About

Re: just curious

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:38:55 GMT

Thanks for clarifying. With that said, this thread is closed.

Re: just curious

banned — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:47:41 GMT

Ixtellor:

To answer your question. I believe man is inheriently selfish. Or from Mises:

"every conscious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction" I think I would amend it (my belief).

"every consious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction with the easiest (change the words but semantics)means necessasary"

This doesn't really make sense as the action is the means. Perhaps you mean: "Every conscious action an actor takes is thought to be the easiest way to acheive their desired ends."

In which case I would say your ammendment is wholly redundant.

Ixtellor:
So in regards to anarchy. I think some men will decide that using guns/violence to force others to do their bidding is an easier way to achieve their satisfaction.

Fine, but now you're simply describing how government agents act.

Ixtellor:
All it takes is one leader of a well outfitted, armed, and financed PDA to create major havok, if not succeed in recreating an authoritarian dictotatorship.

If there was only one well armed PDA, this would be true. But if you oppose this monopoly on force, what makes the US government any better?

Ixtellor:
(Oh and the fact that some anarchists think raping, killing, eating, and selling your baby or doing the same to anyone who goes on your property is an inheriant right)[Hint: these anarchists are closer than you might imagine, they are not an abstract example I just thought up]

Oh I know! I pissed myself into a coma when I found out there was an anarcho-baby eater under my bed.

Re: just curious

Juan — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:06:43 GMT

OK. It will not work.

Re: just curious

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:01:16 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
i'd like to get a better idea of how the forum works, and why etc. so this is just a gentle request.

im interested why/how/who locked the Children NAP thread.

I did.

It was devolving into a bitchfest again, and the decision has been made for bitchfests to be cut off as soon as possible. The quickest method to get the attention of everyone is to lock the thread. And it will happen every time a bitchfest happens. Capisce?

Re: just curious

liege — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:54:12 GMT

Ixtellor:

Since you edited my response.

NO.

I have repeated time and time again, its a belief, hypothesis, theory, feeling.

I was using an ellipsis, which, if I am not mistaken, is used in writing to signify an intentional ommission. You also did not specify that it was simply your belief. You only mentioned that you were saying what anarchist detractors were saying. And even if it is your belief, is it that absurd to ask you to justify your beliefs in an academic forum?

Ixtellor:
Name a society that wasn't burdened by political domination or some form of "State". Name any society, where the NAP was in practice or reality.

The Kapauku Papuans of the 20th century. Anglo-saxons in Britain during the Dark Ages. High Middle Ages/Rennaissance merchants under the Law Merchant in international arenas.

All of these are actually from a single book, The Enterprise of Law, by Bruce Benson. Its a great read actually. I would recommend it to all AnCaps and even to trollish Keynesians.

Ixtellor:
Cavemen: I was under the impression they were mostly based on clans with either the strongest or wisest making decisions for the group. But I admit any anthropology classes I took was a forever ago. So enlighten me.

It would be an Appeal to Tradition (logical fallacy) to assume that because political domination is par for the course for humanity today that it has always been so. Paleolithic societies were not organized along the same lines that modern societies are. The strongest or the wisest may have been a de facto leader, but this does not necessarily mean they wielded unlimited power. There is strong evidence that these leaders were merely the first among equals. Also, nobody was forced to work or do anything at spearpoint. Its most likely that all recognized that only by working together would they survive, and out of their own self interest, aided the group.

Ixtellor:
Why did you choose to quote me accuratly now and not before? Before I was stating a fact, thanks to your editing, now you admit its my belief.

You were quoted accurately before. You may feel it was taken out of context. I can't admit that its your belief, because I would have to know for certain if it was. Only you have that knowledge.

Ixtellor:
(Oh and the fact that some anarchists think raping, killing, eating, and selling your baby or doing the same to anyone who goes on your property is an inheriant right)[Hint: these anarchists are closer than you might imagine, they are not an abstract example I just thought up]

Outside of these forums you might be able to get away with this, but here, where anarchist principles are clearly defined, you are committing an equivocation. You know full well that anarcho-capitalists here don't condone eating and raping babies. You are equating the "anarchy" advocated by anarcho-capitalists with the "anarchy" of mainstream opinion (i.e. complete and utter chaos). Furthermore, you know better.

Re: just curious

Thedesolateone — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:46:24 GMT

Stranger:

Ixtellor:

Stranger:
Why are you wasting our time with your beliefs and feelings?

There is no libertarian or anarchist society. Therefore the ONLY thing you are doing here is theorizing and stating your beliefs.

So if you don't like to theorize, why are you here?

Ixtellor

P.S. I am here because I welcome diverse opinions and like to expand my base of knowledge outside my 'comfort' zone.

What we're doing here is argumentation. It leaves no room for beliefs and feelings.

And I was under the impression that axioms are not tautologically analytical, and hence, have to be taken as articles of faith.

Libertarianism, if proceeding from axiomatic individual sovereignty (self-ownership), is an ethical system. After all, no system can be grounded on pure a priori (in the Cartesian/Hume-ian sense) set of conjectures. Indeed, we must make a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" in order to justify any system. We merely make the axiomatic assumpting that humans (should) have individual sovereignty. This is not necessarily true, but it is our belief.

So we are conducting argumentation, based on our beliefs and feelings.

Re: just curious

Nitroadict — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:04:59 GMT

Ixtellor:

liege:

Naturally, you have historical examples to back up this assertion?

Since you edited my response.

NO.

I have repeated time and time again, its a belief, hypothesis, theory, feeling.

liege:
For most of our past, humanity has not been burdened by political domination.

I disagree. Name a society that wasn't burdened by political domination or some form of "State". Name any society, where the NAP was in practice or reality.

liege:
Also, humanity has not destroyed itself in an anarchist orgy of blood and destruction despite millions of years of living free.

Again, when was man free and not under the control or coersion of fellow man? Cavemen: I was under the impression they were mostly based on clans with either the strongest or wisest making decisions for the group. But I admit any anthropology classes I took was a forever ago. So enlighten me.

Hence no anarchy society has ever destroyed itself, because I am not aware of any anarchy society. Same reason Unicorn societies don't destroy themselves.

liege:
Yet you believe that if anarchy were to reign in modernity, things would be completely different.

Why did you choose to quote me accuratly now and not before? Before I was stating a fact, thanks to your editing, now you admit its my belief.

To answer your question. I believe man is inheriently selfish. Or from Mises:

"every conscious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction" I think I would amend it (my belief).

"every consious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction with the easiest (change the words but semantics)means necessasary"

So in regards to anarchy. I think some men will decide that using guns/violence to force others to do their bidding is an easier way to achieve their satisfaction. All it takes is one leader of a well outfitted, armed, and financed PDA to create major havok, if not succeed in recreating an authoritarian dictotatorship.

(Oh and the fact that some anarchists think raping, killing, eating, and selling your baby or doing the same to anyone who goes on your property is an inheriant right)[Hint: these anarchists are closer than you might imagine, they are not an abstract example I just thought up]

Ixtellor

I am almost perplexed by your charging that anarchists in general think raping & killing are legitimate.

You don't even bother to make the distinction between varieties of anarchism, of which there is obviously a huge rift between those who believe in private property, and those who do not, those who believe in vanguardism, & those who do not, & those who believe in "the ends jsutfying the means", or coercion being justified for the goal of anarchism.

Not every anarchist is a statist in disguise, nor an aspiring socialist in denial; if they were, then you're calling a good portion of members here murderers & rapists & all sorts of other nonsense you've probably charged.

Admittedly, however, this very perception & possible ignorance on your part is also part of the reason why some people have re-considered utilizing the term "anarcho-capitalist" or "anarchist" at all.

It's bad enough we all have to deal (to some extent) with the 'double-life' of participating online with our assorted communities, & then get faced-off with massive ignorance offline when it comes time to put down the cards & argue with the both the passive statists consentors & the active statist advocates.

It's even worse when you have to do iit increasingly online, which is typically an eviroment where ideas are more open to better discussion (comments on Youtube & /b/ possibly being the exception).

Personally, I think you need to do more reading on the forums; your arguments sound just shy of ignorant, considering the usual fair around here.

If it's any cosolation though, I might try & read the thread in the deleted forum due to piqued interest.

A little off topic, I think we need to chill with the thread deletions, imo.

Re: just curious

Stranger — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:02:38 GMT

Ixtellor:

Stranger:
Why are you wasting our time with your beliefs and feelings?

There is no libertarian or anarchist society. Therefore the ONLY thing you are doing here is theorizing and stating your beliefs.

So if you don't like to theorize, why are you here?

Ixtellor

P.S. I am here because I welcome diverse opinions and like to expand my base of knowledge outside my 'comfort' zone.

What we're doing here is argumentation. It leaves no room for beliefs and feelings.

Re: just curious

Ixtellor — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:00:09 GMT

Stranger:
Why are you wasting our time with your beliefs and feelings?

There is no libertarian or anarchist society. Therefore the ONLY thing you are doing here is theorizing and stating your beliefs.

So if you don't like to theorize, why are you here?

Ixtellor

P.S. I am here because I welcome diverse opinions and like to expand my base of knowledge outside my 'comfort' zone.

Re: just curious

Stranger — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:56:29 GMT

Ixtellor:

NO.

I have repeated time and time again, its a belief, hypothesis, theory, feeling.

Why are you wasting our time with your beliefs and feelings?

Re: just curious

Ixtellor — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:52:17 GMT

liege:

Naturally, you have historical examples to back up this assertion?

Since you edited my response.

NO.

I have repeated time and time again, its a belief, hypothesis, theory, feeling.

liege:
For most of our past, humanity has not been burdened by political domination.

I disagree. Name a society that wasn't burdened by political domination or some form of "State". Name any society, where the NAP was in practice or reality.

liege:
Also, humanity has not destroyed itself in an anarchist orgy of blood and destruction despite millions of years of living free.

Again, when was man free and not under the control or coersion of fellow man? Cavemen: I was under the impression they were mostly based on clans with either the strongest or wisest making decisions for the group. But I admit any anthropology classes I took was a forever ago. So enlighten me.

Hence no anarchy society has ever destroyed itself, because I am not aware of any anarchy society. Same reason Unicorn societies don't destroy themselves.

liege:
Yet you believe that if anarchy were to reign in modernity, things would be completely different.

Why did you choose to quote me accuratly now and not before? Before I was stating a fact, thanks to your editing, now you admit its my belief.

To answer your question. I believe man is inheriently selfish. Or from Mises:

"every conscious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction" I think I would amend it (my belief).

"every consious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction with the easiest (change the words but semantics)means necessasary"

So in regards to anarchy. I think some men will decide that using guns/violence to force others to do their bidding is an easier way to achieve their satisfaction. All it takes is one leader of a well outfitted, armed, and financed PDA to create major havok, if not succeed in recreating an authoritarian dictotatorship.

(Oh and the fact that some anarchists think raping, killing, eating, and selling your baby or doing the same to anyone who goes on your property is an inheriant right)[Hint: these anarchists are closer than you might imagine, they are not an abstract example I just thought up]

Ixtellor

Re: just curious

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:36:53 GMT

supposedly we are to believe that he was being satirical, and did not mean it

Re: just curious

liege — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:24:07 GMT

Ixtellor:
... anarchy will lead to unspeakable horror ...

Naturally, you have historical examples to back up this assertion?

For most of our past, humanity has not been burdened by political domination. Also, humanity has not destroyed itself in an anarchist orgy of blood and destruction despite millions of years of living free. Yet you believe that if anarchy were to reign in modernity, things would be completely different.

Why?

Re: just curious

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:45:20 GMT

oh juan, are we agreeing on things, tell me its so!

Re: just curious

Juan — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:27:19 GMT

Oh, but when they use their power they always keep the common good in mind...