Fundamental questions 1.

[Hugo]

Even if you have them correct, transposing isolated technical definitions and usages from particular disciplines avails nothing in terms of advancing an argument for your philosophic position.

Well, do you dispute these definitions?

If there was a time before any mind existed, and if there are, now ideas, thoughts, and concepts, arguably they were 'created' by something other than a mind.

Are you suggesting the existence of God?

Moreover, you're committing another fallacy. If A creates B and B creates C, this does not mean that A creates C.

This recruits descartes through a faulty somewhat incorrect interpretation of Cogito Ergo Sum.

No, it's actually a separate theorem posited in Discourse 1. I think the Discourses are available online if you want to read them.

More bald assertion. Isn't mind itself metaphysical?

Is it?

A fact according to who?

Do you disagree or not?

Obviously, mass and energy are not the only relevant criteria.

What are the other criteria?

So, when individuals form a society, a governmental function of some sort becomes manifest.

That only proves correlation, not causation.

Well of course there is [something metaphysical about a microbe]!

And what might that be?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Even if you have them correct, transposing isolated technical definitions and usages from particular disciplines avails nothing in terms of advancing an argument for your philosophic position.

Well, do you dispute these definitions?

I thought I just disputed their utility and relevance for this discussion.

If there was a time before any mind existed, and if there are, now ideas, thoughts, and concepts, arguably they were 'created' by something other than a mind.

Are you suggesting the existence of God?

No, I'm positing the logical case against your model of creation-causation.

Moreover, you're committing another fallacy. If A creates B and B creates C, this does not mean that A creates C.

Why not?

This recruits descartes through a faulty somewhat incorrect interpretation of Cogito Ergo Sum.

No, it's actually a separate theorem posited in Discourse 1. I think the Discourses are available online if you want to read them.

Well, premuing you have conveyed it correctly, no wonder it's less known, since it's obviously much less rigorously clear than the famous formula. In fact, wrongheaded.

Isn't mind itself metaphysical?

Is it?

That's a question alright.

A fact according to who?

Do you disagree or not?

What difference does that make?

Obviously, mass and energy are not the only relevant criteria.

What are the other criteria?

As to whether something is 'real' or not? Well, observability comes to mind.

So, when individuals form a society, a governmental function of some sort becomes manifest.

That only proves correlation, not causation.

If you like. But a universal correlation.

Well of course there is [something metaphysical about a microbe]!

And what might that be?

Life.

[Hugo]

I thought I just disputed their utility and relevance for this discussion.

You did nothing of the sort. You're just disputing definitions instead of logic.

Moreover, you're committing another fallacy. If A creates B and B creates C, this does not mean that A creates C.

Why not?

Because it's a non sequitur. If it weren't, then Albert Einstein's parents created the Theory of Relativity, since they created Albert Einstein and he created the Theory.

it's obviously much less rigorously clear than the famous formula. In fact, wrongheaded.

Why?

That's a question alright.

And apparently, one that you are either unwilling or unable to answer.

What difference does that make?

You tell me! You're the one who's debating this.

As to whether something is 'real' or not? Well, observability comes to mind.

Observability makes something real? So before Roentgen, x-rays weren't real? Or is it just the potential for observability, in which case this criterion changes absolutely nothing?

In any case, it's extremely difficult to argue that the metaphysical is "observable" so this doesn't get us anywhere. I can say that only that which has mass and energy is observable. Since this is your theorem, I'm going to make you do the legwork supporting it.

If you like. But a universal correlation.

Nope! Some societies have arisen without government. Medieval Iceland comes to mind. You might say they practiced self-government, but then society would not be a pre-requisite to government since one can self-govern without a society.

Either way, it disproves your argument.

Life.

Demonstrate that life is metaphysical.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I thought I just disputed their utility and relevance for this discussion.

You did nothing of the sort. You're just disputing definitions instead of logic.

You need to re-read that exchange.

Moreover, you're committing another fallacy. If A creates B and B creates C, this does not mean that A creates C.

Why not?

Because it's a non sequitur. If it weren't, then Albert Einstein's parents created the Theory of Relativity, since they created Albert Einstein and he created the Theory.

So, what's wrong with that? Absent Einstein's mother, Einstein would not have created the Theory of Relativity.

That's a question alright.

And apparently, one that you are either unwilling or unable to answer.

Not at all. But we are discussing YOUR positions here, not mine.

As to whether something is 'real' or not? Well, observability comes to mind.

Observability makes something real? So before Roentgen, x-rays weren't real?

Please refrain from such idiotic and annoying debate-club tactics. I never suggested observability was an exhaustive criteria for reality, so just please show a little respect for your counterparts in discussions.

In any case, it's extremely difficult to argue that the metaphysical is "observable"

Using your definition of metaphysical, I suggest that many possibly most metaphysical things are observable.

If you like. But a universal correlation.

Nope! Some societies have arisen without government.

I disagree.

Medieval Iceland comes to mind.

Medieval Iceland simply had a form of government that you choose do define as not being government.

Life.

Demonstrate that life is metaphysical.

Demonstrate that it's physical.

[Hugo]

You need to re-read that exchange.

No, I don't think I do at all. It's really just what I've come to expect from you.

So, what's wrong with that? Absent Einstein's mother, Einstein would not have created the Theory of Relativity.

That is a very different thing to saying that Albert Einstein's parents created the Theory of Relativity!

Not at all. But we are discussing YOUR positions here, not mine.

I asked you a question. If you are willing and able to answer it as you claim, please do!

I never suggested observability was an exhaustive criteria for reality

And I never suggested that you did! I offered you two alternative interpretations of your theory, and rather than pick either or even suggest a third, you decided to try and weasel out of answering by claiming I had insulted you and beginning to preach to me about netiquette.

Using your definition of metaphysical, I suggest that many possibly most metaphysical things are observable.

Go ahead and argue it, then. I will listen to whatever you have to say on the matter.

Medieval Iceland simply had a form of government that you choose do define as not being government.

I've given you my opinion, so let's hear yours. What form of government did they have?

Demonstrate that it's physical.

I tell you what. I'll allow that a microbe has a metaphysical quality - life - but I still do not agree that the metaphysical can be created by something other than the physical. Perhaps you can demonstrate how the "life" of a microbe is created by something metaphysical.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You need to re-read that exchange.

No, I don't think I do at all. It's really just what I've come to expect from you.

What. Ever.

So, what's wrong with that? Absent Einstein's mother, Einstein would not have created the Theory of Relativity.

That is a very different thing to saying that Albert Einstein's parents created the Theory of Relativity!

That depends on how you define creation.

I never suggested observability was an exhaustive criteria for reality

And I never suggested that you did!

Yes, you did. You said:

"Observability makes something real? So before Roentgen, x-rays weren't real?"

Using your definition of metaphysical, I suggest that many possibly most metaphysical things are observable.

Go ahead and argue it, then. I will listen to whatever you have to say on the matter.

That might be interesting, but it is an unwarranted digression from the issue.

Medieval Iceland simply had a form of government that you choose do define as not being government.

I've given you my opinion, so let's hear yours. What form of government did they have?

They had the medieval Icelandic form of government.

I tell you what. I'll allow that a microbe has a metaphysical quality - life - but I still do not agree that the metaphysical can be created by something other than the physical. Perhaps you can demonstrate how the "life" of a microbe is created by something metaphysical.

I never contended that the life of a microbe is created by something metaphysical. The only question about the microbe was whether there was something metaphysical about it.

Don't let's be distracted by little things, however. My question is a radical one: How you can purport to ascribe (categorically) physical vs. metaphysical 'causes' to the creation of phenomena?

[I Miss Trudeau]

You have yet to provide an argument to disprove it.

Why would I? My point from the start has been that the physical/metaphysical distinction you posted in your reply to the first post is an arbitrary and unsustainable one. I've posted why this is so in several posts. You have yet to address any of them with anything other than irrelevant song and dance.

Now you're confusing terminology with reality, i.e. you are having trouble telling the difference between things and the way in which we describe those things.

Step outside of your little box of definitions and really think about that statement for a second.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Life.

Demonstrate that life is metaphysical.

Life is a concept that we apply to certain objects which possess a certain set of attributes that distinguishes those objects from other objects which lack those attributes.

The difference between a living object and an unliving object is entirely in our labeling of those objects.

[Hugo]

That depends on how you define creation.

So define it.

Yes, you did. You said:

"Observability makes something real? So before Roentgen, x-rays weren't real?"

Then I gave a second alternative: potential observability. And you will also note that both were ended with question marks, which really puts paid to your contention that I'm making infamous statements about you. Now, perhaps we can dispense with this elaborate display of smoke, mirrors and mock-wounded-pride, and get back to the discussion.

That might be interesting, but it is an unwarranted digression from the issue.

How convenient. It is noteable that you still won't even begin to answer this question even though in your last post you had indicated that you were prepared to do so. Now you have decided it is irrelevant, in the twinkling of an eye. I suspect it is because you have no answer.

They had the medieval Icelandic form of government.

You don't know the first thing about it, do you?

As I said, the only identifiable form of government in medieval Iceland was self-government. If that fits into your idea of government, then government cannot be created from society because one can self-govern without a society. And if self-government does not fit your idea of government, then that destroys your contention that government and society are always correlated, since medieval Iceland was definitely a society, but only self-governed.

I can see a further argument that you might pursue, and I do have an answer ready. However, I'm not going to pre-empt you since the only way you could pursue this argument is if you have any clue about medieval Iceland.

So, we shall see if you actually know what you are talking about in your next post!

We might also ask how big you need a group to be before you can think of it as a society. There are many autonomous groups in the world who have distinct societies and yet have no government. Explain.

We can also ask what you make of Aboriginal American societies that lacked governments and based their societies on mutualism.

How you can purport to ascribe (categorically) physical vs. metaphysical 'causes' to the creation of phenomena?

I have already been over this several times. I refuse to further explain my position now until you at least argue against the propositions already made.

My point from the start has been that the physical/metaphysical distinction you posted in your reply to the first post is an arbitrary and unsustainable one. I've posted why this is so in several posts.

Then perhaps you will quote your explanations here, because a quick review of this thread shows nothing of the sort. Most of your posts have been unsubstantiated, argumentative one-liners which, I might add, is in direct contravention of forum rules.

Step outside of your little box of definitions and really think about that statement for a second.

Obviously I've thought about it. I posted it, didn't I?

Life is a concept that we apply to certain objects which possess a certain set of attributes that distinguishes those objects from other objects which lack those attributes.

No, life is a physical reality. You are confusing ideas about a thing with the thing itself.

The difference between a living object and an unliving object is entirely in our labeling of those objects.

No, you are confusing cause and effect. Our labels do not make the difference between life and non-life. The difference between life and non-life gives rise to our labels. Consider that life and non-life are observable without language, which defies your idea of labels since labels are only possible with language.

Think about this: is the only difference between black and white our labels for them? Or is it the case that black and white have objective differences which give rise to those labels?

[The Terrible Sweal]

That depends on how you define creation.

So define it.

Shurely you knew what you meant by it when you said metaphysical thing can't do it.

Now, perhaps we can dispense with this elaborate display of smoke, mirrors and mock-wounded-pride, and get back to the discussion.

Just lay off the bs and I won't have to call you on it.

They had the medieval Icelandic form of government.

You don't know the first thing about it, do you?

What possible difference would that make? Good grief! Why do you turn every discussion into a tortuous maze of diversion?

As I said, the only identifiable form of government in medieval Iceland was self-government.

Nonsense.

... one can self-govern without a society.

Utter nonsense.

...medieval Iceland was definitely a society, but only self-governed.

So you have recited. Why not put some content behind that? What happened in medieval Iceland when someone commited adultery? How about if someone failed to pay a debt? In other words, what does "self-government" mean?

We might also ask how big you need a group to be before you can think of it as a society.

2-3.

There are many autonomous groups in the world who have distinct societies and yet have no government.

Explain, please.

We can also ask what you make of Aboriginal American societies that lacked governments ...

Who?

... I refuse to further explain my position ...

"further" ??

Step outside of your little box of definitions and really think about that statement for a second.

Obviously I've thought about it. I posted it, didn't I?

The contrary is obvious.

[I Miss Trudeau]

No, you are confusing cause and effect. Our labels do not make the difference between life and non-life.

What does, then?

Consider that life and non-life are observable without language, which defies your idea of labels since labels are only possible with language.

Nonsense. Moving and not moving, perhaps. But not life and death. Why? Because life is nothing but the categorization of a set of attributes.

Think about this: is the only difference between black and white our labels for them? Or is it the case that black and white have objective differences which give rise to those labels?

A not so subtle attempt at obfuscation.

Black is merely a linguistic tool that denotes the sensory experience of "very dark." There is no such thing as "black" to observe.

Think of it this way. When you see an extremely dark object, do you see an extremely dark object, or an "absense of reflected light?" What do you actually see?

You appear to be quite set on insisting that life is a physical phenomena. Perhaps you could tell me what it is. Define it, perhaps.

[Hugo]

Shurely you knew what you meant by it when you said metaphysical thing can't do it.

According to you the definition of creation is important, so let's hear your definition!

Just lay off the bs and I won't have to call you on it.

Are you ever going to answer the question? How many more needless obfuscations do I have to put up with before you do?

What possible difference would that make? Good grief! Why do you turn every discussion into a tortuous maze of diversion?

So let me get this straight. You are purporting to tell me all about medieval Iceland. You admit don't know the first thing about medieval Iceland. And you think this fact, the fact that you are in no way qualified to even have this discussion, is "diversion"?

Nonsense.

Since you know absolutely nothing about the subject, I could tell you that the Icelanders worshipped bricks of cheese and you would not be qualified to say "nonsense."

... one can self-govern without a society.

Utter nonsense.

Why is that?

In other words, what does "self-government" mean?

It means that the people of Iceland chose, on an individual basis, the laws, policing and dispensation of justice they were going to have, and not according to geographical location but according to individual preference. Icelanders bought laws as we buy groceries, and as we can be said to govern our own food consumption, so the Icelanders governed their laws. To argue that the Icelanders were governed is to argue that we are governed in our choice of food.

2-3.

Then if 2-3 people are a society, according to you they must have a government and there is no way they cannot have a government. Explain further.

Who?

Aboriginal Americans. You know, "Indians." You can also look at Australian aboriginals, who also had/have a mutualist, anarchistic society.

Nonsense. Moving and not moving, perhaps. But not life and death. Why? Because life is nothing but the categorization of a set of attributes.

Again, you are confusing symbols with reality. Life is a categorization of a set of objective, physical attributes. As such the word "life" is the label placed on something real. Don't confuse the label with the thing it labels.

Black is merely a linguistic tool that denotes the sensory experience of "very dark." There is no such thing as "black" to observe.

Yes, there is. Black is the physical attribute of reflecting no light. The word "black" is our label for that property. In French, "noir", in Spanish, "negro", but all these words or labels refer to the same objective concept. All languages have a word for black.

When you see an extremely dark object, do you see an extremely dark object, or an "absense of reflected light?" What do you actually see?

I see an object that doesn't reflect light.

You appear to be quite set on insisting that life is a physical phenomena. Perhaps you could tell me what it is. Define it, perhaps.

Why do I have to define my terms when it was your proposition to begin with? Start by building an argument, and then I will build a response to it. But in debate it is traditional not to start with the rebuttal.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Shurely you knew what you meant by it when you said metaphysical thing can't do it.

According to you the definition of creation is important, so let's hear your definition!

You're being ridiculous. You said metaphysica things can't create anything. It's for you, not me, to have some examinable meaning for such an assertion.

So let me get this straight. You are purporting to tell me all about medieval Iceland.

You may well have an encyclopedic and unparalleled knowledge of medieval Iceland, for all I know (or care).

You admit don't know the first thing about medieval Iceland.

Lie.

Nonsense.

Since you know absolutely nothing about the subject, I could tell you that the Icelanders worshipped bricks of cheese and you would not be qualified to say "nonsense."

You mistake the nature of my criticism. I don't fault yourknowledge of Iceland. I fault the conclusions you draw about society and government based on that knowledge. Your statement was nonsense because your facts are incapable of amounting to valid support for your contention.

... one can self-govern without a society.

Utter nonsense.

Why is that?

In several ways: The concept of self-governing is at best undefined and likely unworkable depending what you mean. Also, the idea of doing anything other than survive (or not) without a society is inconceivable.

In other words, what does "self-government" mean?

It means that the people of Iceland chose, on an individual basis, the laws, policing and dispensation of justice they were going to have, ...

This resonse is too superficial. What dos it mean, in practice/mechanically, to say individuals chose thir own laws?

Icelanders bought laws as we buy groceries,

I am tempted to say "nonsense" again. Instead I'll sa I cannot begin to speculate on what you might mean by 'buying laws'.

Then if 2-3 people are a society, according to you they must have a government and there is no way they cannot have a government. Explain further.

Well, personally I'd chose 3 as the number but I wanted to admit the possibility of two.

But the answers to your question obviously turn on what I mean by government. I mean the function by which a society makes and carries out common choices and intentions. Since any three people in association do make common choices and intentions, however they do this is the governmental function of their society.

Who?

Aboriginal Americans. You know, "Indians." You can also look at Australian aboriginals, who also had/have a mutualist, anarchistic society.

First, let me alert you to the fact that there were and are numrous different aboriginal North American societies.

Second, Australian aborigine society did not exist without a govermental function, as I mean it.

[moderateamericain]

i wont pretend i know a whole lot about metaphysics but heres a quote from a smart cookie who does. aka AYN RAND

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge. At the metaphysical level, Rand’s Objectivism begins with axioms – fundamental truths or irreducible primaries that are self-evident by means of direct perception, the basis for all further knowledge, and undeniable without self-contradiction. Axioms cannot be reduced to other facts or broken down into component parts. They require no proofs or explanations. Objectivism’s three basic philosophical axioms are existence, consciousness, and identity – presuppositions of every concept and every statement.

Existence exists and encompasses everything including all states of consciousness. The world exists independently of the mind and is there to be discovered by the mind. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something. There can be no consciousness if nothing exists. Consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists, is the ability to discover, rather than to create, objects. Consciousness, a relational concept, presupposes the existence of something external to consciousness, something to be aware of. Initially, we become aware of something outside of our consciousness and then we become aware of our consciousness by contemplating on the process through which we became aware.

Rand explains that the metaphysically given (i.e., any fact inherent in existence apart from the human action) is absolute and simply is. The metaphysically given includes scientific laws and events taking place outside of the control of men. The metaphysically given must be accepted and cannot be changed. She explains, however, that man has the ability to adapt nature to meet his requirements. Man can creatively rearrange the combination of nature’s elements by enacting the required cause, the one necessitated by the immutable laws of existence. The man-made includes any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct created by man. Man-made facts are products of choice and can be evaluated and judged and then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary.

[Hugo]

You said metaphysica things can't create anything. It's for you, not me, to have some examinable meaning for such an assertion.

Stop trying to weasel out of things. Apparently you have a definition of "creation" under which Albert Einsteins parents created the Theory of Relativity. So, let's hear it!

I don't fault yourknowledge of Iceland. I fault the conclusions you draw about society and government based on that knowledge.

But since that knowledge is not known to you, you cannot fault the conclusions. If I say that A equals B, you cannot say that A is not equal to B unless you know what A is. You don't. Therefore you cannot criticize.

What dos it mean, in practice/mechanically, to say individuals chose thir own laws?

Basically, in Iceland you had a number of men whose title is usually translated as "chieftain". These guys made laws and arbitrated disputes in a certain way. Icelanders could pick the chieftain they wanted to follow, or even become one themselves. They didn't have to physically move to do this. All they had to do is announce, "From today Knut is my chieftain" and that was that. You paid the guy for his services so long as he dispensed them and you still wanted them.

As I say, it's like buying groceries. Your choices are necessarily limited to what's on the store shelves, but within those choices you're free to get what you want, even if everyone else doesn't want the same things.

This is different from coercive government, which forces one to have the food (or laws) that somebody else has picked, whether that is a whole crowd of people (democracy) or one man (dictatorship).

Instead I'll sa I cannot begin to speculate on what you might mean by 'buying laws'.

Suffice it to say that your inability to conceive of these notions is because you are a statist-by-default, i.e. you are so used to the idea of the state that you can't comprehend society without it.

what I mean by government. I mean the function by which a society makes and carries out common choices and intentions.

There are no common choices and intentions in a society. There's always some measure of disagreement. Therefore you define government as a function that doesn't exist.

If we narrow "society" down to a few people, as we would have to do to use your definition (since "society" in this way usually could not be more than two people), then I would ask how you define the institution of the Federal Government of Canada.

If your argument is also that common choices and intentions can be picked by a majority and that the minority can be forced to follow, then government as you understand it basically encompasses all human interaction, mutualist and coercive, and is far too vague to be of any use. I would define "government" as something a little more precise than "all human interaction."

Yet again, your argument rests on an unworkable and wholly useless definition - not to mention just being plain wrong. I have never seen a dictionary where "government" was defined as "human interaction."

First, let me alert you to the fact that there were and are numrous different aboriginal North American societies.

Some of them rejected coercive government and decided everything by mutual agreement and discussion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You said metaphysica things can't create anything. It's for you, not me, to have some examinable meaning for such an assertion.

Stop trying to weasel out of things.

You're the weaseller. YOU made an assertion. Now either YOU can defend it, or you can't.

AGAIN, please desist from such peurile antics, or I will stop bothering with you.

I don't fault yourknowledge of Iceland. I fault the conclusions you draw about society and government based on that knowledge.

But since that knowledge is not known to you, you cannot fault the conclusions.

I can and I do. I don't have to know how to fix a car to know that it won't fly.

Now, if you have some way to address the fault's I've pointed out, based on your (alleged) superior knowledge or on some logical basis, please go ahead.

What dos it mean, in practice/mechanically, to say individuals chose thir own laws?

Basically, in Iceland you had a number of men whose title is usually translated as "chieftain". These guys made laws and arbitrated disputes in a certain way.

Well, that's governmental to me.

Icelanders could pick the chieftain they wanted to follow,

What if two disputants to an issue chose two different cheiftains?

BTW, you ignore my questions earlier: What happened in cases of adultery for example?

All they had to do is announce, "From today Knut is my chieftain" and that was that.

Again, there's government.

Instead I'll sa I cannot begin to speculate on what you might mean by 'buying laws'.

Suffice it to say that your inability to conceive of these notions is because you are a statist-by-default, ...

No, it is because the concept has no meaning, even in your own terms: How can laws be property? It's makes no sense.

... i.e. you are so used to the idea of the state that you can't comprehend society without it.

Unfortunately, you are unable to refer to a real example or even sensibly describe a hypothetical example of a society without a governmental function.

what I mean by government. I mean the function by which a society makes and carries out common choices and intentions.

There are no common choices and intentions in a society.

Sure there are. (Unless you're using a yet another private unworkable understanding of what 'common' means.)

If we narrow "society" down to a few people, as we would have to do to use your definition 

No, we don't.

First, let me alert you to the fact that there were and are numrous different aboriginal North American societies.

Some of them rejected coercive government and decided everything by mutual agreement and discussion.

Well (AGAIN THEN), who?

[The Terrible Sweal]

On second thought, nah, don't bother ... this byzantine web of diversions you've woven is far from interesting.

Cheers.

[Hugo]

You obviously didn't notice, but I intentionally sabotaged this thread by using your tactics: failing to explain anything, posting arbitrary one-liners in place of arguments, and refusing to answer direct questions. I refrained from using your more unpleasant tactics, like blurting out "lies" when you aren't comfortable with the exposition of your own viewpoints, or the petty insults about insane apes and mysterious books of bald assertions.

As you can see, when two people debate the way you do, it destroys all rational discourse.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is quite sufficient to destroy discussion, when one person behaves the way you do. False attributions, peurile diversions, outright lies. Your record is disgraceful.

[moderateamericain]

why dont we get off the pissing contest, and you can respon to my post. i believe in exsistance, anyone who tells me i dont exsist i pinch. and say "did that hurt?"

[Hugo]

It is quite sufficient to destroy discussion, when one person behaves the way you do. False attributions, peurile diversions, outright lies. Your record is disgraceful.

Ah, the "I am rubber, you are glue" strategem.

You're the weaseller. YOU made an assertion. Now either YOU can defend it, or you can't.

You alluded to an understanding of creation that would attribute the act of creation to any entity at any point in the chain of causation leading to the created entity. I don't think this makes a lot of sense. So I ask you to define it.

I can and I do. I don't have to know how to fix a car to know that it won't fly.

In this case, you would not know whether or not cars can fly.

Well, that's governmental to me.

Then government is every human interaction. Law is a service like any other. People buy laws (in the form of subscription to various codes and rules, the pay of judges and enforcers, etc) in much the same way as they'd buy insurance: they pay for the service because they think it would be of benefit to them.

Would you agree that insurance is therefore government?

What if two disputants to an issue chose two different cheiftains?

Then the two chieftains would have to negotiate for a mutually agreeable settlement. In reality, most chieftains stated in advance what their concessions would be in regard to other chieftains, so consumers knew this information going in.

What happened in cases of adultery for example?

If monogamy was a stipulation of the marriage contract, then adultery would be regarded as a breach of contract. The contract would be voided and the adulterer would have to make compensation to his or her spouse.

No, it is because the concept has no meaning, even in your own terms: How can laws be property? It's makes no sense.

Laws are services. One buys and sells services, in the case of law, the services of those who write and enforce law. This is the same as membership in a business regulatory body. One pays for the service of rules in expectation of a reward (e.g. increased business due to greater consumer confidence).

Unfortunately, you are unable to refer to a real example or even sensibly describe a hypothetical example of a society without a governmental function.

I cannot provide one that would satisfy you, because you define government as "all human interaction." Society is human interaction, therefore, society is government - which is rather different from "society creates government", your original point. And your definition of creation is also woolly, so what we end up with is:

"Society is one of the things that may in part or full create government, which is society."

Really useful.

Sure there are. (Unless you're using a yet another private unworkable understanding of what 'common' means.)

I understand "common" as "shared by all". How do you define it?

Well (AGAIN THEN), who?

Apparently, the early Santee tribes of the Sioux were distinctly mutualist. In fact, "Dakhota" (where those tribes come from) is a Santee word meaning "Alliance of Friends."

[I Miss Trudeau]

self edit

[I Miss Trudeau]

Again, you are confusing symbols with reality.

Oh the irony!

Life is a categorization of a set of objective, physical attributes.

Precisely what I have been saying from the start.

As such the word "life" is the label placed on something real. Don't confuse the label with the thing it labels.

But here is the problem. You claim that the "set of objective, physical attributes" is real. How can a set be real? Are numbers real, too? Do you find yourself frequently colliding with 3's and 8's?

Of course not. And thats because "life"

(like "set") is a conscious categorization of objects that possess similar attributes.

Yes, there is. Black is the physical attribute of reflecting no light.

So reality was fundamentally altered when optics became an area of study? You see, black didn't mean anything like that for a long time. It merely meant "very dark." The part about not reflecting light is one metaphysical system's categorization of the experience "very dark."

In French, "noir", in Spanish, "negro", but all these words or labels refer to the same objective concept. All languages have a word for black.

Babbling obfuscation.

I see an object that doesn't reflect light.

I wasn't aware that humans were capable of experiencing scientific theories in the manner in which you seem to. Perhaps you should submit yourself for study. It may even be related to your physical interaction with numbers.

The more likely explanation, however, is that you realize answering "very dark" would have demonstrated the absurdity of your position. Instead, you continue throwing out absurdities hoping that your continued attempts at obfuscation will save the appearance of your position.

Why do I have to define my terms when it was your proposition to begin with?

Obfuscation. I think you realize that your definition will be nothing but a list of attributes which you, or someone else, have consciously ordered into the category "life," thereby demonstrating my point for me.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Shurely you knew what you meant by it when you said metaphysical thing can't do it.

According to you the definition of creation is important, so let's hear your definition!

You're being ridiculous. You said metaphysica things can't create anything. It's for you, not me, to have some examinable meaning for such an assertion.

So let me get this straight. You are purporting to tell me all about medieval Iceland.

You may well have an encyclopedic and unparalleled knowledge of medieval Iceland, for all I know (or care).

You admit don't know the first thing about medieval Iceland.

Lie.

Nonsense.

Since you know absolutely nothing about the subject, I could tell you that the Icelanders worshipped bricks of cheese and you would not be qualified to say "nonsense."

You mistake the nature of my criticism. I don't fault yourknowledge of Iceland. I fault the conclusions you draw about society and government based on that knowledge. Your statement was nonsense because your facts are incapable of amounting to valid support for your contention.

... one can self-govern without a society.

Utter nonsense.

Why is that?

In several ways: The concept of self-governing is at best undefined and likely unworkable depending what you mean. Also, the idea of doing anything other than survive (or not) without a society is inconceivable.

In other words, what does "self-government" mean?

It means that the people of Iceland chose, on an individual basis, the laws, policing and dispensation of justice they were going to have, ...

This resonse is too superficial. What dos it mean, in practice/mechanically, to say individuals chose thir own laws?

Icelanders bought laws as we buy groceries,

I am tempted to say "nonsense" again. Instead I'll sa I cannot begin to speculate on what you might mean by 'buying laws'.

Then if 2-3 people are a society, according to you they must have a government and there is no way they cannot have a government. Explain further.

Well, personally I'd chose 3 as the number but I wanted to admit the possibility of two.

But the answers to your question obviously turn on what I mean by government. I mean the function by which a society makes and carries out common choices and intentions. Since any three people in association do make common choices and intentions, however they do this is the governmental function of their society.

Who?

Aboriginal Americans. You know, "Indians." You can also look at Australian aboriginals, who also had/have a mutualist, anarchistic society.

First, let me alert you to the fact that there were and are numrous different aboriginal North American societies.

Second, Australian aborigine society did not exist without a govermental function, as I mean it.

[Hugo]

Precisely what I have been saying from the start.

Good. TWS proposes that life is metaphysical. You say it's physical.

But here is the problem. You claim that the "set of objective, physical attributes" is real. How can a set be real?

I don't claim the set is real, I claim the attributes are real.

Are numbers real, too? Do you find yourself frequently colliding with 3's and 8's?

No, but I often find myself colliding with my 3 small children. The number "3" might be a metaphysical concept, but my 3 children definitely physically exist.

So reality was fundamentally altered when optics became an area of study? You see, black didn't mean anything like that for a long time.

That doesn't matter. Black always described something that reflected no light (or practically no light), and that's physical reality and always has been. The fact that only relatively recently have we discovered that this is the case does not change that it was always a physical reality.

I wasn't aware that humans were capable of experiencing scientific theories in the manner in which you seem to.

You're all confused again. If I see a black object, I see something that reflects no light. Whether or not I know that that's what I'm seeing is another matter. Don't get mixed up between the two.

Obfuscation. I think you realize that your definition will be nothing but a list of attributes which you, or someone else, have consciously ordered into the category "life," thereby demonstrating my point for me.

What's the point? It seems we both agree that life is physical.

You said metaphysica things can't create anything. It's for you, not me, to have some examinable meaning for such an assertion.

You are (I suspect deliberately) confusing two separate arguments. We are discussing your rather novel understanding of "creation", which you repeatedly fail to define.

The rest of your post seems messed up. It's stuff I already replied to but it's verbatim, so I suspect there was some kind of error.