-->
@RationalMadman
Wait but if it’s “survival of the fittest”, are you suggesting Vietnam was better armed than the USA?
[AMA Thread] Dr. Michael Huemer, Professor of philosophy
Posts
Total:
147
-->
@Bones
I am suggesting the US population and the world alike despises survival of the fittest and that it has majority against bullying nations.
-->
@Bones
It was sympathy from within US that lost the US the Vietnam war. Unlike Cambodia or USSR, Vietnam was blatantly an innocent victim being picked on solely for being Socialist, as opposed to evil.
-->
@RationalMadman
Ok so now you’re failing to answer the question, so I’ll dictate it more clearly for you. If we assume the biggest guns and the most powerful entity wins
- Why didn’t USA sweep Vietnam?
- Why didn’t the USA occupy Afghanistan so miserably?
- Why doesn’t the USA just take over Mexico and Canada, who are not as “fit” as them?
- Why has Russian failed to occupy Ukraine?
Reducing anarchy to some primitive Darwinian battle is frankly pitiful.
-->
@RationalMadman
Sympathy for Vietnam, hence they decided to waste 176 billion dollars, lost 60 thousand men and faced humiliation for such an unlikely defeat?
-->
@Bones
Not only that but the economic freedom index shows the closer a nation comes to anarchy the lss violent it is so he hasn't done his research here. He also eems unaware that in anarchy the community can all voluntarily chip in together to hire a police force
-->
@WyIted
The closest nation to anarchy is probably the Congo.
-->
@Bones
Do you know you're doing both strawmanning and goalpost moving?
How the hell is US losing to Vietnam an argument for the Ancap movement? Do you know which side of the cold war Vietnam was on?
All I know with absolute certainty is in real anarchy over 90% of the dorks openly advocating it would be eaten alive.
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you know you're doing both strawmanning and goalpost moving?
Throwing around buzz words which you've heard smart people use doesn't prove your point.
How the hell is US losing to Vietnam and argument for the Ancap movement? Do you know which side of the cold war Vietnam was on?
You're clearly having difficultly tracking this conversation. If you recall, you made multiple claims
- Guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding. He has no clue what anarchy is.
- Ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period. That's all it is. He isn't the fittest. It's that simple.
So basically you have the superficial position that under anarcho-capitalism, the strongest and fittest win. So then by the logic that the "biggest guns win", why did the US, who had the biggest guns, lose to Vietnam? If the "biggest guns win", why didn't the US, who had the biggest guns, occupy Afghanistan successfully? If the "biggest guns win", why doesn't the US, who had the biggest guns, just take over Canada and Mexico?
-->
@Bones
But the world isn't Ancap, that is the key reason US gave up the war. The US people themselves didn't like the Vietnam war and began to see Vietnam as the good guys.
-->
@RationalMadman
The US people themselves didn't like the Vietnam war and began to see Vietnam as the good guys.
That is an absolutely illiterate perspective on the Vietnam war. The US partook in the war at least in part because of the falling domino theory and their fear that Vietnam's downfall would entail the spreading of communist ideals - thus they had absolute motivation to participate. This is because the Vietnam war served as a proxy for conflict between the US and Soviet Union (the US supporting the South and the Soviet's supporting the North) and so not only would the fall of the South entail a Soviet takeover (hence the domino theory), but loss of the South of Vietnam would be by extension a loss of the United States to the Soviets. The "pity" you mentioned is called "Vietnam syndrome" and came after the loss in the South - it is because of the failure which led to this phenomenon in the 1980's so to use it as an explanation of why the US lost is completely wrong. Also, you equivocate on the term "Vietnam" - I can assure you there was no on in the US in the 1970's who thought North Vietnam were the "good guys" because to think this would be to think the US viewed the puppet of the Soviet as the good guys.
Even so, your completely and unequivocal historical illiteracy is besides the point, because my initial critique still stands - that the biggest guns and fittest parties do not always win.
-->
@Bones
Adding adjectives like unequivocal, illiterate etc doesn't change the reality.
There is a reason you keep jumping to the Vietnam war which has nothing to do with this. The reality is that you can experience anarcho capitalism today. Right now. Travel to your nearest downtown slum region. Stay there and be sure to be out while the sun isn't high in the sky and to go down alleyways or areas others cannot easily come and help if you scream, not that they likely will if they heard you.
The difference between us is I am describing reality and it offends you so you need to insult me to cope and defend your delusion while I keep replying to your sidetracks and insult with cold hard truth.
-->
@RationalMadman
P1. If the big guns always win, the US would have won against North Vietnam.
P2. The US did not win against North Vietnam
C1. The big guns don't always win
-->
@Bones
and @RM
You can stop talking about Vietnam because RM already undermined his position.
"The world isn't AnCap, that's why. People have a sense of justice and don't like it being survival of the fittest."
If people don't like survival of the fittest because of some intrinsic sense of justice then that sense of justice does not come from a structure of authority and would not disappear without an authority.
This attack on anarchism fails.
The problem remains one of definitions and mechanism for achieving justice. RM tries to define AnCap as survival of the fittest because he assumes that any attempt to uphold justice is an exercise of authority.
I agree with that, but you can't just ignore it when someone else isn't using the same definitions you are. The concepts Bones is describing is not defeated because you don't think he's using the right words.
RM,
Let me give you a tip, and it is:
Dont stick to your failed argument so much, also repeating your failed argument doesnt improve your position at all.
-->
@RationalMadman
But the world isn't Ancap, that is the key reason US gave up the war. The US people themselves didn't like the Vietnam war and began to see Vietnam as the good guys.
This is untrue. Even the strongly anti war crowd saw them as the bad guys they just did not approve of American tactics and were also opposed to war in general.
The war essentially ended early because the American people believed that the costs of winning were not worth it.
-->
@WyIted
It's true.
-->
@Best.Korea
Tip from one of the lowest win rate debaters of the sites existence.
Sometimes they're trying to ignore or push you off of a raw truth. In this case repackaging and delivering it over and over is the right strategy.
Eventually I'll ignore them ofc. At least third parties reading it can shake their head at the ignorance. Anarchy with capitalism already exists. It's a gangster's paradise and applies to all such areas.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whatever you say, dogfuckers won't be well loved in Ancap world even though it will be legal. Hold onto your fantasy though. It's better than you facing that reality.
All I read is blablabla. I think most here haven't experienced it and even I minimised my exposure. You don't know what lawlessness really is, you're mostly cottonwooled fools sitting in your igloo of delusion. Go out in the wild snow and fuck with the polar bears and icy conditions. Then come back and say you know anarchy and love it.
If not, at least look at documentaries about such areas.
For clarity that's a metaphor. The real gangsters are much worse than polar bears.
-->
@juniorrationalmadman
Tip from one of the lowest win rate debaters of the sites existence.
You dont have to take a tip from me, but as it stands in this forum section, you are being beaten very badly and I was just trying to help you not embarrass yourself any further, but it seems that you went for your complete embarrassment anyway, and even do personal irrelevant attack on the one giving you good tips about how to save yourself here.
Sometimes they're trying to ignore or pus you off of a raw truth. In this case repackaging and delivering it over and over is the right strategy.
Okay, if you think that repeating a poor and defeated argument makes your position stronger, then sure, go ahead and keep repeating it.
-->
@juniorrationalmadman
Whatever you say, dogfuckers won't be well loved in Ancap world even though it will be legal
The only reason why people think that sex with animals is wrong is due to government brainwashing them into thinking that. As really, they are slaughtering animals, shooting them for fun, running them over with cars and leaving them on the road to die, castrating animals...ect. And these people were brainwashed to think that sex with animals is wrong when they do far worse things to animals and never even apologize for it.
-->
@juniorrationalmadman
I think most here haven't experienced
I think most here have experienced what government does, so I dont see how they could be wrong about their experience. However, your example of lawlessness is equal to cherry picking. For example if I cherry picked North Korea or Russia as an examples of failed government where you clearly wouldnt wanna live, then would that convince you that government is bad?
-->
@Bones
P1. If the big guns always win, the US would have won against North Vietnam.
Survival of the fittest and the USA still survives, as does Vietnam.
P2. The US did not win against North Vietnam
.." When did Vietnam become capitalist?
... In 1986 Vietnam launched a political and economic renewal campaign (Doi Moi) that introduced reforms intended to facilitate the transition from a centrally planned economy to form of market socialism officially termed "Socialist-oriented market economy." Doi Moi combined economic planning with free-market incentives .."...
..." I’m in Vietnam right now. I’m not sure what I was expecting, having read a great deal about Vietnam’s more recent history (specifically its 20th-century history). What I found - what I see around me every day - is a pretty normal, functional capitalist society. It seems just about everyone is an entrepreneur of one kind or another. Of course, there are tell-tale signs of the communist old guard, but they don’t ever feel overbearing or intrusive.
I’m not Vietnamese and I didn't grow up here, nor was I educated here - so obviously this is an outsider’s view (I’m from England). I see a demographically young, dynamic country with a fairly robust infrastructure (and improving fast) and a massive workforce engaged in most of the same kinds of jobs and careers you’d expect to find in any democratic nation around the world.
Vietnam is going places and perhaps in another twenty years, it will have finally shed the last vestiges of its communist past and will truly emerge into the SE Asia family of nations as one of its most dynamic economic powerhouses. It has all the potential to do so, in my opinion. Indeed, I think for younger Vietnamese, assuming stability and growth remains constant, I think there is an exciting future ahead for Vietnam."..
Anarchy has governing principles, depending on the various factors/circumstances.
1} the peoples/cultures choice,
2} survival of the fittest, --and that may also be the smartest { tho not in circumstances of the Cambodia Killing Fields }...
3} chance i.e. being in right place at right time to fill a niche of needs --ex some sitting on land gold mine---, or desires of the people/culture { see #1 }.
4} gansterland { R-man knows } --- see Russia after fall of Soviet Union and to this day of oligarchs----- ergo survival of the deadliest top to bottom heirarchy.
-->
@juniorrationalmadman
Also, I think you are confusing anarchy with something else, as anarchy would still have military which would prevent any type of gangs, just it would be funded through voluntary donations instead of forced contributions.
-->
@RationalMadman
Just give it up you’ve been fraud checked and you’re embarrassing yourself now.
-->
@Bones
What you said.
@RM asserting hypothesis about limits to what human beings can believe or what cultural norms they will have tends fail at historical review.
To know what is stable and possible one must look at dynamics and that is complicated. The asimovian "science of pyschohistory" is not yet a science.
-->
@Savant
Is it too late to ask him to comment about Chaz/Chop? (the autonomous zone)