Jump to content

Hugo's defence of anarchy


Hugo

Recommended Posts

is not a serious argument.One example here or one example there does not sway me. There are probably zillions of situations where people had to defend themselves in guerilla warfare and a rocket propelled grenade was their key to freedom.

So an actual event is not a serious argument, but a hypothetical claim about "zillions of situations" you made without any backing is a serious argument?

I mean technically, the Montreal RPG'ists did think it was their key to freedom, because the elimination of Ma Boucher would have prevented a credible trial against them.

Irrelevent. Kitchen knives have been used as assault weapons, self-defense weapons and culinary implements of destruction

Of course. Because the reason for which RPG's were invented, and for what they are primarily used is to aid in the preparation of food. I see, cutlery......anti-tank assault weapons are all one and the same.

So? What is your argument?

Without a state to protect us, we would all be speaking русский

Quite the contrary. Once you step outside of the borders of your State, your world is anarchist.

Well, I immigrated to Canada to escape the idiocy existent in many other parts of the world. Any reason why you have stayed here?

You can not impose YOUR subjective value system on an other hypothetically irrational person.

Yes we can. It's called Democracy, and is governed by functioning legal system to prevent abuses.

I have always wondered why that should be a concern.

Simple. We all have the right to believe in certain ideas, which should be of no concern. However, people sometimes have a tendency to act out ideas which are harmful to others, at which point they are of concern, and should be dealt with accordingly by the organs of the state responsible for our safety and security.

*And if you can answer but ONE question for me, please let it be the following*

If it is so bad here, why do you stay here in Canada? Why do you not escape off into the world you admire so much. Why not move to Kabul, or Bogota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 284
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

*And if you can answer but ONE question for me, please let it be the following*

If it is so bad here, why do you stay here in Canada? Why do you not escape off into the world you admire so much. Why not move to Kabul, or Bogota

Do not put words in my mouth and do not twist the argument. I am not arguing that it is so bad here.

I have faith in the ability to gradually shrink government into irrelevence.

Simple. We all have the right to believe in certain ideas, which should be of no concern. However, people sometimes have a tendency to act out ideas which are harmful to others,
My ideas are not harmful to others. You clearly do not understand the core values of market anarchy nor the non-aggression axiom all of which have been extensively reviewed in this thread.

This:

at which point they are of concern, and should be dealt with accordingly by the organs of the state responsible for our safety and security.
belongs in a little red pamphlet kept in the breast pocket of every single automaton pulled out of school and forced to stand on the side of the street to hail a dictator with his marching totalitarian army.
Do people always act rationally?
You can not impose YOUR subjective value system on an other hypothetically irrational person.
Yes we can. It's called Democracy, and is governed by functioning legal system to prevent abuses.
[Forgive me but my writing may not be clear enough or, in your defense of state coercion, you are too quick to change the subject. Either way, I will reply to your original question again. Let me remind you that your question relates to the principle of rationality.]

People -- except for the comatose, like I said before -- must always act rationally because the concept of rationality is subjective.

This:

It's called Democracy, and is governed by functioning legal system to prevent abuses.
is a different argument but boils down to: "I am happy with the status quo and everybody else should be happy with it too and continue to pay for it without choice." and nothing more.

Without addressing the validity of how this "functioning legal system to prevent abuses" succeeds, I will just say that I advocate voluntary associations between people. You are happy with an elite group of people having the right to impose their will upon an other group of people.

Well, I immigrated to Canada to escape the idiocy existent in many other parts of the world.
Parts of the world????

Here is a challenge for you. Try to say: "Well, I immigrated to one State to escape the idiocy existent in many other States of the world."

Anyway, the weather sucks in Canada. You should have gone further South. There are a lot more States down there.

Any reason why you have stayed here?
Yes, there are many reasons but none of them are relevent to my opposition against state coercion.

Just to be nice, I will throw one reason at you: I love my country.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me present possibly the most childish argument against anarchy this side of the world:

Without a state to protect us, we would all be speaking русский
The last time I heard that level of debate was in a schoolyard when mocking the Ruskies was in style and Frankie Goes To Hollywood was all the rage.
So an actual event is not a serious argument, but a hypothetical claim about "zillions of situations" you made without any backing is a serious argument?
Correct because we are talking about the morality and principle of state coercion versus non-aggression.
I mean technically, the Montreal RPG'ists did think it was their key to freedom, because the elimination of Ma Boucher would have prevented a credible trial against them.
Technically, they were employing the exact same logic that is followed by statesmen. I am opposed to both. You are defending one. Are you still going to use the Coase Theorem to defend your choice of which one?
Of course. Because the reason for which RPG's were invented, and for what they are primarily used is to aid in the preparation of food. I see, cutlery......anti-tank assault weapons are all one and the same.
Interesting that statesmen and state-cronies occupy the warcraft market. Without state warfare, the technology you fear falling into the hands of individuals would not likely exist.
*And if you can answer but ONE question for me, please let it be the following*

If it is so bad here, why do you stay here in Canada? Why do you not escape off into the world you admire so much. Why not move to Kabul, or Bogota

Maybe for the same reason that millions of the dreadful Ruskies who speak the language that you fear do not leave Russia.

Maybe I stay here because I have faith in the gradual shrinking of government services/functions into irrelevence and hence shrink the State by default through non-violence.

This is where your defense of state coercion becomes ridiculously circular:

You say we need a state to defend us but you identify states that are bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have faith in the ability to gradually shrink government into irrelevence.

Just like in Kabul, right?

My ideas are not harmful to others. You clearly do not understand the core values of market anarchy nor the non-aggression axiom all of which have been extensively reviewed in this thread.

Non agression? So we should have a right to sell RPG's to anyone who is willing to pay, ignoring their raison d'etre and just assuming they will be used for nothing more than a paperweight? Shame other people are not as virtuous as yourself. But hopefully, they are not as naive.

People -- except for the comatose, like I said before -- must always act rationally because the concept of rationality is subjective.

So the V.Tech shooter was rational? The crack head around the corner is rational? The rapist stalking women is rational?

is a different argument but boils down to: "I am happy with the status quo and everybody else should be happy with it too and continue to pay for it without choice." and nothing more.

As you said.

Do not put words in my mouth and do not twist the argument.
Without addressing the validity of how this "functioning legal system to prevent abuses" succeeds

Simple, unjust actions have been eventually corrected through this system of checks and balances. Be it the draft, internment of Japanese citizens, etc. I'd much rather there be some semblance of unity than total free for all.

You are happy with an elite group of people having the right to impose their will upon an other group of people.

Yes, because I chose them, by means of casting a ballot. It's either this method, or rule by those with the biggest guns, but no alternate means of removing them from power other than by picking up a gun myself. Find me a moment in history when it was neither of the two.

Parts of the world????

Here is a challenge for you. Try to say: "Well, I immigrated to one State to escape the idiocy existent in many other States of the world."

Anyway, the weather sucks in Canada. You should have gone further South. There are a lot more States down there. "

I challenge you to make a coherent revision of this phrase/idea. Yes, parts of the world. This idiocy is not reserved to just individual states, but entire swaths. Or would you prefer "regions" or "areas"?

Yes, there are many reasons but none of them are relevent to my opposition against state coercion.

Just to be nice, I will throw one reason at you: I love my country.

So do I. But why? Are you referring to geography? What makes Canada great? For me, it's the level of stability, security and prosperity we enjoy here, because I definitely did not come for the weather. This stability is the result of a common acceptance of a system of laws, independant of our own morality. While some may not agree with these laws, most of us obey them because we have a state and a legal system which protects us by means of a judicial system backed by the threat of coercive actions.

Seriously, maybe you cannot wait to shoot people who want to rob you, but I find it much easier to just call the police. And I am willing to pay taxes for social stability. We will always form groups and attempt to fight what we percieve is unjust, I say let's just make the best of it.

The last time I heard that level of debate was in a schoolyard when mocking the Ruskies was in style and Frankie Goes To Hollywood was all the rage.

And the point of this comment was.......you miss Frankie Goes to Hollywood?????? You can mock Russians as much as you want, but the fact remains, THIS WAS STILL REAL. You commonly ignore points by providing one liners such as "this is childish" or "this is irrelevant", all while reducing the cold war to nothing but an 80's song. Very mature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can mock Russians as much as you want,
It is not I who mocks the Russians. You brought up the Russians. I am mocking your ridiculous fear of a potentially previous Russian invasion.

This was your comment:

So? What is your argument?
Without a state to protect us, we would all be speaking
русский
from
post #276
above

You commonly ignore points by providing one liners such as "this is childish" or "this is irrelevant",
If I am mis-interpreting your comment above, I invite you to explain what you meant by it. Otherwise, I find your one-liner defence for state coercion to be childish. I remember children saying the same thing.
all while reducing the cold war to nothing but an 80's song. Very mature.
Quite the contrary. That 80's song reduced the Cold War to what it truly was: a bogus war. It seems you have been through this and so have others before.

This forum is a gold mine of political thought. I suggest you wade through it and learn how other people evaluate the Cold War. That is what I did.

Forgive me but I interpret the rest of your post as nothing more than: "I am happy with the status quo and everybody else should be happy with it too and continue to pay for it without choice and I will force them to comply."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You brought up the Russians. I am mocking your ridiculous fear of a potentially previous Russian invasion.

Well, being from the other side of the cold war, I can tell you that we did not give up our basic necessities (food, medicines, etc) just to have a few extra SS-18 Satan's in our annual May Day Parade to show off.

If you think it's bogus, so be it. There are other people who would be convinced that WW2 was bogus, does that give them any credibility in my book? Don't count on it.

Otherwise, I find your one-liner defence for state coercion to be childish. I remember children saying the same thing.

I was hoping it was simple enough to comprehend, and I doubt most others have difficulty in understanding. I would say that simply refuting an idea with a pejorative adjective and not explaining the reasoning behind it to be a rather pathetic excuse.

This forum is a gold mine of political thought. I suggest you wade through it and learn how other people evaluate the Cold War.

We are a free country. You are free to base your ideas on some of the Stalinist and Maoist apologists (though I hope you don't) and ignore the atrocities committed by said groups, but I prefer Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom I find a much more credible source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are free to base your ideas on some of the Stalinist and Maoist apologists
Eureka! However, LeafLess beat you to it.

There is a good reason why I insisted on answering your questions in this thread. Your understanding of free market anarchy is both lacking and prejudiced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Olya
Maybe for the same reason that millions of the dreadful Ruskies who speak the language that you fear do not leave Russia.

Spoken like someone who never had to deal with real issues of immigration and border control. Millions of would be immigrants are on a waitlist, and of course someone like you can't be bothered to actually realize that we can't travel and move as we please (meaning those in the non western world). Yes, millions stay, but not necessarily by choice. Given the option, many would choose the possibility of trying their luck in capitalist systems rather than remain in states of socialism, anarchy and destruction.

Those born with silver spoons in their mouths love to complain about all that is wrong, because they never had to deal with the real world. How convenient that someone who probably never experienced any degree of anarchy and what happens when it is the existing form of 'governance' should want it.

And as for rationality... So murder to obtain an ipod can be rationalized? Because that is what some 'rational' humans do, according to you. In what damn view is that ever rational, moral, or acceptable? Even economics, where the classical theory was based on human rationality chose to acknowledge that human behaviour is not always rational. Though I'm sure the great scholars of the past/present/future have nothing on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your understanding of free market anarchy is both lacking and prejudiced.

Spoken like a true Marxist/Anarchist. Whenever someone points out the reasons why said ideas will forever be on the margins, the most common reply is " we're misunderstood" or " you do not understand us".

Wrong. We DO get it. We just realize that in life, one must have contingency plans, and cannot rely on some far fetched ideal. There is a reason many mock these absurdly naive ideas....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoken like a true Marxist/Anarchist.
You would not know a true anarchist even if you read the entire Hugo's defence of anarchy thread.
We DO get it. We just realize that in life, one must have contingency
Who is this "we" of which you speak?

Welcome, Olya, to the forum.

---

and of course someone like you can't be bothered to actually realize that

---

Those born with silver spoons in their mouths love to

Your rant is seething with prejudice too.
And as for rationality... So murder to obtain an ipod can be rationalized? Because that is what some 'rational' humans do, according to you.
You can not understand the concept of rational too.
In what damn view is that ever rational, moral, or acceptable?
You can not stay focussed and you change the question mid-argument too.

Too many coincidences.

Though I'm sure the great scholars of the past/present/future have nothing on you.
Correct and therefore, I quote:
What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"?

If human action always aims at a purpose, which by definition it does, then human action must be rational, that is, consistent with reason or guided by one's will and intellect. It can never be termed irrational.

In making this point, Mises in
Human Action
(p. 19) writes "Human action is necessarily always rational. The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man."

Seemingly irrational action is rational, that is, has an aim. To appraise it as irrational, the appraiser merely imposes some other external source of value. Mises writes (p. 104): "However one twists things, one will never succeed in formulating the notion of 'irrational' action whose 'irrationality' is not founded upon an arbitrary judgment of value."
Michael Rozeff for the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Like I said before, there is a reason I insisted that our discussion continues in this thread. Although I think of myself as a very creative person, my opposition to coercion certainly does not comprise unique thoughts of my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not stay focussed and you change the question mid-argument too.

What are judging a talent show or something? This discussion would be much more productive if you stopped ignoring the content of the valid remarks directed towards this (naive) ideology and focused on the content. In all honesty, I don't care about your childhood cold war analysis, your musical tastes, your preferred rhetorical techniques.

I did try to read the thread, but just as how you critique others, your points often lack clarity and focus. You start of logically, but then you dove into these esoteric abstractions which are wholly divorced from reality.

Many ideas may appear good, and desirable. But their true test is in dealing with real life scenarios, and by those standards, anarchy is utterly hopeless, in that it presupposes we are beings who act in a predictable manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...