PDA

View Full Version : Statism vs Anarchism?



Dr. Who
03-16-2017, 07:18 PM
Statism is generally defined as:
The belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism)

Anarchism is generally defined as:
A libertarian political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

So, is the state inherently a bad idea or conversely is anarchism, the precursor to the state, even workable in a world with a population of 7,484,325,476 people? Is anarchism from a practical perspective really a direct democracy?

Discuss.

pjohns
03-16-2017, 07:36 PM
Statism is generally defined as:
The belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism)

Anarchism is generally defined as:
A libertarian political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

So, is the state inherently a bad idea or conversely is anarchism, the precursor to the state, even workable in a world with a population of 7,484,325,476 people? Is anarchism from a practical perspective really a direct democracy?

Discuss.
Perhaps "statism" is inadequate to describe this phenomenon.

The Wikipedia article to which you have linked also states the following:

"Statism can take many forms from minarchism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism) to totalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism). Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state) to protect people from aggression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression), theft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft), breach of contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract), and fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) with military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military), police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), and courts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Minarchism1-5) Some may also include fire departments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_department), prisons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison), and other functions.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Minarchism1-5) The welfare state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state) and other moderate levels of statism also exist on the scale of statism.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Welfare_State_by_Marx-7) Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Totalitarianism1-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Totalitarianism_by_Cernak-9)"

It is in the second and third incarnations (the welfare state and totalitarianism) that most of us oppose statism.

Chris
03-16-2017, 07:50 PM
Anarchism is not precursor to statism.

"Homo sapiens has been around for something like 200,000 years. States were only "invented" roughly five thousand years ago, and until about a thousand years ago most of humankind lived outside anything that could be called a state." (James C Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchy)

The modern meaning of anarchy was first employed by Pierre J. Proudhon in 1840 in What is Property?


What is to be the form of government in the future? I hear some of my younger readers reply: "Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican." "A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans." -- "Well! you are a democrat?" -- "No." -- "What! you would have a monarchy." -- "No." -- "A constitutionalist?" -- "God forbid!" -- "You are then an aristocrat?" -- "Not at all." -- "You want a mixed government?" -- "Still less." -- "What are you, then?" -- "I am an anarchist."

"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government." -- "By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."

Dr. Who
03-16-2017, 08:00 PM
Anarchism is not precursor to statism.

"Homo sapiens has been around for something like 200,000 years. States were only "invented" roughly five thousand years ago, and until about a thousand years ago most of humankind lived outside anything that could be called a state." (James C Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchy)

The modern meaning of anarchy was first employed by Pierre J. Proudhon in 1840 in What is Property?
Precursor just means what came before. Anarchism is considered to be the opposite of statism, so the world before states was by definition anarchistic.

Chris
03-16-2017, 08:04 PM
Precursor just means what came before. Anarchism is considered to be the opposite of statism, so the world before states was by definition anarchistic.

It came after. Your definition is anachronistic.

Dr. Who
03-16-2017, 08:05 PM
Perhaps "statism" is inadequate to describe this phenomenon.

The Wikipedia article to which you have linked also states the following:

"Statism can take many forms from minarchism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism) to totalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism). Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state) to protect people from aggression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression), theft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft), breach of contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract), and fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) with military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military), police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), and courts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Minarchism1-5) Some may also include fire departments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_department), prisons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison), and other functions.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Minarchism1-5) The welfare state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state) and other moderate levels of statism also exist on the scale of statism.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Welfare_State_by_Marx-7) Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Totalitarianism1-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-Totalitarianism_by_Cernak-9)"

It is in the second and third incarnations (the welfare state and totalitarianism) that most of us oppose statism.

However, there are those that reject any and all states and think that mankind can thrive without any state at all. I think we have representation from all forms of statists and anarchists on this forum. That's basically the reason for the OP - to better understand the what we mean when we use the terminology.

Dr. Who
03-16-2017, 08:07 PM
It came after. Your definition is anachronistic.
So pre-state society was not anarchistic? Is that your position?

Chris
03-16-2017, 08:23 PM
So pre-state society was not anarchistic? Is that your position?

Correct, for 98% of our existence, we were stateless. See Scott above.

Dr. Who
03-16-2017, 08:26 PM
Correct, for 98% of our existence, we were stateless. See Scott above.
However, you would not characterize that pre-state condition as anarchism? What then was it?

Chris
03-16-2017, 08:53 PM
However, you would not characterize that pre-state condition as anarchism? What then was it?

Come on! Stateless. Statism is stateful.

Dr. Who
03-16-2017, 08:59 PM
Come on! Stateless. Statism is stateful.
Stateless vs anarchism - what is the difference? Please explain. You suggested that they are different, but provided no points of difference.

Chris
03-16-2017, 09:13 PM
One way to think about it is stateless is natural, organic, man made but not designed. Anarchism, and statism, are artificial and designed. The design of anarchism is to roll back the state and leave society, the social order, the institutions, traditions, norms of society standing.

Mind you, this is my view, while an anarchist like kilgram would tear down all of society.

Doublejack
03-16-2017, 09:36 PM
One is successful

One is not

Dr. Who
03-16-2017, 09:46 PM
One way to think about it is stateless is natural, organic, man made but not designed. Anarchism, and statism, are artificial and designed. The design of anarchism is to roll back the state and leave society, the social order, the institutions, traditions, norms of society standing.

Mind you, this is my view, while an anarchist like @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) would tear down all of society.
I'm not seeing an enormous difference other than the evolution of law. Absent the development of positive law, there really isn't much difference. In the past, you had verbal agreements in society to build a road or a single individual who had the resources did so. People got together to build churches and used them for many purposes. Perhaps there was a hierarchical aspect to ancient society that may not be present in the theory of anarchism, but human nature tends to create a pyramidical structure, probably because that is the structure of family and we tend to replicate what comes naturally. To be honest the idea of pure anarchism is somewhat alien to human nature. There have never been any human societies that didn't ultimately create a hierarchy. The state is just a more massive form of the tribe, which in turn is a larger form of the family.

kilgram
03-17-2017, 02:15 AM
One way to think about it is stateless is natural, organic, man made but not designed. Anarchism, and statism, are artificial and designed. The design of anarchism is to roll back the state and leave society, the social order, the institutions, traditions, norms of society standing. Mind you, this is my view, while an anarchist like @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) would tear down all of society.
No, society would become anarchist. You would leave all the statist infrastuctures. Corporations, private property, religion and traditions.
What is my opinion of anarchism? Complete personal freedom without any kind of chains, phisical or mental. The only limitation would be your own capacities. A society where there are no vertical structures, structures that lead to some form of authoritarism and totalitarism, even if you remove the state, those infrastructures will take place and replace it. You have examples of society where the religion is very strong and acts like a ruler. The norms are forced by religious, even they act like some kind of paralel states. The same would happen with companies.
You cannot achieve anarchism without a social revolution. Without a change in the society that would act in a more libertarian way, without having to depend of superior forces, only by themselves and where the most valued are values like mutual aid, solidarity, positive values.

Without tearing off the structures of power you won't have an anarchist society. You will have a stateless authoritarian society where the rest of powers will find the form to take the vacuum left by the state. In the end you will have another state.

Without tearing off the structures that when society became more complex lead to the state, you will keep the state, that is what you ignore. You ignore the origins of the state.

kilgram
03-17-2017, 02:27 AM
Come on! Stateless. Statism is stateful.
But aren't you the one that says that removing the state this would lead to anarchism? Even, keeping exactly the same social structures.

So, are you saying that a stateless society is not always anarchistic? Is that what you mean?

kilgram
03-17-2017, 02:27 AM
I'm not seeing an enormous difference other than the evolution of law. Absent the development of positive law, there really isn't much difference. In the past, you had verbal agreements in society to build a road or a single individual who had the resources did so. People got together to build churches and used them for many purposes. Perhaps there was a hierarchical aspect to ancient society that may not be present in the theory of anarchism, but human nature tends to create a pyramidical structure, probably because that is the structure of family and we tend to replicate what comes naturally. To be honest the idea of pure anarchism is somewhat alien to human nature. There have never been any human societies that didn't ultimately create a hierarchy. The state is just a more massive form of the tribe, which in turn is a larger form of the family.
There is a big hierarchal structure in the "anarchism" defended by Chris.

Chris
03-17-2017, 08:44 AM
One is successful

One is not


Correct. Stateless societies have existed as long as man has. That's 200,000 years. What state has lasted longer than 300 years or so?

Chris
03-17-2017, 08:47 AM
I'm not seeing an enormous difference other than the evolution of law. Absent the development of positive law, there really isn't much difference. In the past, you had verbal agreements in society to build a road or a single individual who had the resources did so. People got together to build churches and used them for many purposes. Perhaps there was a hierarchical aspect to ancient society that may not be present in the theory of anarchism, but human nature tends to create a pyramidical structure, probably because that is the structure of family and we tend to replicate what comes naturally. To be honest the idea of pure anarchism is somewhat alien to human nature. There have never been any human societies that didn't ultimately create a hierarchy. The state is just a more massive form of the tribe, which in turn is a larger form of the family.


The family/tribe/clan was integral to the natural structure of society. People didn't have a meeting and design and plan it out the way they did when inventing the modern state.

Chris
03-17-2017, 08:48 AM
No, society would become anarchist. You would leave all the statist infrastuctures. Corporations, private property, religion and traditions.
What is my opinion of anarchism? Complete personal freedom without any kind of chains, phisical or mental. The only limitation would be your own capacities. A society where there are no vertical structures, structures that lead to some form of authoritarism and totalitarism, even if you remove the state, those infrastructures will take place and replace it. You have examples of society where the religion is very strong and acts like a ruler. The norms are forced by religious, even they act like some kind of paralel states. The same would happen with companies.
You cannot achieve anarchism without a social revolution. Without a change in the society that would act in a more libertarian way, without having to depend of superior forces, only by themselves and where the most valued are values like mutual aid, solidarity, positive values.

Without tearing off the structures of power you won't have an anarchist society. You will have a stateless authoritarian society where the rest of powers will find the form to take the vacuum left by the state. In the end you will have another state.

Without tearing off the structures that when society became more complex lead to the state, you will keep the state, that is what you ignore. You ignore the origins of the state.



As I said, you would tear down the entire existing social order. There would be no rules. There would be chaos.

Chris
03-17-2017, 08:50 AM
There is a big hierarchal structure in the "anarchism" defended by Chris.

Yes, indeed, but it would be voluntary. Unlike the state which has a monopoly on force.

Chris
03-17-2017, 08:53 AM
But aren't you the one that says that removing the state this would lead to anarchism? Even, keeping exactly the same social structures.

So, are you saying that a stateless society is not always anarchistic? Is that what you mean?



Yes.

In a way the anarchy I advocate is a turning back, a repeal of the state. It was a wrong turn in social evolution. But it wouldn't be the same because you can't go back, can't undo. A remnant of the state would remain but at the local level where each community would decide how to govern themselves.

kilgram
03-17-2017, 11:46 AM
Yes, indeed, but it would be voluntary. Unlike the state which has a monopoly on force.
You think that force would not be taken by the other powers?

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-17-2017, 12:06 PM
You think that force would not be taken by the other powers?

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


No. Not that some person A might not force some person B to do something against their will but that can happen under any system and that is not what we're talking about here.

kilgram
03-17-2017, 02:28 PM
No. Not that some person A might not force some person B to do something against their will but that can happen under any system and that is not what we're talking about here.
I am not talking about individuals. I am talking about the other powers would take the vacuum of power left by the state after its disappearence.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-17-2017, 03:17 PM
I am not talking about individuals. I am talking about the other powers would take the vacuum of power left by the state after its disappearence.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


You mean like in the vacuum you would create by doing away with the entire existing social order? Devoid of such institutions as have naturally, organically evolved, like family, religion, market, property, and all the other traditions and norms that form the social order, why, yes, a new tyranny would likely replace the old one.

That's why I would argue you can't do that. It's safe to reinvent the state, it's dangerous to reinvent society. Man is not capable.

Dr. Who
03-17-2017, 05:40 PM
The family/tribe/clan was integral to the natural structure of society. People didn't have a meeting and design and plan it out the way they did when inventing the modern state.
No, but the state was a natural evolution from those basic structures as tribal leaders gave way to kings and kingdoms consolidated first into city-states and then regional states and then nations. It evolved from the need for mutual protection. As population sizes increased and began to compete for resources they began to war with one another and increasingly there were complete conquests of populations who were subsumed into the consolidated group under the leadership of the conquering party. At some point these leaders became "royalty" and the territory they occupied became their kingdoms, which continued until population pressures caused wars to once again occur because of competition for resources. Sometimes one kingdom conquered another and other times they joined by marriage forcing them to ally against other forces. It's the history of the world. When the size of kingdoms became too large and complex for a monarch to really manage alone, so bureaucracy developed to manage, starting with the miliitary and then taxation, but with the development of law came the courts and legal disputes. So the modern state was born.

Aristotle opined:
“When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life." Aristotle saw the state as the natural extension of the social contract i.e. societies of family, village, and ultimately their broader association under the umbrella of the state.

IMO the idea of the state is not inherently bad. Like a good play can be ruined by bad direction and bad actors, so can a state. The character of those chosen to represent the voters is critical. All too often these representatives are not really people who are elevated by their communities because they are revered for their sagacity, abilities and interest in society. Instead, they are more often people who have chosen specific education that will lead to a political career and it's really all about personal gain. The problem with that is the fact that said education teaches them how to manipulate people. It's no coincidence that so many politicians are lawyers. Yes, understanding the law certainly makes it easier to understand legislation etc, but let's face it, most people enter the law for the money and politics for the power. So if your elected representatives are really in it for personal gain, it's not hard to start serving two masters and ultimately for the state to stop serving its electorate but instead the agendas of its elected leaders and representatives (and their corporate masters).

pjohns
03-17-2017, 06:20 PM
Dictionary.com, in its very first definition of "statism," says the following:

"the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/state) at the cost of individual liberty." (Bold added)

I much prefer a minimalist government, coupled with a great deal of individual liberty.

Doublejack
03-17-2017, 06:25 PM
Correct. Stateless societies have existed as long as man has. That's 200,000 years. What state has lasted longer than 300 years or so?
If your definition of success includes being completely eliminated then I suppose you would be correct.

Dr. Who
03-17-2017, 06:39 PM
Dictionary.com, in its very first definition of "statism," says the following:

"the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/state) at the cost of individual liberty." (Bold added)

I much prefer a minimalist government, coupled with a great deal of individual liberty.

Fair enough. With the state sometimes you are the bug and sometimes you are the windshield, but consider this, would the air that you are currently breathing necessarily be breathable; would the water that you drink actually be potable; would the food that you eat and the products that you buy have to be safe; would the drugs that you take actually have to be proven; would the house that you live in have any building code standards under which it was built and would there really be any laws controlling the national banks if there was no state or just a minimal state?

Chris
03-17-2017, 07:47 PM
No, but the state was a natural evolution from those basic structures as tribal leaders gave way to kings and kingdoms consolidated first into city-states and then regional states and then nations. It evolved from the need for mutual protection. As population sizes increased and began to compete for resources they began to war with one another and increasingly there were complete conquests of populations who were subsumed into the consolidated group under the leadership of the conquering party. At some point these leaders became "royalty" and the territory they occupied became their kingdoms, which continued until population pressures caused wars to once again occur because of competition for resources. Sometimes one kingdom conquered another and other times they joined by marriage forcing them to ally against other forces. It's the history of the world. When the size of kingdoms became too large and complex for a monarch to really manage alone, so bureaucracy developed to manage, starting with the miliitary and then taxation, but with the development of law came the courts and legal disputes. So the modern state was born.

Aristotle opined:
“When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life." Aristotle saw the state as the natural extension of the social contract i.e. societies of family, village, and ultimately their broader association under the umbrella of the state.

IMO the idea of the state is not inherently bad. Like a good play can be ruined by bad direction and bad actors, so can a state. The character of those chosen to represent the voters is critical. All too often these representatives are not really people who are elevated by their communities because they are revered for their sagacity, abilities and interest in society. Instead, they are more often people who have chosen specific education that will lead to a political career and it's really all about personal gain. The problem with that is the fact that said education teaches them how to manipulate people. It's no coincidence that so many politicians are lawyers. Yes, understanding the law certainly makes it easier to understand legislation etc, but let's face it, most people enter the law for the money and politics for the power. So if your elected representatives are really in it for personal gain, it's not hard to start serving two masters and ultimately for the state to stop serving its electorate but instead the agendas of its elected leaders and representatives (and their corporate masters).



The state was not a natural evolution. People sat down and designed it. It's artificial. You even cite Aristotle on how it is a social contract.

Please don't start in on your population and complexity argument. Study up on complexity theory because what you argue takes great imagination but not reality.

"It's the history of the world" is nothing less than the naturalistic fallacy. What is does not imply what ought to be. The existence of the state does not justify itself.

No one has argued the idea of the state is bad. Most people like the idea of government, just not the reality. Why, you say it yourself, people--there is nothing else, just people, the same people you tend to demean as incapable of governing governing.

Chris
03-17-2017, 07:50 PM
Dictionary.com, in its very first definition of "statism," says the following:

"the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/state) at the cost of individual liberty." (Bold added)

I much prefer a minimalist government, coupled with a great deal of individual liberty.


Yes, good point. Statism is about concentrating power, centralizing planning, while anarchism is about dispersing and decentralizing power. Minimalism is a step in the direction of anarchism.

Liberty, imo, is a social thing, a thing of the people, rather than of individuals.

Chris
03-17-2017, 07:51 PM
If your definition of success includes being completely eliminated then I suppose you would be correct.

We could name all the states that once existed but have fallen to the dustbin of history. People, societies, they survive, they carry on.

Dr. Who
03-17-2017, 07:58 PM
The state was not a natural evolution. People sat down and designed it. It's artificial. You even cite Aristotle on how it is a social contract.

Please don't start in on your population and complexity argument. Study up on complexity theory because what you argue takes great imagination but not reality.

"It's the history of the world" is nothing less than the naturalistic fallacy. What is does not imply what ought to be. The existence of the state does not justify itself.

No one has argued the idea of the state is bad. Most people like the idea of government, just not the reality. Why, you say it yourself, people--there is nothing else, just people, the same people you tend to demean as incapable of governing governing.
I obviously disagree. Please elucidate. If you can counter my argument, then do so, but please don't just suggest that my argument is wrong and then point at the library. I was demeaning no one but government actors. I do suggest however that people need to understand the difference between professional politicians and real representatives of the people.

Chris
03-17-2017, 09:53 PM
I obviously disagree. Please elucidate. If you can counter my argument, then do so, but please don't just suggest that my argument is wrong and then point at the library. I was demeaning no one but government actors. I do suggest however that people need to understand the difference between professional politicians and real representatives of the people.

I countered your speculations. Your turn.

The family was not designed. The state was.

Complexity emerges from simple rules. The state makes complex rules when simplicity is called for.

The existence of the state is not self-justifying.

The idea of the state is romantically looked up to, the problem is it's run by people and people are human, flawed.

4 counters to your argument.

Dr. Who
03-17-2017, 10:14 PM
I countered your speculations. Your turn.

The family was not designed. The state was.

Complexity emerges from simple rules. The state makes complex rules when simplicity is called for.

The existence of the state is not self-justifying.

The idea of the state is romantically looked up to, the problem is it's run by people and people are human, flawed.

4 counters to your argument.
You are making blanket statements, not arguments. It doesn't debate or address any points. It's the equivalent of repeatedly stating that the sky is blue, not why it's blue. Making an argument requires the investment of time and interest to do so. You have to have a premise for the argument and then a series of supporting arguments to substantiate your POV. Argument/debate involves engagement. A give and take of information. Your above-noted statements are if anything, dismissive and a reluctance to actually have to substantiate your point of view. If you can't or won't make arguments for your own reasons, that's fine. Have a good evening.

pjohns
03-17-2017, 10:30 PM
Fair enough. With the state sometimes you are the bug and sometimes you are the windshield, but consider this, would the air that you are currently breathing necessarily be breathable; would the water that you drink actually be potable; would the food that you eat and the products that you buy have to be safe; would the drugs that you take actually have to be proven; would the house that you live in have any building code standards under which it was built and would there really be any laws controlling the national banks if there was no state or just a minimal state?
You are referring, evidently, to regulations.

Obviously, some regulations are necessary, in order to avoid our being at the mercy of those who wish only to make a quick buck.

But most regulations, in my opinion, could be administered by the state and local governments.

And I would wish, in any case, for fewer regulations than we now have.

Dr. Who
03-17-2017, 10:47 PM
You are referring, evidently, to regulations.

Obviously, some regulations are necessary, in order to avoid our being at the mercy of those who wish only to make a quick buck.

But most regulations, in my opinion, could be administered by the state and local governments.

And I would wish, in any case, for fewer regulations than we now have.

The thing is that states are not involved with the importation of products, nor do they dedicate resources to the kind of research to determine that which is harmful to the environment and people in general. If no one is in charge of these issues, then people will suffer. If each individual state had to replicate all of these studies, it would be a tremendous waste of money. If each state were, for example, in charge of securities and trading, there would be no consistency. Unscrupulous actors would locate in the state with the least oversight.

How would it be fair if the citizens of one state enjoy protections from the black hats, while others live in states where the black hats get free rein? Citizenship should require that all enjoy the same rights under the Constitution.

kilgram
03-18-2017, 08:12 AM
The state was not a natural evolution. People sat down and designed it. It's artificial. You even cite Aristotle on how it is a social contract.

Please don't start in on your population and complexity argument. Study up on complexity theory because what you argue takes great imagination but not reality.

"It's the history of the world" is nothing less than the naturalistic fallacy. What is does not imply what ought to be. The existence of the state does not justify itself.

No one has argued the idea of the state is bad. Most people like the idea of government, just not the reality. Why, you say it yourself, people--there is nothing else, just people, the same people you tend to demean as incapable of governing governing.
The state is based on traditions becoming laws... taking from the old structures of the chief of the village to the feudal organizations and those later with the kings getting more power... the state is the evolution from authoritarian organizations that have existed from the beginning.

And a bigger example of this is the law systems based on the common law.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-18-2017, 08:59 AM
You are making blanket statements, not arguments. It doesn't debate or address any points. It's the equivalent of repeatedly stating that the sky is blue, not why it's blue. Making an argument requires the investment of time and interest to do so. You have to have a premise for the argument and then a series of supporting arguments to substantiate your POV. Argument/debate involves engagement. A give and take of information. Your above-noted statements are if anything, dismissive and a reluctance to actually have to substantiate your point of view. If you can't or won't make arguments for your own reasons, that's fine. Have a good evening.

Blanket statements? Then tell us who designed the family? We know who wrote the Constitution thereby designing and creating a government. You claim they are the same, but that is not true, the distinction between made by man's actions and made by man's design is an important one. It directly counters your claim.

It's you who's unwilling to address my counter arguments.

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:02 AM
The thing is that states are not involved with the importation of products, nor do they dedicate resources to the kind of research to determine that which is harmful to the environment and people in general. If no one is in charge of these issues, then people will suffer. If each individual state had to replicate all of these studies, it would be a tremendous waste of money. If each state were, for example, in charge of securities and trading, there would be no consistency. Unscrupulous actors would locate in the state with the least oversight.

How would it be fair if the citizens of one state enjoy protections from the black hats, while others live in states where the black hats get free rein? Citizenship should require that all enjoy the same rights under the Constitution.


What you're really arguing, if we follow it to logical conclusion, is political globalism, the concentration of power and centralization of planning. That is the ultimate goal of statism. It runs smack dab into the problem of knowledge which in society is dispersed and dynamic and often tacit (see Hayek): How do you address this?

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:07 AM
The state is based on traditions becoming laws... taking from the old structures of the chief of the village to the feudal organizations and those later with the kings getting more power... the state is the evolution from authoritarian organizations that have existed from the beginning.

And a bigger example of this is the law systems based on the common law.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


The state, at least in it's democratic form, ought to represent the traditions, norms, values of a society, heavy emphasis on ought to. So what tradition did the court's legalization of abortion come from?

Common law evolves naturally. States are based on positive or codified civil law. Again, what common law precedents are there for legalizing abortion?

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:29 AM
One thing needs to be said about evolution. Some of the claims here about evolution draw on the mistaken notion that it's progressive One sees progress in the things man designs: The auto has progressed from the Model T, phones have progressed from land lines to cell phones, etc. But that's not evolution. Evolution involves, simplistically, three functions: Random mutation, natural selection, and inheritance.

Borrowing somewhat from Hayek, say you have two towns and a woods in between. For various social reasons, people would want to travel between the two towns. This would happen naturally as various people taking different random directions that over time would merge into paths and eventually a winding crooked road between the them, with other paths still available. Everyone's wants and values would be taken into account. That's a stateless society. In a stateful society, the state would design and plan a likely straight and narrow highway between the towns. No ones wants or values would be taken into account, these would just be assumed by the central planners.

kilgram
03-18-2017, 10:32 AM
The state, at least in it's democratic form, ought to represent the traditions, norms, values of a society, heavy emphasis on ought to. So what tradition did the court's legalization of abortion come from?

Common law evolves naturally. States are based on positive or codified civil law. Again, what common law precedents are there for legalizing abortion?
Tradition.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-18-2017, 10:47 AM
Tradition.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Oh, yea, the abortion tradition. This is supposed to be a serious discussion.

kilgram
03-18-2017, 10:50 AM
Oh, yea, the abortion tradition. This is supposed to be a serious discussion.
Ok. If it is serious. There are many topics about abortion. This is not one of them.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-18-2017, 11:11 AM
Ok. If it is serious. There are many topics about abortion. This is not one of them.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


It was an example of a broader point. Forcing Christian bakers who object to serving gays could be another where the people are divided, gay marriage, etc, etc. The point being a stateless society would represent that society's norms and mores better than a stateful one that really represents no one's. The benefit is if you don't like a society's rules, you're free to move to a different community. With the ultimate goal of statism being political globalization, you have no where to run, everything is the state.

pjohns
03-18-2017, 12:23 PM
I am not opposed, on principle, to any and all regulations.

But "enough is too much," as the cartoon character, Popeye, once said.

Former President Barack Obama set a new one-day record for new regulations: 527 in a single day: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-sets-new-record-for-regulations-527-pages-in-just-one-day/article/2607677

Over the course of his entire presidency, he added 20,642: http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/20642-new-regulations-added-in-the-obama-presidency/

(Actually, that number was as of May 23, 2016; he did not leave office until about eight months later.)

It does seem fair to describe this as the promiscuous use of regulations...

Chris
03-18-2017, 12:30 PM
I am not opposed, on principle, to any and all regulations.

But "enough is too much," as the cartoon character, Popeye, once said.

Former President Barack Obama set a new one-day record for new regulations: 527 in a single day: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-sets-new-record-for-regulations-527-pages-in-just-one-day/article/2607677

Over the course of his entire presidency, he added 20,642: http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/20642-new-regulations-added-in-the-obama-presidency/

(Actually, that number was as of May 23, 2016; he did not leave office until about eight months later.)

It does seem fair to describe this as the promiscuous use of regulations...


And not just that there are too many but that they are created and applied in corrupt ways that favor some over others--rule of men rather than rule of law.

Ethereal
03-18-2017, 07:32 PM
Is anarchism from a practical perspective really a direct democracy?

Insofar as an anarchic society would be initially based on the individualized consent of its individual members, yes. But once that initial consensus has been established, the form of government is not limited to a direct democracy. Theoretically, an anarchist society could produce any number of forms of government, from a direct democracy to a monarchy. What matters most is that the individual members of that society consented initially through democratic mechanisms. As to whether or not it is workable in modern times, I wouldn't be advocating for it if I thought otherwise. But in order for it to be workable, the scale at which political systems operate would have to be decreased substantially. Generally, this would occur under the rubric of decentralization or federalism.

Ethereal
03-18-2017, 07:33 PM
One is successful

One is not

True and ironic all at the same time... :smiley:

kilgram
03-18-2017, 07:35 PM
Insofar as an anarchic society would be initially based on the individualized consent of its individual members, yes. But once that initial consensus has been established, the form of government is not limited to a direct democracy. Theoretically, an anarchist society could produce any number of forms of government, from a direct democracy to a monarchy. What matters most is that the individual members of that society consented initially through democratic mechanisms. As to whether or not it is workable in modern times, I wouldn't be advocating for it if I thought otherwise. But in order for it to be workable, the scale at which political systems operate would have to be decreased substantially. Generally, this would occur under the rubric of decentralization or federalism.
A monarchy never would be anarchist. It is statist.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Dr. Who
03-18-2017, 07:36 PM
And not just that there are too many but that they are created and applied in corrupt ways that favor some over others--rule of men rather than rule of law.
So, in your economic paradigm, there would be no rule of men? The majority would not actually dictate to the rest. That overlooks human nature. You also suggest that those who might not like the direction of a community could simply pack up and leave. Realistically, packing up and leaving is not that easy, particularly if one has a family.

Ethereal
03-18-2017, 07:41 PM
A monarchy never would be anarchist. It is statist.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Not if they consent to it initially.

Ethereal
03-18-2017, 07:45 PM
In order for anarchy to become a reality, there must be enlightenment first. In fact, one could argue that enlightenment would necessarily produce anarchy.

Dr. Who
03-18-2017, 08:05 PM
Insofar as an anarchic society would be initially based on the individualized consent of its individual members, yes. But once that initial consensus has been established, the form of government is not limited to a direct democracy. Theoretically, an anarchist society could produce any number of forms of government, from a direct democracy to a monarchy. What matters most is that the individual members of that society consented initially through democratic mechanisms. As to whether or not it is workable in modern times, I wouldn't be advocating for it if I thought otherwise. But in order for it to be workable, the scale at which political systems operate would have to be decreased substantially. Generally, this would occur under the rubric of decentralization or federalism.
Doesn't this really demand that countries be much smaller? At some point or other in the system that you describe, people will compare rights in one community to those in another and ask the question, well if we are all citizens of the same country, why to some enjoy more freedom than others? In a very large country, that would happen a great deal and as the politics of the founding generations were slowly replaced by those of new generations, statism would likely re-emerge. You even suggested that monarchism would be a possibility. We eventually move to that pyramidal model because it is most natural and comfortable. It even occurs in the animal kingdom. What is perhaps unnatural is the extreme vertical nature of our pyramids and the fact that elected representatives at the highest levels tend to be professional politicians with little interest in really representing their electorate.

kilgram
03-18-2017, 08:17 PM
Not if they consent to it initially.
Then would become a monarchy and would be anymore an anarchist system.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

kilgram
03-18-2017, 08:17 PM
In order for anarchy to become a reality, there must be enlightenment first. In fact, one could argue that enlightenment would necessarily produce anarchy.
Or in my words, social revolution. Is my way to say that I agree with you.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:39 PM
Insofar as an anarchic society would be initially based on the individualized consent of its individual members, yes. But once that initial consensus has been established, the form of government is not limited to a direct democracy. Theoretically, an anarchist society could produce any number of forms of government, from a direct democracy to a monarchy. What matters most is that the individual members of that society consented initially through democratic mechanisms. As to whether or not it is workable in modern times, I wouldn't be advocating for it if I thought otherwise. But in order for it to be workable, the scale at which political systems operate would have to be decreased substantially. Generally, this would occur under the rubric of decentralization or federalism.

Yes, the voluntary nature of the initial agreements would be like a direct democracy, and the agreement could be to form any form of government, or could come about trial and error over time.

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:44 PM
A monarchy never would be anarchist. It is statist.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Would you dictate it couldn't? Like Marx you fail to trust people to make their own choices, and keep them from learning from their mistakes.

Anarchistic choice could led to any form of government. Way I see it you'd have communities of this and communities of that and connunities of the other all cooperating as they must within an anarchistic framework.

You wouldn't allow it.

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:50 PM
So, in your economic paradigm, there would be no rule of men? The majority would not actually dictate to the rest. That overlooks human nature. You also suggest that those who might not like the direction of a community could simply pack up and leave. Realistically, packing up and leaving is not that easy, particularly if one has a family.

Right, rules without rulers.

Human nature is rational and social, competition within cooperation. Like a baseball game.

Human nature is not to be ruled by a concentrated, centralized elite. K's trying to reach the castle in Kafka's novel was an absurdity,

Again it is under your globalist end game that voting by feet would be impossible

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:53 PM
In order for anarchy to become a reality, there must be enlightenment first. In fact, one could argue that enlightenment would necessarily produce anarchy.

"I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

--Civil Disobedience, Thoreau

Chris
03-18-2017, 09:56 PM
Or in my words, social revolution. Is my way to say that I agree with you.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

But what would society revolt against, itself? That way lies destruction, chaos, a void in which the next state would arise.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 03:58 AM
Would you dictate it couldn't? Like Marx you fail to trust people to make their own choices, and keep them from learning from their mistakes.

Anarchistic choice could led to any form of government. Way I see it you'd have communities of this and communities of that and connunities of the other all cooperating as they must within an anarchistic framework.

You wouldn't allow it.
I am saying and I repeat it:
A monarchy is a monarchy. If you choose to become a monarchy you leave to be what the hell you were before.

If a society decides that only one person must take all decisions, it is a dictatorship. Whatever and wherever that decision comes from.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 04:02 AM
But what would society revolt against, itself? That way lies destruction, chaos, a void in which the next state would arise.
No, that would not happen because the society would be prepared and already organized in other way.

The state would come back with your theory. You already reinstall state when you defend the idea that a monarchy is anarchistic if it comes from an anarchy. A monarchy is statist by itself.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 04:03 AM
Right, rules without rulers.

Human nature is rational and social, competition within cooperation. Like a baseball game.

Human nature is not to be ruled by a concentrated, centralized elite. K's trying to reach the castle in Kafka's novel was an absurdity,

Again it is under your globalist end game that voting by feet would be impossible
You keep the corporations, the religions with their pyramidal structures that dictate the rules. Obviously you would have a society of rules with rulers.

Chris
03-19-2017, 10:07 AM
I am saying and I repeat it:
A monarchy is a monarchy. If you choose to become a monarchy you leave to be what the hell you were before.

If a society decides that only one person must take all decisions, it is a dictatorship. Whatever and wherever that decision comes from.


No one has disagreed with that. The point was a people in a community can start from a position of voluntary libertarian non-authoritarian direct democracy anarchy and those people can elect to form any form of government they choose, even a monarchy, even a dictatorship.

If the people are not free to choose, if they must do as you say, then you start not with anarchy but despotism, yours.

Chris
03-19-2017, 10:12 AM
No, that would not happen because the society would be prepared and already organized in other way.

The state would come back with your theory. You already reinstall state when you defend the idea that a monarchy is anarchistic if it comes from an anarchy. A monarchy is statist by itself.


Who would organize them, how organize them? According to your definitions and dictates?

Organization implies hierarchy. Even democracies are hierarchical if only in the fact majorities rule over minorities.


How would my theory lead to statism? The fact you don't understand how the people of an anarchistic state are free to choose how to form a government, to organize, even if the result in nonanarchistic, shows you don't understand my theory. Why would you, your refuse distinctions between natural and artificial, voluntary and coerced.

Chris
03-19-2017, 10:15 AM
You keep the corporations, the religions with their pyramidal structures that dictate the rules. Obviously you would have a society of rules with rulers.


Where does a company or a religion get it's power? If I voluntarily choose to work for a company or join a religion, how is anything dictated?

This goes back to your "society would be prepared and already organized in other way." You need to explain what you mean by that. And how that is not dictating to society.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 10:18 AM
Where does a company or a religion get it's power? If I voluntarily choose to work for a company or join a religion, how is anything dictated?

This goes back to your "society would be prepared and already organized in other way." You need to explain what you mean by that. And how that is not dictating to society.
One thing is explaining how a society would work and other thing is dictating how it should work.

If you don't get how those powers would start to make the functions of the state you prove how you don't know the real world works.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

kilgram
03-19-2017, 10:21 AM
No one has disagreed with that. The point was a people in a community can start from a position of voluntary libertarian non-authoritarian direct democracy anarchy and those people can elect to form any form of government they choose, even a monarchy, even a dictatorship.

If the people are not free to choose, if they must do as you say, then you start not with anarchy but despotism, yours.
Anarchism is a system where there is the abolition of authority. So, are we talking about anarchism or how this anarchist societies can arrive to an end deciding for example to be ruled by a dictator or a monarchy?

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-19-2017, 10:26 AM
Anarchism is a system where there is the abolition of authority. So, are we talking about anarchism or how this anarchist societies can arrive to an end deciding for example to be ruled by a dictator or a monarchy?

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk



If there is no authority then the people are free to do what they choose. You cannot dictate away their freedom to choose how they govern themselves. Even if the result is nonanarchy.

Chris
03-19-2017, 10:28 AM
One thing is explaining how a society would work and other thing is dictating how it should work.

If you don't get how those powers would start to make the functions of the state you prove how you don't know the real world works.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk



That's not an explanation for how voluntary employment is dictatorial.

Nor is it an explanation for how your "organization" isn't authoritarian.

All it is is ad hom.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 10:55 AM
If there is no authority then the people are free to do what they choose. You cannot dictate away their freedom to choose how they govern themselves. Even if the result is nonanarchy.
Then we are not talking anymore of anarchism. We are talking of something else.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

kilgram
03-19-2017, 11:00 AM
That's not an explanation for how voluntary employment is dictatorial.

Nor is it an explanation for how your "organization" isn't authoritarian.

All it is is ad hom.
Ad hominem is other thing. And excuse me my laziness to write long posts and that is what would require if I have to explain all that situation. Deduce it by yourself. Think about it. Is there a possibility that corporations who control the economy control the rest like the justice, law...?

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-19-2017, 11:08 AM
Ad hominem is other thing. And excuse me my laziness to write long posts and that is what would require if I have to explain all that situation. Deduce it by yourself. Think about it. Is there a possibility that corporations who control the economy control the rest like the justice, law...?

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Yes, through the state. In collusion with the state people can be controlled. Only way.

Oh I am familiar with your argument that because you must feed, clothe and shelter yourself you must sell your labor. But corporations don't force that, nature does.

Face it, you would rebel against life if you could.

Chris
03-19-2017, 11:12 AM
Then we are not talking anymore of anarchism. We are talking of something else.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Is it obstinance that keeps you from seeing what's said?


Start at point A where you as a people are free to choose how to government yourselves. That is anarchy. The people decide B, whatever that is, even if B is not anarchy. Point A is still anarchy. If you talk about point A you are talking about anarchy.

What's odd here is you demand prior organization, you demand point B, however you define it. You never allow for a point A, anarchy.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 11:28 AM
Is it obstinance that keeps you from seeing what's said?


Start at point A where you as a people are free to choose how to government yourselves. That is anarchy. The people decide B, whatever that is, even if B is not anarchy. Point A is still anarchy. If you talk about point A you are talking about anarchy.

What's odd here is you demand prior organization, you demand point B, however you define it. You never allow for a point A, anarchy.
What? I did not understand a word.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

kilgram
03-19-2017, 11:30 AM
Yes, through the state. In collusion with the state people can be controlled. Only way.

Oh I am familiar with your argument that because you must feed, clothe and shelter yourself you must sell your labor. But corporations don't force that, nature does.

Face it, you would rebel against life if you could.
Nonsense.

Yes, through basic needs I can get things that you normally would do. So I.am blackmailing you to get my goals. That is a way.

However corporations would take the control of society easily without the third force that in theory should oppose to them.

The same with religion that already happens in territories where the state is weak.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-19-2017, 11:40 AM
What? I did not understand a word.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


What I said, you're commenting without first understanding.

Consider a simple analogy. Here's a tray of water. It is water. That's the starting point A. Now I take the tray and put it in the freezer and the water freezes. That's the ending point B. That we end up at point B ice does not negate the fact we started at point A water.\

So to starting from point A, anarchy, the people might elect to create a monarchy, point B. The fact they end up at B monarchy does not negate the fact they started at point A anarchy.

Chris
03-19-2017, 11:43 AM
Nonsense.

Yes, through basic needs I can get things that you normally would do. So I.am blackmailing you to get my goals. That is a way.

However corporations would take the control of society easily without the third force that in theory should oppose to them.

The same with religion that already happens in territories where the state is weak.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk



No, you are not blackmailing employees. They freely choose to work for you.

How would corporations take over? You need to explain not just claim that.

You do know, don't you, that corporations, and their protections, are an legal invention of the state. Sans state sans corporations. No more corny corrupt support of them by the state.

How would a religion take over? You need to explain not just claim that.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 11:47 AM
What I said, you're commenting without first understanding.

Consider a simple analogy. Here's a tray of water. It is water. That's the starting point A. Now I take the tray and put it in the freezer and the water freezes. That's the ending point B. That we end up at point B ice does not negate the fact we started at point A water.\

So to starting from point A, anarchy, the people might elect to create a monarchy, point B. The fact they end up at B monarchy does not negate the fact they started at point A anarchy.
I am getting what you're meaning. Just it is absurd. Ok, so, you're defending the state is ok, if it comes from an "anarchistic" point. Got it.

Yes, I never said that people in anarchism would decide to roll back and go to some previous situation, like a parliamentary democracy or whatever. But once it is happening anarchism does not exist anymore. So, as I said:

You're talking about different situations that would put an end to the anarchism. That is my point.

Monarchy or state will never be anarchist. That is my point.
Ethereal was saying that a monarchy can be anarchistic. My point stands that is not possible. That the starting point of the implementantion of a monarchy could be an anarchy, could be. But once you've decided monarchy you have changed the system. And it is not anymore an anarchy.

And, going to the example of water, once the water is in the freezer, it is ice. It is another thing.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 11:52 AM
No, you are not blackmailing employees. They freely choose to work for you.

How would corporations take over? You need to explain not just claim that.

You do know, don't you, that corporations, and their protections, are an legal invention of the state. Sans state sans corporations. No more corny corrupt support of them by the state.

How would a religion take over? You need to explain not just claim that.
Seriously? Do I need to remind you how the religion had feuds during the Mediaeval times. Those feuds were like states.

Do I need to remind you the Islamic state? Do I need to remind how strong is the religion and imposing its own values in country regions of India?

Do I need to remind you how during the Industrial revolution and posterior times the corporations used the force to control their employees? Do I need to remember you things like the pistolerism in many regions of the Occidental countries. Do I need to remind you murders of members of worker unions done by corporations in South America? Seriously do I need to remind all that?

Without the state, who tells you that they are not going to take all that behaviour, that even with the state they already do.

Yes, if I cannot provide myself food and I am depending on you. You can demand me whatever you want and under any conditions that you want. That is reality.

Chris
03-19-2017, 11:57 AM
I am getting what you're meaning. Just it is absurd. Ok, so, you're defending the state is ok, if it comes from an "anarchistic" point. Got it.

Yes, I never said that people in anarchism would decide to roll back and go to some previous situation, like a parliamentary democracy or whatever. But once it is happening anarchism does not exist anymore. So, as I said:

You're talking about different situations that would put an end to the anarchism. That is my point.

Monarchy or state will never be anarchist. That is my point.
Ethereal was saying that a monarchy can be anarchistic. My point stands that is not possible. That the starting point of the implementantion of a monarchy could be an anarchy, could be. But once you've decided monarchy you have changed the system. And it is not anymore an anarchy.

And, going to the example of water, once the water is in the freezer, it is ice. It is another thing.



I am getting what you're meaning. Just it is absurd. Ok, so, you're defending the state is ok, if it comes from an "anarchistic" point. Got it.

No, you still don't get it. All I'm saying, and Ethereal said it before me, is point A, the starting point, is anarchy.

And what we're saying is different people might elect to have different forms of government, even monarchies and dictatorships.

We are not defending those forms of government, but rather the right of the people to freely choose.



Yes, I never said that people in anarchism would decide to roll back and go to some previous situation, like a parliamentary democracy or whatever. But once it is happening anarchism does not exist anymore.

No one has argued anything different. Point A is anarchy, what people freely choose, point B, may not be. There is no argument there.



You're talking about different situations that would put an end to the anarchism. That is my point.

No one is arguing about that.

I am arguing that you're forcing an organization on the starting point A make is not an anarchy ever.



And, going to the example of water, once the water is in the freezer, it is ice. It is another thing.

No one is arguing that it is not ice, only that it started as water.

No one is arguing that monarchy is anarchy, only that starting from anarchy a people could freely choose monarchy.

Chris
03-19-2017, 12:01 PM
Seriously? Do I need to remind you how the religion had feuds during the Mediaeval times. Those feuds were like states.

Do I need to remind you the Islamic state? Do I need to remind how strong is the religion and imposing its own values in country regions of India?

Do I need to remind you how during the Industrial revolution and posterior times the corporations used the force to control their employees? Do I need to remember you things like the pistolerism in many regions of the Occidental countries. Do I need to remind you murders of members of worker unions done by corporations in South America? Seriously do I need to remind all that?

Without the state, who tells you that they are not going to take all that behaviour, that even with the state they already do.

Yes, if I cannot provide myself food and I am depending on you. You can demand me whatever you want and under any conditions that you want. That is reality.


Those fueds had the power of the state behind them.

The Islamic state is political.

Only with the force of the state backing them.

Without the state how is power going to accumulate, concentrate, centralize?

Your depending on me is your choice. My depending on you as employee is my choice. Both of us are free to walk away.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 01:07 PM
Those fueds had the power of the state behind them.

The Islamic state is political.

Only with the force of the state backing them.

Without the state how is power going to accumulate, concentrate, centralize?

Your depending on me is your choice. My depending on you as employee is my choice. Both of us are free to walk away.

Walk away is not a choice. And less is a choice when walk away means starving.

For me the best example of anarchy vs authoritarism is the free sofware vs privative software.

In free software I have absoulute control of it. I can change it if want.

In privative software, my only option is go away from it. I don't have any decision power with privative software.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 01:10 PM
No, you still don't get it. All I'm saying, and Ethereal said it before me, is point A, the starting point, is anarchy.

And what we're saying is different people might elect to have different forms of government, even monarchies and dictatorships.

We are not defending those forms of government, but rather the right of the people to freely choose.




No one has argued anything different. Point A is anarchy, what people freely choose, point B, may not be. There is no argument there.






No one is arguing about that.

I am arguing that you're forcing an organization on the starting point A make is not an anarchy ever.




No one is arguing that it is not ice, only that it started as water.

No one is arguing that monarchy is anarchy, only that starting from anarchy a people could freely choose monarchy.
Ok, but my point is that we were discussing about anarchism. I don't see the logic of talking about the roll back of the anarchism and going back to some authoritarian system. It would be interesting to discuss it if the anarchist system resulted a failure so have been observed that is necessary a roll back into some statist form or whatever. But otherwise, I don't see the point.
About imposing. I've never talked about force or impose anything.

Chris
03-19-2017, 01:15 PM
Ok, but my point is that we were discussing about anarchism. I don't see the logic of talking about the roll back of the anarchism and going back to some authoritarian system. It would be interesting to discuss it if the anarchist system resulted a failure so have been observed that is necessary a roll back into some statist form or whatever. But otherwise, I don't see the point.
About imposing. I've never talked about force or impose anything.


But if anarchy means people are free to choose then you cannot dictate how they choose.

The topic is statism vs anarchy. You argue against anarchy because you think only your version is the one true anarchy.

Your version, which you do not explain, other than to say that after you tore the social order down, you would impose some sort of replacement organization on society.

What organization is that?

Chris
03-19-2017, 01:21 PM
Walk away is not a choice. And less is a choice when walk away means starving.

For me the best example of anarchy vs authoritarism is the free sofware vs privative software.

In free software I have absoulute control of it. I can change it if want.

In privative software, my only option is go away from it. I don't have any decision power with privative software.


It may not be a choice because nature imposes on you needs like feeding, clothing, sheltering yourself. Nature is the coercive force there, not the company that offers you a job.



That's great that you can change the software. But if others used it you could not without their permission change it. And if you did you would create a new branch. With private software the same applies. No one forces you to use IE, you're free to create Firefox or Chrome or Opera or dozens of other browsers.

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 01:23 PM
Doesn't this really demand that countries be much smaller?

That depends on how you're defining a country. But in order for that definition to have real meaning, then smallness is required.


At some point or other in the system that you describe, people will compare rights in one community to those in another and ask the question, well if we are all citizens of the same country, why to some enjoy more freedom than others? In a very large country, that would happen a great deal and as the politics of the founding generations were slowly replaced by those of new generations, statism would likely re-emerge. You even suggested that monarchism would be a possibility. We eventually move to that pyramidal model because it is most natural and comfortable. It even occurs in the animal kingdom. What is perhaps unnatural is the extreme vertical nature of our pyramids and the fact that elected representatives at the highest levels tend to be professional politicians with little interest in really representing their electorate.
Under a decentralized paradigm, countries and communities would be virtually synonymous.

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 01:25 PM
Then would become a monarchy and would be anymore an anarchist system.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

You're just repeating yourself.

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 01:27 PM
You keep the corporations, the religions with their pyramidal structures that dictate the rules. Obviously you would have a society of rules with rulers.
You continue to ignore the fact that people can consent to a hierarchy. And if it is consensual, then it is consistent with anarchic principles. The mere existence of a hierarchy does not make it statist.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 02:02 PM
You continue to ignore the fact that people can consent to a hierarchy. And if it is consensual, then it is consistent with anarchic principles. The mere existence of a hierarchy does not make it statist.
Hierarchy makes it authoritarian. And anarchism is the abolition of authoritism.

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 02:06 PM
Hierarchy makes it authoritarian. And anarchism is the abolition of authoritism.
Coercion is what makes it authoritarian. So if there is consent, then there is no coercion and therefore no authoritarianism.

Chris
03-19-2017, 02:11 PM
Hierarchy makes it authoritarian. And anarchism is the abolition of authoritism.

Then so too would the organization you would impose on anarchy.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 02:27 PM
Then so too would the organization you would impose on anarchy.
Chris. When have I talked about imposition?

kilgram
03-19-2017, 02:34 PM
Coercion is what makes it authoritarian. So if there is consent, then there is no coercion and therefore no authoritarianism.
I disagree. Hierarchy makes it authoritarian. Hierarchy always leads to some coercion.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

decedent
03-19-2017, 02:42 PM
The larger a society gets, the most centralized its government must be. Only a strong, authoritative state can enforce laws, but that doesn't mean the state must be authoritarian.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LLaybEuzA

Chris
03-19-2017, 02:43 PM
Chris. When have I talked about imposition?

Here:


No, that would not happen because the society would be prepared and already organized in other way....

I've been asking about what that preparation and organization is, and how you would impose it for 4 or 5 pages now.

Chris
03-19-2017, 02:44 PM
The larger a society gets, the most centralized its government must be. Only a strong, authoritative state can enforce laws, but that doesn't mean the state must be authoritarian.

...

Why?

(An authoritative state is authoritarian.)

kilgram
03-19-2017, 02:45 PM
Here:



I've been asking about what that preparation and organization is, and how you would impose it for 4 or 5 pages now.
Ask the right question and I answer.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-19-2017, 02:49 PM
Ask the right question and I answer.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

LOL. You've been asked to explain what you mean. You ignore. It's like the abortion thread given dozens of statements by medical scientists, you ignore. Cognitive dissonance.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 02:49 PM
The larger a society gets, the most centralized its government must be. Only a strong, authoritative state can enforce laws, but that doesn't mean the state must be authoritarian.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LLaybEuzA
It is an oxymoron. You are defending an authoritarian state.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

kilgram
03-19-2017, 02:50 PM
LOL. You've been asked to explain what you mean. You ignore. It's like the abortion thread given dozens of statements by medical scientists, you ignore. Cognitive dissonance.
You're asking me what I would impose. My answer is nothing.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

decedent
03-19-2017, 02:50 PM
Why?

(An authoritative state is authoritarian.)

Some countries have police to go around beating women who show too much of their bodies. You can't compare that to, say, police pulling somebody over for drunk driving. One is authoritarian, one isn't.


It's like calling a parent who spanks their kid once a disciplinarian.


Authoritarian states tend to be oppressive regimes with a strong central government. Uganda is authoritarian, the US isn't, yet both employ policing for social control.

Chris
03-19-2017, 02:52 PM
It is an oxymoron. You are defending an authoritarian state.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


This comparison of authoritarianism with totalitarianism is insightful:


Differences between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes[edit]

The term "authoritarian regime" denotes a state in which the single power holder – an individual "dictator", a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite – monopolizes political power. "[T]he authoritarian state ... is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty."[19] Authoritarianism "does not attempt to change the world and human nature."[19]

In contrast, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life, and morals of citizens. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens."[9] It also mobilizes the whole population in pursuit of its goals. Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of [...] industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.[19]

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Differences_between_authoritarian_ and_totalitarian_regimes


Note nothing in there or here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism, about hierarchy.

Chris
03-19-2017, 02:53 PM
Some countries have police to go around beating women who show too much of their bodies. You can't compare that to, say, police pulling somebody over for drunk driving. One is authoritarian, one isn't.


It's like calling a parent who spanks their kid once a disciplinarian.


Authoritarian states tend to be oppressive regimes with a strong central government. Uganda is authoritarian, the US isn't, yet both employ policing for social control.



Quibbling when the important question had to do with:


The larger a society gets, the most centralized its government must be....

Why?

Chris
03-19-2017, 02:54 PM
You're asking me what I would impose. My answer is nothing.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Ah, so when you say "No, that would not happen because the society would be prepared and already organized in other way," you mean nothing.

decedent
03-19-2017, 02:55 PM
It is an oxymoron. You are defending an authoritarian state.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

That movie is an example of a state that uses law enforcement. Law enforcement can be informally described as "the three C's" -- cops, courts and corrections. The movie allows for anarchy -- a completely stateless society free of law enforcement -- for 12 hours each year (the antithesis of authoritarianism).

The movie poses some good questions about the relationship between the state and citizens, between citizens themselves, and the impact of social order (or lack of).

decedent
03-19-2017, 02:58 PM
Quibbling when the important question had to do with:



Why?

I'm using examples commonly associated with authoritarianism, like over-policing (see above posts). Policing is a good barometer of how authoritative a state is. Overly-centralized governments tend to be authoritative, so again, policing is a good example of how centralized a state is.

An anarchistic state would have no [formal] policing.


As for 'why' a large society must have a centralized government, there comes a point where mechanical solidarity societies become organic solidarity societies, where we become an interwoven web of people each relying on one another. In a large society, federalism is an ideal, centralism is necessary.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 03:00 PM
Ah, so when you say "No, that would not happen because the society would be prepared and already organized in other way," you mean nothing.
I mean that society would have previously organized as they think it fits. It may be in an horizontal system of communes or any other.

The right question would have been how society would organize themselves. Not asking me what I would impose. Or what is your ideal organization. Also that one would have been correct.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-19-2017, 03:13 PM
I mean that society would have previously organized as they think it fits. It may be in an horizontal system of communes or any other.

The right question would have been how society would organize themselves. Not asking me what I would impose. Or what is your ideal organization. Also that one would have been correct.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


So if you're not imposing any order or organization but letting society choose for itself, then again we have no argument.

Bethere
03-19-2017, 04:26 PM
But if anarchy means people are free to choose then you cannot dictate how they choose.

The topic is statism vs anarchy. You argue against anarchy because you think only your version is the one true anarchy.

Your version, which you do not explain, other than to say that after you tore the social order down, you would impose some sort of replacement organization on society.

What organization is that?
You could be asked the same question, and have been.

1. How get from point a to point b?

2. What would point b look like?

3. Give us some examples of anarchy in action.

Chris
03-19-2017, 04:34 PM
You could be asked the same question, and have been.

1. How get from point a to point b?

2. What would point b look like?

3. Give us some examples of anarchy in action.


1 That would be entirely up to the people forming a community. Haven't you been reading along?

2 However the people chose to decide.

3 Zomia. Last time I recommended James C. Scott' The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, if you're truly interested.

kilgram
03-19-2017, 05:10 PM
So if you're not imposing any order or organization but letting society choose for itself, then again we have no argument.
What the hell do you think I was talking about? In difference to you my idea of anarchism is the absolute abolition of any kind of authority and that the people have absolute power to take their own decisions.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 05:19 PM
I disagree. Hierarchy makes it authoritarian. Hierarchy always leads to some coercion.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

There are a multitude of organizations that have hierarchies and no coercion. Sports teams; social clubs; research teams; etc. The mere presence of a hierarchy does not necessitate coercion.

Chris
03-19-2017, 05:20 PM
What the hell do you think I was talking about? In difference to you my idea of anarchism is the absolute abolition of any kind of authority and that the people have absolute power to take their own decisions.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Done by eliminating the state.

But that would require understanding distinctions like voluntary vs coerced. You don't .

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 05:24 PM
The larger a society gets, the most centralized its government must be.

Because...?


Only a strong, authoritative state can enforce laws...

This is so vague as to be meaningless. What is a "strong" or "authoritative" state? And how can the state, which is just a construct, enforce anything? Only individuals are capable of action.


...but that doesn't mean the state must be authoritarian.

It doesn't?

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 05:27 PM
Some countries have police to go around beating women who show too much of their bodies. You can't compare that to, say, police pulling somebody over for drunk driving. One is authoritarian, one isn't.


It's like calling a parent who spanks their kid once a disciplinarian.


Authoritarian states tend to be oppressive regimes with a strong central government. Uganda is authoritarian, the US isn't, yet both employ policing for social control.
The state is not needed to enforce just laws though. Individuals can come together democratically and voluntarily to form a government based on consent and enforce laws that way.

Ethereal
03-19-2017, 05:35 PM
Uganda is authoritarian, the US isn't...

The US is one of the most authoritarian states in the world. They have imposed totalitarian systems of surveillance and mass imprisonment on the domestic population while overseeing a bloody and oppressive empire abroad. Literally millions of innocent people have died violent deaths at the hands of the US government.

Bethere
03-19-2017, 07:11 PM
1 That would be entirely up to the people forming a community. Haven't you been reading along?

2 However the people chose to decide.

3 Zomia. Last time I recommended James C. Scott' The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, if you're truly interested.

Zomia. That's your example?

decedent
03-19-2017, 09:50 PM
The US is one of the most authoritarian states in the world. They have imposed totalitarian systems of surveillance and mass imprisonment on the domestic population while overseeing a bloody and oppressive empire abroad. Literally millions of innocent people have died violent deaths at the hands of the US government.

You're being emotional, not empirical.


What is the mean length of prison sentence? What is the rate of hard labor per sentence? What is the amount of such hard labor? What is the rate of incarceration per capita? How many laws does that society have? Is sentencing proportionate to crimes? How long between indictments and trials? How long spend in remand? What illnesses do prisoners get? What is the rate of death in prison, and what are the causes? What percentage of the population can vote? What percentage of the population can publicly criticize the government? How accessible are public defenders? How many civilians are killed by police? How many civilians are killed while incarcerated? How many death sentences are there per capita?


These are the kinds of measurable variables that can indicate how authoritarian a society is, and this is just related to aw enforcement. If you look at the statistics, and took them seriously, I wonder if you would still think that the US is one of the most authoritarian states in the world.

kilgram
03-20-2017, 01:25 AM
Done by eliminating the state.

But that would require understanding distinctions like voluntary vs coerced. You don't .
Or we are from different anarchist schools. I am from anarchism of XIX century and your ideas are based on the anarchocapitalism, or liberalism based on the Austrian School of the half of.the XX century.

Classical anarchism was completely antiauthoritarian and considered hierarchies absolutely authoritarian and also companies,...

We will never agree in that. In my logic I see authoritarian any hierarchy or ability to reduce your power of decision. If I am your boss in the company I am already using my power of authority. I can coerce you to do things for me. If you don't do as I say I can fire you, so I am using my position to get things.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-20-2017, 08:07 AM
Or we are from different anarchist schools. I am from anarchism of XIX century and your ideas are based on the anarchocapitalism, or liberalism based on the Austrian School of the half of.the XX century.

Classical anarchism was completely antiauthoritarian and considered hierarchies absolutely authoritarian and also companies,...

We will never agree in that. In my logic I see authoritarian any hierarchy or ability to reduce your power of decision. If I am your boss in the company I am already using my power of authority. I can coerce you to do things for me. If you don't do as I say I can fire you, so I am using my position to get things.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


I've read the classical anarchists, few were antiauthoritarian in the sense you are. Cite one that would have done away with family, one.

You ignore completely voluntary associations.

Chris
03-20-2017, 08:08 AM
You're being emotional, not empirical.


What is the mean length of prison sentence? What is the rate of hard labor per sentence? What is the amount of such hard labor? What is the rate of incarceration per capita? How many laws does that society have? Is sentencing proportionate to crimes? How long between indictments and trials? How long spend in remand? What illnesses do prisoners get? What is the rate of death in prison, and what are the causes? What percentage of the population can vote? What percentage of the population can publicly criticize the government? How accessible are public defenders? How many civilians are killed by police? How many civilians are killed while incarcerated? How many death sentences are there per capita?


These are the kinds of measurable variables that can indicate how authoritarian a society is, and this is just related to aw enforcement. If you look at the statistics, and took them seriously, I wonder if you would still think that the US is one of the most authoritarian states in the world.


Frankly, you're being emotional and not empirical in your selection of criteria.

kilgram
03-20-2017, 08:29 AM
I've read the classical anarchists, few were antiauthoritarian in the sense you are. Cite one that would have done away with family, one.

You ignore completely voluntary associations.
Bakunin, Kropotkin...

Obviously then I have my own ideas. I don't ignore associations. They are a pillar. Mutual aid.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-20-2017, 08:55 AM
Bakunin, Kropotkin...

Obviously then I have my own ideas. I don't ignore associations. They are a pillar. Mutual aid.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Cite them saying anarchy is against all hierarchy.

I know you think it. But you unreasonably refuse to consider the distinction between voluntary and coercive. In so doing you contradict yourself. You say the people should be free to choose. Then you say they cannot choose to work for another.

Chris
03-20-2017, 09:03 AM
This?


This meant that anarchism "rejects the principle of authority." While Engels never could understand what Bakunin meant by this, the concept is simple. For Bakunin, "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." Instead of this, Bakunin advocated what latter became known as "self-management." In such an organisation "hierarchic order and advancement do not exist" and there would be "voluntary and thoughtful discipline" for "collective work or action." "In such a system," Bakunin stressed, "power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere realisation of the will of all . . . this is the only true discipline, the discipline necessary for the organisation of freedom."

@ http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/the-revolutionary-ideas-of-bakunin

Then you are misunderstanding him. As the following demonstrates:


Freedom, as Bakunin argued, is a product of connection, not of isolation. How a group organises itself determines whether it is authoritarian or libertarian. By the term "principle of authority" Bakunin meant hierarchy rather than organisation and the need to make agreements. He rhetorically asked "does it follow that I reject all authority?" and answered quite clearly: "No, far be it from me to entertain such a thought." He acknowledged the difference between being an authority -- an expert -- and being in authority. Similarly, he argued that anarchists "recognise all natural authority, and all influence of fact upon us, but none of right." He stressed that the "only great and omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the only one we respect, will be that of the collective and public spirit of a society founded on equality and solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members."

All he is advocating is no hierarchical order between rulers and ruled.

His rejection of God is simply absurd on the face of it.

His rejection of the state is obvious and follows from all else he wrote.

His rejection of capitalism is similar to mine:


His critique of capitalism built upon Proudhon's. Under capitalism "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" and "concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom." Property meant for the capitalist "the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live . . . by exploiting the work of someone else." For Bakunin, the consistent libertarian must also be a socialist, as "only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task of maintaining . . . civilised society."

He accepts voluntary associations. He rejects the power of capitalist granted by the State.

kilgram
03-21-2017, 01:45 PM
Cite them saying anarchy is against all hierarchy.

I know you think it. But you unreasonably refuse to consider the distinction between voluntary and coercive. In so doing you contradict yourself. You say the people should be free to choose. Then you say they cannot choose to work for another.
I don't say cannot. I say nobody would agree to do that if he is in senses. How once you've tasted absolute freedom you would agree to go back to a worse situation where you put on the orders of others, authority of others and limiting your freedom.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-21-2017, 02:16 PM
I don't say cannot. I say nobody would agree to do that if he is in senses. How once you've tasted absolute freedom you would agree to go back to a worse situation where you put on the orders of others, authority of others and limiting your freedom.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Working for someone is exchanging labor for pay and other compensation that one values over the labor. It's like any other voluntary exchange, you trade what you value less for what you value more.

Absolute freedom is an abstraction.