the best for most people). For instance, I think drug legalization will work the best for most people and yet I recognize that it's unpopular. And I (and you) are certainly capable of mounting arguments about what's best for people.

    Do we need to debate whether a land of people who all have food and shelter and everyone has a decent job and purpose and there's no crime is better for most people then a mad-max style existence with starvation and people have to scavenge for food to live?

    I will respect the opinion of anyone who says they prefer the mad-max style of living (it might be very exciting), but I think it would be bad for most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So you're saying that it's not an anarchist society? Because anarchy literally means "without rulers." If I recall, "society" in Mad Max was ruled by street thugs.
    Let's not nit-pick. I didn't literally mean the movies, but a bloody scenario of anarchy as an example (and not to say that's what would happen).


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    But you made both of these statements in your reply as "the axiom" you're going with. Not that it matters. Both share equally in a conceit I cannot entertain.
    But again, the debate I'm having here is whether Anarchy is better for people in general than what we have now. And I am basing on what is best for most people.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    "Objective moral reason..." You know as well as I do that this isn't possible. There is no such thing as objective morality.
    And that's my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So you're saying here is effectively, "Accept these premises or there is no debate..." Which you could have just said.
    I kind of assumed that it was clear what the premise of this debate is from the get-go.


    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I've said it on a number of occasions in this very thread. You can't debate hypotheticals about MY idea of what an anarchy would be without accepting MY premises. It's simply not possible.
    So I'm suppose to allow you to define anarchy as opposed to going with a common definition of anarchy?



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    So in the end, the answer is that I will not accept the smuggled premise that I must decide what is (or works) best for other people.
    Then you refuse to rebut my position on the matter and therefore my position stands.




    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    1) You're telling me here that I needn't appeal to popularity, but earlier you implied that I should. I'm really rather confused. Either it is best, or it works best... either the people think it's best, or I think it's best... I'm really unclear what's expected of me here.
    The argument is over what is best for people in general.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    2) You're suggesting that I can assume, as a part of my argumentation, a shift in the beliefs of "people" in a general sense. If that's the case, why is it so difficult for you to accept the premise, "if an anarchist society were to exist, we must assume that most people shared a common moral contempt for aggressive violence?"
    Because that is not relevant to what is being debated. The debate is whether anarchy is better than what we have today. And when engaging in the debate, we have to factor things as they are. If I don't think people will fair well under anarchy, then of course I'm not going to accept as a premise that people are different than they are now.

    I mean if you want me to concede that if people were to change into beings that would live much better under anarchy, then anarchy would be better for them, I'll concede that right now. And likewise if people changed into people who would live best under communism, then communism would be the best system.

    But I'm saying that given how people are today in the real world, anarchy is not a better system.



    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    There's no difference between that and, "given time, people would no longer have moral contempt for the legality of drugs." At least, not that I can tell.
    But I didn't argue that people losing contempt for drugs is a reason we should legalize them. As a matter of fact, I don't think people will lose contempt for the harder drugs. But I'm saying that legalizing drugs is still beneficial regardless of moral opinion.

    I am using drug legalization as an example of something that:
    1. Is better for people in general
    2. Unpopular
    To show that what is best and what is popular are not necessarily the same.




    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    With the comment, "what works best for most people is the best system to have" there is another smuggled premise. In saying "works" you're asking me to assume that there are two things which have existed to be compared. I do not accept that an "anarchist society" as I envision it has ever existed, and therefore there is nothing to compare. Logically, that's fine, because we don't want to appeal to tradition by saying, "Well it hasn't ever worked before therefore it cannot work." But I want to make sure you acknowledge I'm talking about assumptions and speculations, not observed (empirical) examples which have come to pass during the course of human existence.
    Sure. But that doesn't mean I can't mount logic and evidence based arguments against anarchy based on reasonable assumptions based on what we do know.

  9. #69
    ODN Administrator

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

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if it's REALLY important to settle on one of those two words, I'll settle on "IS".
    Ok.

    But I am not going by what's most popular, but what will work the best for people (even if they don't know that it will work the best for most people). For instance, I think drug legalization will work the best for most people and yet I recognize that it's unpopular. And I (and you) are certainly capable of mounting arguments about what's best for people.
    No. Not really. If I were in the business of assuming what was best for people, I'd have no problem imposing my will upon them. That's the difference here. I prefer to let people make their own decisions about what's best for them. I can certainly hope that given time people will prefer freedom to an illusion of security, but I am not going to argue that my position is somehow objectively "correct."

    Do we need to debate whether a land of people who all have food and shelter and everyone has a decent job and purpose and there's no crime is better for most people then a mad-max style existence with starvation and people have to scavenge for food to live?
    This would hold true if people all had food and decent jobs, today. How many jobless and homeless and hungry are there in the US alone?

    Let's not nit-pick. I didn't literally mean the movies, but a bloody scenario of anarchy as an example (and not to say that's what would happen).
    But that's not an anarchist scenario.

    But again, the debate I'm having here is whether Anarchy is better for people in general than what we have now. And I am basing on what is best for most people.
    What is best for most people, Mican? Who are you to make that judgement?

    So I'm suppose to allow you to define anarchy as opposed to going with a common definition of anarchy?
    You're supposed to accept the definitions provided in the OP, if they're provided. "Anarchy" is defined in the OP. Amazingly, I didn't know that until just now, I don't think I ever fully read the OP. But I'll tell you, it's the same definition I've been working from this whole time. Imagine that.

    Then you refuse to rebut my position on the matter and therefore my position stands.
    Your position stands because I find it undebateable. That does not make it "correct."

    Because that is not relevant to what is being debated. The debate is whether anarchy is better than what we have today. And when engaging in the debate, we have to factor things as they are. If I don't think people will fair well under anarchy, then of course I'm not going to accept as a premise that people are different than they are now.
    This is beyond silly. This is how it started.

    You: What if the monopoly hiked up the prices so no one could afford bread?
    Me: There'd be a market for cheaper bread.

    It wasn't really my intention to get any deeper than that. There are mechanisms that do not involve law for dealing with ALL SORTS of ills, even ills by businesses which aren't monopolies. Also there are monopolies even today, with the law all around us. If your objection is that "anarchy isn't better because monopolies might exist in an anarchy," that argument simply doesn't wash.

    Your next objection?

    But I'm saying that given how people are today in the real world, anarchy is not a better system.
    Given the understanding I have of most people today (and what "anarchy" has been defined as in the OP), I would argue that anarchy isn't even possible, so aruging about whether or not it COULD BE (I still don't appreciate your use of "is" as though we have empirical knowledge of such a system, today) a better system, if instituted rigth this second, with circumstances exactly as they are, is moot.

    Sure. But that doesn't mean I can't mount logic and evidence based arguments against anarchy based on reasonable assumptions based on what we do know.
    Of course not. What you're arguing, however, isn't logical, is poorly defined, and as far as I'm concerned, your assumptions aren't remotely "reasonable."

    If you want to call what happens the day after the US government unexpectedly disappears out from "over" people "anarchy," then of course I would argue that is not a preferrable situation. It's not preferrable for ME, and I'm an anarchist. That right there should tell you that you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes anarchy. Given that the OP and I have a very similar working idea about what "anarchy" is (at least for the purposes of THIS thread), I'm certainly not violating HIS assumptions by my argumentation. Granted, his arguments could have been worded better (which is why I hate jumping into threads about anarchy that I didn't create). But if, as the OP suggests, "anarchy" is a system of strictly "voluntary" human interaction, and "harm" is, as I'm sure most anarchists would agree, the "depriving of other individuals' ability to interact voluntarily," then this...

    But if I'm running the business, isn't the "right way", the way that benefits me the most and likewise harms my competition the most?
    Is not going to generally going to be a problem. A society centered around voluntary human interaction isn't going go around making people interact involuntarily (i.e. cause "harm") as a part of the established "norm."

    It seems that everything, including the post I initially replied to was simply an effort to pick apart that idea. "But it's possible." Of course it's possible. Pretty much everything is possible under all systems. I'm sure no one is arguing that it isn't possible. What you're offering with your bread company and your apple orchard are scenarios which, if this sort of society (as defined in the OP as being primarily concerned with "voluntary" human interaction) is UNLIKELY to occur.

    So. Here's the part where you either accept the definition of anarchy as supplied by the OP (the definition I've been working from this whole time), or you start your own thread with your own definitions.

    Be warned, however, if you do, and you allow for sudden fall of state to be labelled "anarchy," like you see in Mad Max, or in PZ's "Anarchy today!" thread... you won't be arguing against what anarchists on ODN advocate, so you're not likely to find much opposition.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  10. #70
    Kaisen
    Guest

    Cool Re: Anarchy.

    I must say that I completely agree with this post. As is already evident, too much power is being placed in too little of people. Individuals would select their own standards and it wouldn't always be a fight for life, peace would be more dominant.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Anarchy today in the USA!
    By Prime Zombie in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: January 4th, 2010, 06:11 PM
  2. Impermissible Anarchy!
    By Elutherian in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2009, 04:01 PM
  3. Anarchy
    By Skitzofrenia in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 29th, 2008, 03:21 PM
  4. Anarchy Online
    By Turtleflipper in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 30th, 2006, 08:14 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
  •