Political Theory

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Angurse — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:32:44 GMT

In Restraint of State:

I think I get what you're saying...but "weapon" is just a subset of "tool," meaning it's a specific kind of tool. I'd also say that most physical objects can be used as weapons.

You're kind of getting it, any proposition referring to moral/economic/political theory is ultimately defined in terms of human beliefs.

"If we define an object in terms of a person’s attitude toward it, it follows, of course, that the definition of the object implies a statement about the attitude of the person toward the thing. When we say that a person possesses food or money, or that he utters a word, we imply that he knows that the first can be eaten, that the second can be used to buy something with, and that the third can be understood …."

- Hayek

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

In Restraint of State — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:16:23 GMT

Angurse:

In Restraint of State:
For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other....

Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn't any objective physical properties that can make the definition "concrete." One person may call a gun a "tool" another may say its a "weapon" said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue.

I think I get what you're saying...but "weapon" is just a subset of "tool," meaning it's a specific kind of tool. I'd also say that most physical objects can be used as weapons.

Brainpolice:

Angurse:

In Restraint of State:
For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other....

Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn't any objective physical properties that can make the definition "concrete." One person may call a gun a "tool" another may say its a "weapon" said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue.

You're sort of right, but if you take concrete-bound reductionism to its logical conclusion, you end up renouncing most of our language. The problem is that the assumption of the very criteria of explicit object-reference for meaning is mistaken to begin with. What we really have is a plurality of context-sensitive language games. See late Wittgenstein.

Agreed. Although, i don't know who Wittgenstein is, lol.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Brainpolice — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:55:43 GMT

Angurse:

In Restraint of State:
For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other....

Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn't any objective physical properties that can make the definition "concrete." One person may call a gun a "tool" another may say its a "weapon" said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue.

You're sort of right, but if you take concrete-bound reductionism to its logical conclusion, you end up renouncing most of our language. The problem is that the assumption of the very criteria of explicit object-reference for meaning is mistaken to begin with. What we really have is a plurality of context-sensitive language games. See late Wittgenstein.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Angurse — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:37:33 GMT

In Restraint of State:
For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other....

Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn't any objective physical properties that can make the definition "concrete." One person may call a gun a "tool" another may say its a "weapon" said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

In Restraint of State — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:26:23 GMT

Angurse:

In Restraint of State:
I think you're assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn't. "Provoked" means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It's pretty straight forward. I seriously think you're just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument.

Poor assumption, poor refutation.

And that - "having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest" - isn't even close to the standard definition of provokedwhat provoked means. So you are either trying to prove me point, or I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

There aren't any physical properties to words such as "coercion," "aggression," "force," etc, in social sciences, so when used they are only defined in the meaning people place. Which is SUBJECTIVE.

For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other....

And I shouldn't have used the word "provoke" but rather "threaten"

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Jackson LaRose — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:38:11 GMT

afederalrepublican1776:

the problem i have always found with the anarcho left.......

is that i have yet to find a leftist anarchist who is willing to agree with me that the state is the problem. i have yet to see a leftist anarchist favor freedom instead of the statist intervention in all matters besides gays/sex, drugs, religion and abortion. most of these types also believe that we must crush liberty and the rights of others in order to create a more 'free' society. such as wealth redistribution, labor law, any manner of economic infringements on trade, commerce, etc... abolition of religion in order for them to be 'free from religion.' they also have a confused analysis of rights. right to healthcare, 'free housing,' etc.

I would hardly call them anarchists then.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

afederalrepublican1776 — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:04:37 GMT

the problem i have always found with the anarcho left.......

is that i have yet to find a leftist anarchist who is willing to agree with me that the state is the problem. i have yet to see a leftist anarchist favor freedom instead of the statist intervention in all matters besides gays/sex, drugs, religion and abortion. most of these types also believe that we must crush liberty and the rights of others in order to create a more 'free' society. such as wealth redistribution, labor law, any manner of economic infringements on trade, commerce, etc... abolition of religion in order for them to be 'free from religion.' they also have a confused analysis of rights. right to healthcare, 'free housing,' etc.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Angurse — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:54:45 GMT

In Restraint of State:
I think you're assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn't. "Provoked" means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It's pretty straight forward. I seriously think you're just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument.

Poor assumption, poor refutation.

And that - "having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest" - isn't even close to the standard definition of provokedwhat provoked means. So you are either trying to prove me point, or I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

There aren't any physical properties to words such as "coercion," "aggression," "force," etc, in social sciences, so when used they are only defined in the meaning people place. Which is SUBJECTIVE.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Andrew Cain — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:55:45 GMT

In Restraint of State:
I think you're assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn't. "Provoked" means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It's pretty straight forward. I seriously think you're just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument.

That's actually a very insightful comment.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

In Restraint of State — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:29:36 GMT

Angurse:

In Restraint of State:
Actually I think "force, " "agression," and "coercion" have been pretty clearly defined. Most people i've heard use them in my whole life have always used them in the same way. The only area of difference is "coercion" where some people believe "wage-slavery" is coercion, but their concept of wage-slavery is highly problematic because of internal contradictions (you can't allow someone to work for a wage, of you could be forced to pay someone a certain wage so that would essentially be confiscation and/or forced labor in some cases which itself would be slavery in order to pay someone a certain wage).

Not really, even if they can agree on what defines aggression, say, unprovoked violence, the differences still remain, who decideds whether he was or wasn't provoked. And even libertarians use the term coercion differently.

I think you're assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn't. "Provoked" means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It's pretty straight forward. I seriously think you're just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

wilderness — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:18:58 GMT

Angurse:
I don't see why you cannot categorise action, so yeah.

I guess to finish that up, then you are agreeing, maybe, that initiated coercion isn't an economic event, though, human action is still involved and the understanding of the event is defined in the category: ethics.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

wilderness — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:21:28 GMT

Angurse:
I don't see why you cannot categorise action, so yeah.

awesome.

great.

thanks.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Angurse — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:21:25 GMT

scineram:
The antihierarchtarians, the worst kind of antiproperty bozos. I think he means it.

Oh, yeah I fully agree there, no problem with hierarchy myself. And I think your right, I just have trouble believing it.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

Angurse — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:19:10 GMT

I don't see why you cannot categorise action, so yeah.

Re: Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

scineram — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:18:25 GMT

Angurse:

scineram:
Cause they are mostly idiots. That Tremblay guy and the likes.

Who? Those who reject self-ownership? And he's quite hilarious, I still don't believe he's serious.

No, I reject too. The antihierarchtarians, the worst kind of antiproperty bozos. I think he means it.