Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's very odd to ask my personal habits so I'm trying to be as thorough as possible.
Plus these questions are so bizarre they take forever to answer.
How about you just answer the question instead of finding ways to dodge? Neither one of these address your personal habits, or is bizarre, so please drop those nonsensical lines of rebuttal and simple answer some basic questions.
Last edited by wallflash; 10-02-2017 at 04:48 AM..
I don't think it is an obsession about how you would run your life as much as it is a request for information about the general thinking about how a non-statist society would work. You have presented an argument, yet you decline to defend it, and worse, you accuse anyone who questions you of not thinking for themselves.
Is it impossible for you to accept that the people asking these questions ARE thinking for themselves, and simply disagree with you? Defend your position, if it's so good!
Many legitimate questions have been asked here, and I don't see you being terribly willing to answer any of them. While I understand your (possibly a bit presumptuous) desire to educate us, so far, your methods are not proving to be very successful.
The bolded above hits the point precisely. To pretend that asking questions about how things will work is equal to wanting personal info about a person is nothing but a lazy copout to avoid admitting you have no real answers to give about the very basics of how an anarchist society would work.
Break free from freaking out when the teacher leaves the classroom.
Nice attempt at a dodge, but not buying it. I think it is fairly safe for everyone who has asked you pertinent questions to presume you cant give an adequate answer to them.
Heh that's a he'll of a rabbit hole so a full answer will have to wait because I have a flight @ 530 am and an hour drive to the airport. I would summarise it is a social organisation that consolidates the power of society and also defines/enforces the rules of said society. Note that none of that garauntees that it will be moral or just, it is more of just an inevitability of human social organisation that power will consolidate for the reasons I laid out earlier. We are social animals, given a void of organized social power, the power will eventually be filled for better or for worse.
I may or may not agree depending on what you mean by power...
I think of government power as "the right to rule", which is the right to boss people around and take their money in simple terms. If you want a technically correct definition, I'd say government/the state is the person or group with societal permission to initiate force within a given territory.
The thing that separates "the government" from everyone else within any society is the "right" to initiate force, which would be wrong when the average person does it. What we're saying is that societal rules can and must be enforced, but that doesn't mean anyone is allowed to initiate force. Rules are enforced DEFENSIVELY rather than offensively. You can call it government if you want, but we're not against collective defense...just collective offense against peaceful people.
It all fits together like a puzzle. Nobody is allowed to initiate force/violate property rights, even a designated group we call "the government". Rules are enforced defensively - anyone is allowed to defend themselves, defend others, work as a group to defend each other, stop cooperating with or providing services for the criminals...whatever you want to do, as long as it follows that fundamental rule. Once you bring force into a non-violent situation, you're the bad guy and will be treated as such.
That's the issue we have right now. Most people live that way in their personal lives, but then there's this organization that has sole permission to violate the rules everyone else is held to. You can't rationally and logically hold those two things in your head simultaneously. Either it's okay for the government AND citizens to initiate force, or it's NOT okay for either of them to initiate force.
There's no logical way to argue that it's okay for one but not the other...hence "anarchy", because there's no special group of rulers that are given special "rights" that no one else has.
Nice attempt at a dodge, but not buying it. I think it is fairly safe for everyone who has asked you pertinent questions to presume you cant give an adequate answer to them.
I may or may not agree depending on what you mean by power...
I think of government power as "the right to rule", which is the right to boss people around and take their money in simple terms. If you want a technically correct definition, I'd say government/the state is the person or group with societal permission to initiate force within a given territory.
The thing that separates "the government" from everyone else within any society is the "right" to initiate force, which would be wrong when the average person does it. What we're saying is that societal rules can and must be enforced, but that doesn't mean anyone is allowed to initiate force. Rules are enforced DEFENSIVELY rather than offensively. You can call it government if you want, but we're not against collective defense...just collective offense against peaceful people.
It all fits together like a puzzle. Nobody is allowed to initiate force/violate property rights, even a designated group we call "the government". Rules are enforced defensively - anyone is allowed to defend themselves, defend others, work as a group to defend each other, stop cooperating with or providing services for the criminals...whatever you want to do, as long as it follows that fundamental rule. Once you bring force into a non-violent situation, you're the bad guy and will be treated as such.
That's the issue we have right now. Most people live that way in their personal lives, but then there's this organization that has sole permission to violate the rules everyone else is held to. You can't rationally and logically hold those two things in your head simultaneously. Either it's okay for the government AND citizens to initiate force, or it's NOT okay for either of them to initiate force.
There's no logical way to argue that it's okay for one but not the other...hence "anarchy", because there's no special group of rulers that are given special "rights" that no one else has.
This is not so much an argument of whether government should exist as it is one about how government should work.
Man, you guys have a huge interest in contract law.
It appears to me that for things to work as you say they should, a "huge" interest in contract law, or at least in contracts, would be not only desirable, but essential.
Nice attempt at a dodge, but not buying it. I think it is fairly safe for everyone who has asked you pertinent questions to presume you cant give an adequate answer to them.
You're toast.
Not letting this just go away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
