What is Anarchy?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked First of all I made no assumptions. I directly addressed exactly what you wrote. And if you do not see that, then you did not attempt to understand what I wrote as a response and probably do not even understand what you are typing.

The fact that you assumed something that I did not state is an assumption. You assumed some sort of idealism, where there was none. That in itself is an assumption. You don't have to like it, but that is the way it goes. You did somewhat try to address what I had stated, but in the processes confounded things with your own preconceived notions of what I was saying in the first place.

I am not talking about a Hobbesian myth. Between you and I, you are ignoring the meat of the responses the most. I made a reference to the bell curve which is where my arguement lies. Wolf-like behavior is presumptuous, unfounded, and irrelevant and sounds more like social satire. When judging the characteristics of a population, statistically, you will always have a bell curve. Governing is based on moderation and what is moderated are the extremes. And they are moderated by the interests of that portion of the bell curve that is most populous. That ability to constrain impulses is something you can only count on the population in the most populous portion of the bell curve to follow. And all of that is exactly why I feel anarchy is not possible; all the common people will work together to moderate for the best interest of the most number of people.

The whole "bell curve" argument you are throwing is essentially the majority rule, or mob rule, or democracy, mass mentality. Now if you want to address democracy we can gladly have a seperate thread to address its failures. The ability to be both aggressive and constrain impulses is exactly what human nature is. Too often do people assume human nature is either all bad or all good. Anarchy is possible, whether it is probably or not is another story. But as one can argue we are always in a constant state of anarchy. Government inevitably move towards disorder. The more ordered they get, the more centralized, the bigger, the more they will move towards chaos. You assume that all the common people will work for the best interest of "everyone" that is what Karl Marx assumed, although now you will try to legitimize your definition it nonetheless remains ipso facto tied to collectivized thinking. Humans are pack animals, no one denies that, but it is their nature to seek their self interest and pursuit over others, that is what characterizes them more than their willingness to work for the benefit of all. Political conditioning taught us that we are convinced that the protection of our life and liberty is contingent upon what others do and think and our well being depends upon our securing the support of at least 51% of our neighbors. Because we are social beings who affect one another in various ways, whether or not we respect one another’s inviolability is obviously very important in how we live. But because we have been conditioned to think in political, majoritarian terms, we cling to the view that only some kind of collective response to statist policies will be effective.

I did read the essay. If you were not an inconsiderate moron you would see that I would not have been able to respond point by point to what you were saying, if I had not.

You were suggesting, and did again, that peoples self moderation will be enough to not infringe on eachother in an anarchic condition. And, therefore, this touches on the idea of infringing on peoples rights, as I mentioned. Of course it is idealistic; I agree with you on that point. However you went and supported the idealism again by mentioning individual restraint. People will always try and protect themselves from those who are trying to infringe on "life and property" as you mentioned earlier. And if you believe, as you suggested, that there is no reason to do so, then you are denying the idea of the bell curve in a population and that denial is absurd.

I never suggested peoples self moderation would suffice and usher in an anarchic condition. The argument can be made that we are constantly in a state of anarchic condition. That has no bearing upon peoples' having self moderation or not. I only mentioned that all political systems are socialistic because they inevitably violate the property rights of individuals, which like I said, is the basis of all society. That is all I said, but you make gross assumptions about idealisms and what not, which leave me wondering what you're doing, again, in this discussion, turning around and telling me that I'm the one that is lost. As for the bell curve, it is not holy law, for that is the kind of thing democracy is based on, and democracy, is a failure if measured by the amount of human blood it has spilled and how much property it violates in its redistributive efforts. Essentally all governments start with that thesis, they are there to protect the life and property of its people. That is how the America started. However, now it is nothing more than a redistributive welfare state that only violates property rights of its individuals. If you can't see this on its face value, then you are trying too hard believe.

You cannot argue for anarchy and against government by pointing out the flaws in an existing government. We are discussing government in general, not America.

You cannot argue for anarchy and against government by pointing out the flaws in an existing government. We are discussing government in general, not America.

Government:
(1)The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
(2)The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.

Those are the first two dictionary definitions and it does not suggest what the public policy is; only that there is a public policy. You cannot argue against government as an idea but arguing the policies of an individual government. That is improper logic.

The topic was anarchy, and government is secondary to the discussion, only a point led to, not begun with, by the discussion, therefore it is imperative and essential that one point out flaws in government, mind you, contradictions, and things that the government claimed it would do upon its creation, which it has failed to do and in fact has done the opposite.

As for you running to the dictionary to define "government", like I said, even family is a form of government, you don't see me advocating the abolition of family do you? However, the discussion is about anarchy, in relation to an omnipotent central ruling government. The fact that public policy is assumed and not defined, in the fact itself suggests that they assume societies individuals all think alike that there must be an inherent public policy, which the government does not cook up, but rather simply takes the reigns of and is handed these "policies", in other words public policy exists prior to govenment itself existing. That is silly at best. Policies and laws only filter out from a government, not the other way around. Talk about improper logic.

Again, you are doing what I mentioned above by arguing against the idea of government in general by addressing the policies of individual government.
capitalism:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

It is an economic system. It does not suggest that there is no government. It is possible to have a capitalistic society with a government, therefore what you said hold not weight.

And I do not need to have read Mises to understand what economic natural selection is. And I definately do not need to read his work for the context of this discussion because of what I said in the previous paragraph. You are trying to intimidate me with nonsense.

All governments tax do they not? All governments have a central bank do they not? All governments are a monopoly of violence in a given territory are they not? Once again, of course capitalism is a government, if looked at from the businesses it has which are organized hierarchically, well so is a family. Actually capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. You posted the laymens graph which brilliantly argued for this point, that the free market has the least amount of government, meaning it is more chaotic than anything else. Business and the free market are voluntary exchanges. The free market is not coercive and no one forces you to work for anyone. Government is coercive. Those are two different things. How can you even compare the two? Apparently you really do need to read Mises. In the free market, there is no regulator to tell you what you can or can't buy, and no one to issue fiat money. It is precisely because of the central bank and fiat money that we have inflation and the "business cycle". You think your paper money is worth anything? Oh wait, a tangential point, I forgot.

Again, the whole logic thing. The biggest assumption that has been made in this discussion is that I do not see the infringement by the government. Take your head out of your ass and read what I am writing. All of this discussion came from this, my post:

Apparently you do not, for if you did, you would be able to see the difference between an economic system, and a political system. That you do not, shows you have your head up your ass, not I. How is the view of your intestines by the way?

[surferarmo]

You miss me dont you, anon?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by surferarmo You miss me dont you, anon?

Yes, I admit. I do!

HAHAHA!

Where did you rear from?

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse The fact that you assumed something that I did not state is an assumption. You assumed some sort of idealism, where there was none. That in itself is an assumption. You don't have to like it, but that is the way it goes. You did somewhat try to address what I had stated, but in the processes confounded things with your own preconceived notions of what I was saying in the first place.

This little paragraph of yours proves you are not reading my posts. I addressed what you said about people having the ability of self-restraint and continued to say that I believe the idea of there being enough self-restraint to make a lack of government work was idealistic. I supported my point by bringing up the bell-curve idea. This means that I was not making assumptions about your being idealistic; I went through a logical thought process to come up with that opinon, so whether you agree with my justification or not, you can know that I was not assuming. If you do not understand this already, you are an imbecile. I do not want to discuss something with you if you are going to ignore what I write. Furthermore, when somebody truly believes in their ideas, they feel they are being realistic; nobody is idealistic with conviction. That is a label given by an opposing party which means I was not accusing you of feeling that you were idealistic; I was accusing you of being idealistic. Therefore it is not possible for me to assume that you are being idealistic. You should go yell at your parents for having xxxxty genes and cursing you with a meager IQ.

The whole "bell curve" argument you are throwing is essentially the majority rule, or mob rule, or democracy, mass mentality. Now if you want to address democracy we can gladly have a seperate thread to address its failures. The ability to be both aggressive and constrain impulses is exactly what human nature is. Too often do people assume human nature is either all bad or all good. Anarchy is possible, whether it is probably or not is another story. But as one can argue we are always in a constant state of anarchy. Government inevitably move towards disorder. The more ordered they get, the more centralized, the bigger, the more they will move towards chaos. You assume that all the common people will work for the best interest of "everyone" that is what Karl Marx assumed, although now you will try to legitimize your definition it nonetheless remains ipso facto tied to collectivized thinking. Humans are pack animals, no one denies that, but it is their nature to seek their self interest and pursuit over others, that is what characterizes them more than their willingness to work for the benefit of all. Political conditioning taught us that we are convinced that the protection of our life and liberty is contingent upon what others do and think and our well being depends upon our securing the support of at least 51% of our neighbors. Because we are social beings who affect one another in various ways, whether or not we respect one another’s inviolability is obviously very important in how we live. But because we have been conditioned to think in political, majoritarian terms, we cling to the view that only some kind of collective response to statist policies will be effective.

I am not addressing this because it is a mess of presumptions and misunderstandings. If you understood what I have written, I would not have had to read that ridiculous paragraph. You are making non-existent connections between ideas. Anybody with half a mind would see how what I have said before has nothing to do with what you said here. I am not going to address because you will ignore my points.


I never suggested peoples self moderation would suffice and usher in an anarchic condition. The argument can be made that we are constantly in a state of anarchic condition. That has no bearing upon peoples' having self moderation or not. I only mentioned that all political systems are socialistic because they inevitably violate the property rights of individuals, which like I said, is the basis of all society. That is all I said, but you make gross assumptions about idealisms and what not, which leave me wondering what you're doing, again, in this discussion, turning around and telling me that I'm the one that is lost. As for the bell curve, it is not holy law, for that is the kind of thing democracy is based on, and democracy, is a failure if measured by the amount of human blood it has spilled and how much property it violates in its redistributive efforts. Essentally all governments start with that thesis, they are there to protect the life and property of its people. That is how the America started. However, now it is nothing more than a redistributive welfare state that only violates property rights of its individuals. If you can't see this on its face value, then you are trying too hard believe.

Again, this is feces from top to bottom. You are making a non-existent connection between democracy and probability/statistics and are then telling me that probability and statistics are not to be relied on. And I know you will say that is an assumption because you have no other defenses. But before you do, read what you wrote.

And no, if you go by the definitions of the subjects we are discussing, we are not in a constant state of anarchy. I hope you are not confusing anarchy with entropy because that would be xxxxing stupid.

The topic was anarchy, and government is secondary to the discussion, only a point led to, not begun with, by the discussion, therefore it is imperative and essential that one point out flaws in government, mind you, contradictions, and things that the government claimed it would do upon its creation, which it has failed to do and in fact has done the opposite.

Nope. This discussion started by you responding to my tangential thought on anarchy. There for we are talking about whether anarchy can exist or not. Not whether you like government or not. This is all a matter of possibility. You have confused the crap out of yourself.

As for you running to the dictionary to define "government", like I said, even family is a form of government, you don't see me advocating the abolition of family do you? However, the discussion is about anarchy, in relation to an omnipotent central ruling government. The fact that public policy is assumed and not defined, in the fact itself suggests that they assume societies individuals all think alike that there must be an inherent public policy, which the government does not cook up, but rather simply takes the reigns of and is handed these "policies", in other words public policy exists prior to govenment itself existing. That is silly at best. Policies and laws only filter out from a government, not the other way around. Talk about improper logic.

Unnecessary to address.

All governments tax do they not? All governments have a central bank do they not? All governments are a monopoly of violence in a given territory are they not? Once again, of course capitalism is a government, if looked at from the businesses it has which are organized hierarchically, well so is a family. Actually capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. You posted the laymens graph which brilliantly argued for this point, that the free market has the least amount of government, meaning it is more chaotic than anything else. Business and the free market are voluntary exchanges. The free market is not coercive and no one forces you to work for anyone. Government is coercive. Those are two different things. How can you even compare the two? Apparently you really do need to read Mises. In the free market, there is no regulator to tell you what you can or can't buy, and no one to issue fiat money. It is precisely because of the central bank and fiat money that we have inflation and the "business cycle". You think your paper money is worth anything? Oh wait, a tangential point, I forgot.

This is where my half-a-brain theory comes into play. Anybody with half a brain who has read what I said, will understand that this is not worth addressing. Especially since you will ignore me again anyway.


Apparently you do not, for if you did, you would be able to see the difference between an economic system, and a political system. That you do not, shows you have your head up your ass, not I. How is the view of your intestines by the way?

This is where you point out a mistake I made in haste which I already pointed out. I am shivering in my steel-toes from your intellectual prowess. Stop sniffing your anus.

I will not reply to this thread anymore because nobody seems to be able to comprehend the ideas I am employing.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked I will not reply to this thread anymore because nobody seems to be able to comprehend the ideas I am employing.

Suit yourself for lacking the capacity to get into a discussion and blaming others for not "responding to you" when someone points out flaws in your thinking, for what is initially your ineptitude in a discussion.

This little paragraph of yours proves you are not reading my posts. I addressed what you said about people having the ability of self-restraint and continued to say that I believe the idea of there being enough self-restraint to make a lack of government work was idealistic. I supported my point by bringing up the bell-curve idea. This means that I was not making assumptions about your being idealistic; I went through a logical thought process to come up with that opinon, so whether you agree with my justification or not, you can know that I was not assuming. If you do not understand this already, you are an imbecile. I do not want to discuss something with you if you are going to ignore what I write. Furthermore, when somebody truly believes in their ideas, they feel they are being realistic; nobody is idealistic with conviction. That is a label given by an opposing party which means I was not accusing you of feeling that you were idealistic; I was accusing you of being idealistic. Therefore it is not possible for me to assume that you are being idealistic. You should go yell at your parents for having xxxxty genes and cursing you with a meager IQ.

Once again, people having the ability for self-restraint would ensure a lack of government, is your assumption, for I never said that. In fact I can sit here and whine at you all day and accuse you of "not responding to the meat of my response", but I am merely saying you are assuming things, and you don't like that. Once again, for the slow ones, all I said was that political systems are based on violating the property rights of individuals, and property rights are the basis of society. We all own property, do we not? No one ever said there is going to be a utopian world here, thus that is your assumption regarding what I have said. It is from this assumption that you then attempt to present your argument a priori and come off as some how being logical in your progression.

I am not addressing this because it is a mess of presumptions and misunderstandings. If you understood what I have written, I would not have had to read that ridiculous paragraph. You are making non-existent connections between ideas. Anybody with half a mind would see how what I have said before has nothing to do with what you said here. I am not going to address because you will ignore my points.

When I point out a flaw in your reasoning and once again highlight your assumptions, I am making "non-existent connections between ideas". Was it not you that presented the bell curve model, which is another cozy term for majority, in other words what the majority of society dictates? The bell curve model, like all statistics, is misleading, for it assumes all individuals will think alike and that all will sacrifice themselves for the greater good. That is silly, for like I said, that is what Marx assumed. Your assumption is thus what comes back to bite you, for I am left wondering why you make such assumptions and then turn around and tell me that I have "misunderstandings".

Again, this is feces from top to bottom. You are making a non-existent connection between democracy and probability/statistics and are then telling me that probability and statistics are not to be relied on. And I know you will say that is an assumption because you have no other defenses. But before you do, read what you wrote.

Your probabilty and statistics are based on what democracy is based on, the majority. Majoritarianism. It assumes that everyone will think alike, and that people will place the greater good of the "public" the "people" ( a holistic entity ), ahead of their own. That is a gross assumption, however you wish to argue this. One churn out all sorts of statistics and probabilities to support whatever claim one wants to support, all you have to do is start from whatever claim you seek to support, your rallyiong point, your argument hangs by a thread.

And no, if you go by the definitions of the subjects we are discussing, we are not in a constant state of anarchy. I hope you are not confusing anarchy with entropy because that would be xxxxing stupid.

To quote the author:

Having spent many years driving on California freeways, I have observed an informal order amongst motorists who are complete strangers to one another. There is a general – albeit not universal – courtesy exhibited when one driver wishes to make a lane change and, in spite of noncooperative drivers, a spontaneous order arises from this interplay. A major reason for the cooperative order lies in the fact that a driving mistake can result in serious injury or death, and that such consequences will be felt at once, and by the actor, unlike political decision-making that shifts the costs to others.

One may answer that freeway driving is regulated by the state, and that driving habits are not indicative of anarchistic behavior. The same response can be made concerning our behavior generally (i.e., that government laws dictate our conduct in all settings). But this misconceives the causal connections at work. The supervision of our moment-to-moment activities by the state is too remote to affect our actions. We are polite to fellow shoppers or our neighbor for reasons that have nothing to do with legal prescripts. What makes our dealings with others peaceful and respectful comes from within ourselves, not from beyond. For precisely the same reason, a society can be utterly destroyed by the corruption of such subjective influences, and no blizzard of legislative enactments or quadrupling of police forces will be able to avert the entropic outcome. Do you now understand the social meaning of the "Humpty-Dumpty" nursery rhyme?

This is where my half-a-brain theory comes into play. Anybody with half a brain who has read what I said, will understand that this is not worth addressing. Especially since you will ignore me again anyway.

This is where you point out a mistake I made in haste which I already pointed out. I am shivering in my steel-toes from your intellectual prowess. Stop sniffing your anus.

I will not reply to this thread anymore because nobody seems to be able to comprehend the ideas I am employing.

xxxx for brains, stop whining about people not comprehending you. There are no "people" here, just me. And if you feel I don't understand you, why bother letting the discussion go this far? Initially it is you that makes gross assumptions yet I am the one that doesn't understand your warped mind. I can see that you are flirting with intelligence but getting the cold shoulder in return.

[loseyourname]

I'd like to point out here that you still have yet to suggest a way in which every governing body currently in existence on this planet might be done away with without being replaced by others.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Yes, I admit. I do!

HAHAHA!

Where did you rear from?

Where else does one rear from? The back of course!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I'd like to point out here that you still have yet to suggest a way in which every governing body currently in existence on this planet might be done away with without being replaced by others.

That's where Hans-Hermann Hoppe comes in. Essentially, instead of the centralized government of "the people", or "the public" ( a holistic entity, for there is no "people", and that is the error of democracy) there is comparitive government, or ordered anarchy.

I really do recommend you all look into "Democracy: The God That Failed". Really an excellent book for Hoppe does a far better job at explaining this, than anyone else can.

[sleuth]

anarchy=jews

[PASAMONSTER]

sleuth i'm liking you more and more