Questions about anarchy

[sjw]

1. I define minarchism as a totalitarian usurpation of the rights of the individuals living in some vast swath of land. Or something along these lines.

... are you saying you are a totalitarian? Keep in mind that I asked you about YOUR position.

If that is indeed what you are saying, then why exactly do you expect us to take anything you say seriously?

How many times do I have to say that I'm not a minarchist? If I were forced to choose between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, I'd choose the former. But I think that is a false choice.

You seem to have a difficult time imagining various alternative interpretations than the most absurd one that your interlocutor might be thinking of. This is an annoying trait (I'm sure it's handy for generating strawmen though). What I mean is that it's trivial to grasp the distinction.

How is it trivial to grasp the distinction between your mind and the rest of reality?

Originally you were talking about concepts vs. particulars. I've lost interest in this little diversion of yours.

I do not see how you can cause equality of outcomes in general under any theory. What kind of outcomes are you thinking of? Income per year? Square footage of real-estate? ???

The proposition that each individual who works within a society is entitled to an equal part of the production of that society.

Setting aside other problems with this: Are you aware that there is a commensurability problem here? The units of production are not identical.

I'm not the one denying property rights, you are.

I am not "denying" anything, since property rights actually do not exist. They are a confabulation (and in the case of capitalists and history, that term is literally true). I am not, however, denying common sense. A house is not abandoned because you left to get groceries, no matter what your beliefs about property rights are.

What defines "possession"? I don't have a mystical/unlimited view of property myself. Perhaps my view of property is closer to your view of possession than to your view of property. If I were you, I would simply define property in the proper way (as you see it) rather than tossing out whole words. The dictionary is filled with words that have different senses, there's nothing wrong with having your own sense of property, just as there's nothing wrong with me having my own sense of "legitimate government."

[sjw]

I do not think anarchy is more moral; on the contrary, a properly formed government is.

Please provide to us the correct moral basis for "properly formed" government.

Land rights -- I can make the law of the land on my own land, and ajoining landholders can agree to laws in common. The important matter then becomes extent of land ownership, which I quite severely limit relative to what is permitted by today's governments.

The only moral basis that any political system is based on, as far as I know, is "might makes right." The power of force is the alpha and the omega of politics.

I speak of things as they ought and might be, not as they are.

[sjw]

2. Government is not best thought of as an "outside force", but rather as a group of people working together toward common mutually-agreed on goals. It is concentrated human force, working on the principle that we can achieve more when we work together. The biggest mistake anarchists make (and I think you do as well) is to assume that government as it has been is government as it can and ought to be.

I appreciate your views. Without reading everything else that you have written, it appears that the main issue that we disagree on is the definition of "government." I do not think that there is anything wrong with people working together toward common goals. However, I do not think that this is the traditional view of government. When my friends and I plan to meet at a bar at 6:00, I do not think we are acting as a "government." However, when we get to the bar and they say that they are not allowed to open until 7:00 by law, I feel that this is "government."

I spoke too vaguely there, sorry -- for me government is the "law of the land", and only the owner of the land has the prerogative to make the laws. So in this case, only the bar owner can make that law, unless he had voluntarily agreed with nearby landowners to form a common pact on that issue. Why might a bar owner do this? Perhaps he wants to subscribe to the common police force, the sidewalks, the roads, etc. If he doesn't like this, he can go beyond the edge of the town and set up his bar and do what he wants.

I definitely do not "assume that government as it has been is government as it can and ought to be." I know that government can be a lot different. For example, the government could require us to finger our butts for 20 hours a day (I have to make jokes sometimes-haha). As far as how government ought to be; what the fuck does that mean? Ask the republicans, ask the democrats, ask your grandmother, there is no consensus. Someone is always going to be let down. All there is is opinion.

I think we need to keep the realm of truth and the realm of popular opinion quite separate in our minds. We have to care far more about the former than the latter.

[Hierophant]

How many times do I have to say that I'm not a minarchist? If I were forced to choose between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, I'd choose the former. But I think that is a false choice.

THEN WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

Originally you were talking about concepts vs. particulars. I've lost interest in this little diversion of yours.

I give you zero for ontology. Moving on.

Setting aside other problems with this: Are you aware that there is a commensurability problem here? The units of production are not identical.

The units of production? You mean the businesses? What does that have to do with it?

What defines "possession"? I don't have a mystical/unlimited view of property myself. Perhaps my view of property is closer to your view of possession than to your view of property. If I were you, I would simply define property in the proper way (as you see it) rather than tossing out whole words.

Because unlike you, I don't define words in a way different from how 99% of people know it and experience it! I like to be able to communicate correctly! What is wrong with you?

[Hierophant]

Land rights -- I can make the law of the land on my own land, and ajoining landholders can agree to laws in common.

So you *are* a minarchist. Finally, the truth comes out.

Thank you for this sudden spark of honesty.

I speak of things as they ought and might be, not as they are.

I am talking about political systems as a concept, not only historically.

[sjw]

Setting aside other problems with this: Are you aware that there is a commensurability problem here? The units of production are not identical.

The units of production? You mean the businesses? What does that have to do with it?

I give you a zero in economics. And in making any kind of sense.

[sjw]

Land rights -- I can make the law of the land on my own land, and ajoining landholders can agree to laws in common.

So you *are* a minarchist. Finally, the truth comes out.

Thank you for this sudden spark of honesty.

For the record, it's not "minarchy" to have rules in my own home. Nor is it "minarchy" to have them on my own land. Nor is it minarchy if you live next door and happen to agree. What's minarchy is when I take those rules and apply them to the next neighborhood at the point of the gun, even though they didn't agree.

And we haven't even gotten into issues of natural law. You are so hopelessly confused/dishonest I see no point in going on. It was interesting for a while though, so thanks.

[Hierophant]

Setting aside other problems with this: Are you aware that there is a commensurability problem here? The units of production are not identical.

The units of production? You mean the businesses? What does that have to do with it?

I give you a zero in economics. And in making any kind of sense.

... you said "the units of production are not identical." The only "units of production" I know about are individual businesses, so I naturally concluded that's what you were talking about. How does this make me a "zero in economics" and "not making sense"? Maybe you are against using basic logic.

[Hierophant]

For the record, it's not "minarchy" to have rules in my own home. Nor is it "minarchy" to have them on my own land.

I already answered that on the other thread.

And we haven't even gotten into issues of natural law. You are so hopelessly confused/dishonest I see no point in going on. It was interesting for a while though, so thanks.

Very interesting. On what grounds do you conclude that I am confused or dishonest? Can you point this out? Or are you just feeling cornered and trying to take the cheap way out?

On the issue of natural law, have you ever read Spooner? If you haven't, I recommend you do so before broaching the topic with any individualist anarchist.

[sjw]

On the issue of natural law, have you ever read Spooner? If you haven't, I recommend you do so before broaching the topic with any individualist anarchist.

Spooner is fantastic. Love him.

[blackacidlizzard]

Anarchy is invalid or mistaken? Invalid or mistaken in what way? What proposition do you believe Anarchism puts forward that is invalid or mistaken?

Since I believe in government that is limited in a certain respect, then as an individual "rightist", I must also believe that it reflects the exercise of some kind of right, and if I believe that then I must believe that every form of anarchy flies in the face of some right or other.

So since you believe that rent is an exercise of the legitimate right to do as you wish with "your property", if there is no one who rents out their property this "flies in the face of" this right, and is therefore "invalid/mistaken". Therefore people MUST rent their property out so that they are not deprived of their right to do as they wish with their property.

the gray area between protecting and providing

There is no gray area and no "between". The former is a subset of the latter. If one is to continue to live, he requires food and he requires that no objects pierce, poison or immolate him. In a world where willful action is needed to reliably acquire food and to ward off danger, action must be taken if survival is to be achieved. Others' hands may harvest the grain for your meal or wield the arms against those who seek to kill you, in both cases their labor is provided to you.




And as far as this "falls apart at a touch" stuff: If people are not concerned with retaining the level of freedom they have, it will be stripped from them. I have come to realize that not everyone who has delved into the possibilities of non-governmental societies had this figured out beforehand.

[Hierophant]

On the issue of natural law, have you ever read Spooner? If you haven't, I recommend you do so before broaching the topic with any individualist anarchist.

Spooner is fantastic. Love him.

Then there is hope you understand natural law better than you do property rights.

[Hierophant]

The role of government has nothing to do with protecting human rights or implementing natural law. If you had read Spooner and loved it as much as you claim, you would know that already! Therefore I must conclude that you lied about reading Spooner!

What else have you lied about?

[sjw]

The role of government has nothing to do with protecting human rights or implementing natural law. If you had read Spooner and loved it as much as you claim, you would know that already! Therefore I must conclude that you lied about reading Spooner!

What else have you lied about?

You are pathetic. I feel sorry for you that you have gotten stuck in a local minima of ideas. Keep on digging lower and lower, you won't find anything but muck.

[Hierophant]

You are pathetic. I feel sorry for you that you have gotten stuck in a local minima of ideas. Keep on digging lower and lower, you won't find anything but muck.

Stop your whining. I repeat the question:

What else have you lied about?

And I repeat this other question:

On what grounds do you conclude that I am confused or dishonest?

Please answer at least one of these two questions, you fucking clown.