-->
@Bones
I didn't bash him as unqualified, I don't think he's laughing at me. If he is laughing I couldn't care less anyway, I only care what reply he can come up with.
[AMA Thread] Dr. Michael Huemer, Professor of philosophy
Posts
Total:
147
-->
@Bones
Are you saying nations run like individuals do?
You think every single political or sociological rule for people applies to nations? Even if the world were AnCap what exactly would you answer to what I just asked.
-->
@RationalMadman
You assume US Vs Vietnam happened under Ancap conditions.
In my argument, I never once mention ancap. At all. It's completely irrelevant. The only thing I am addressing is the proposition that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit" - this statement is the only thing I am interested in at this point in time.
You seem to not realise the limitations of anarchy and just throw the word around all fancy and shit a bit like Benjamin does when he says there can be genuine legal systems and laws that require them to even exist let alone be enforced, in anarchy.
All an anarchy is, is a system in which voluntary interactions are of utmost priority. This doesn't mean that somehow every system we see needs to be abolished, but rather they are provided for in the free market, and made better by market forces. Take the police for example. Under the state, it is provided by one organisation, who are payed through involuntary taxes (meaning they will always be payed). In an ancap society, state police is abolished in place of private security who do the exact same thing as the police, with the only difference being that there are multiple (as opposed to one) provider, and they are payed through voluntary transactions, meaning there is an imperative for quality.
-->
@Bones
In my argument, I never once mention ancap. At all. It's completely irrelevant. The only thing I am addressing is the proposition that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit" - this statement is the only thing I am interested in at this point in time.
That statement is not what I said. Sometimes the weak will be more tactical, popular, rich (with paid gangs/guards that don't feel like mugging them) or lucky and have others defend them.
I said under AnCap that's the significant primary rule at play far more than when laws protect those less 'fit'. Somehow your brain, wylted's Benjamin's and BKs can't quite grasp that. I have a feeling others did grasp it but they're staying silent, including Savant, as they know how infantile Ancap is to even entertain as an idea.
-->
@Bones
All an anarchy is, is a system in which voluntary interactions are of utmost priority. This doesn't mean that somehow every system we see needs to be abolished, but rather they are provided for in the free market, and made better by market forces. Take the police for example. Under the state, it is provided by one organisation, who are payed through involuntary taxes (meaning they will always be payed). In an ancap society, state police is abolished in place of private security who do the exact same thing as the police, with the only difference being that there are multiple (as opposed to one) provider, and they are payed through voluntary transactions, meaning there is an imperative for quality.
Nope. Under your definition absolutely everything is anarchy. In anarchy you can still be coerced, bribed, raped, murdered, stolen from and all of it happening (by definition with rape and theft) completely against your voluntary will. You are choosing to define anarchy that way because it suits your agenda which is a corrupt and disgusting agenda. The reality of anarchocaputalism is that not only in practise is it caveman politics but even in theory it is. The Capitalistic aspect of the anarchy is individualism above all else with zero laws stopping it.
RM
You're being sarcastic but he probably hasn't.
Even I heard those questions over 100 times. In fact, one of the most common questions for anarch is how to keep order in society. The fact that you think he, professor of philosophy, never heard that question before and is now unable to answer it, just tells me that you are trolling here.
Also, guys, you really shouldnt let RM debate the professor, as he is literally just gonna spam troll attacks on him such as when he claimed that living with polar bear is real anarchy. So please, dont embarrass the site and send someone else to debate the professor, I am thinking someone like Savant or whiteflame, someone calm.
-->
@RationalMadman
In my argument, I never once mention ancap. At all. It's completely irrelevant. The only thing I am addressing is the proposition that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit" - this statement is the only thing I am interested in at this point in time.That statement is not what I said.
Now you are being completely dishonest. I already posed that maxim as an extrapolation of what you did so, combining your statements that that "ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", and also that "guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding". So with these statements, we can take the maxim "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit".
Sometimes the weak will be more tactical, popular, rich (with paid gangs/guards that don't feel like mugging them) or lucky and have others defend them.
So do you then disagree with the statement that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit"?
I said under AnCap that's the significant primary rule at play far more than when laws protect those less 'fit'.
Now you're backtracking your claim. Before you said "Ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", now you're saying "survival of the fittest plays a big role in ancap".
Somehow your brain, wylted's Benjamin's and BKs can't quite grasp that.
Don't forget public freedom!
Under your definition absolutely everything is anarchy. In anarchy you can still be coerced, bribed, raped, murdered, stolen from and all of it happening (by definition with rape and theft) completely against your voluntary will.
I didn't say that in anarchy there is no coercion, bribery, rape etc. Not sure why you're straw manning.
You are choosing to define anarchy that way because it suits your agenda which is a corrupt and disgusting agenda.
I have only defined anarchy as the system which preferences freedom as its ultimate maxim. Not sure how I'm committing any stimulative fallacy.
The reality of anarchocaputalism is that not only in practise is it caveman politics but even in theory it is.
Since you are so confident in this position, I'm interested in what sources have you consulted to arrive at this conclusion - what informs your understanding of ancap?
-->
@Best.Korea
The fact that you think he, professor of philosophy, never heard that question before and is now unable to answer it, just tells me that you are trolling here.
Exactly - not sure why he as a mid tier debater really thinks he can checkmate a professor of philosophy with something as rudimentary as "but everyone will kill everyone".
-->
@Bones
This isn't even a debate. I asked the professor questions.
-->
@Bones
Now you are being completely dishonest. I already posed that maxim as an extrapolation of what you did so, combining your statements that that "ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", and also that "guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding". So with these statements, we can take the maxim "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit".
There is nothing dishonest about it, you keep ignoring the 'under Ancap politics' part.
Sometimes the weak will be more tactical, popular, rich (with paid gangs/guards that don't feel like mugging them) or lucky and have others defend them.So do you then disagree with the statement that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit"?
Sure, not always otherwise Ancap would never have ended and we'd never have civilised and outgrown it. Smarter and weaker members can band together against strong, powerful thugs which is the most reliable way to ensure the 'maxim' of ancap is defeated, by defying Ancap altogether and establishing a government, police force etc.
I said under AnCap that's the significant primary rule at play far more than when laws protect those less 'fit'.Now you're backtracking your claim. Before you said "Ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", now you're saying "survival of the fittest plays a big role in ancap".
It is. To which you replied that in a war that wasn't Ancap, the stronger side lost due to pulling out of the war as back home people were against it and it seemed like the Cold War was won regardless at that point and they were just kicking a horse while it's down.
Somehow your brain, wylted's Benjamin's and BKs can't quite grasp that.Don't forget public freedom!
?
Under your definition absolutely everything is anarchy. In anarchy you can still be coerced, bribed, raped, murdered, stolen from and all of it happening (by definition with rape and theft) completely against your voluntary will.I didn't say that in anarchy there is no coercion, bribery, rape etc. Not sure why you're straw manning.
In that case voluntarism isn't the axiom or core value in anarchy.
You are choosing to define anarchy that way because it suits your agenda which is a corrupt and disgusting agenda.I have only defined anarchy as the system which preferences freedom as its ultimate maxim. Not sure how I'm committing any stimulative fallacy.
But it doesn't. It says it does but it doesn't. If I am free to bully you and oppress you with 0 restrictions, that's not real freedom it's knuckleheaded illusion of freedom.
The reality of anarchocaputalism is that not only in practise is it caveman politics but even in theory it is.Since you are so confident in this position, I'm interested in what sources have you consulted to arrive at this conclusion - what informs your understanding of ancap?
You want me to appeal to authority to explore a blatant truth?
In our least evolved state possible we have no government, no police, no laws and complete unrestricted 'freedom' to abuse each other. This coupled with the ethos 'everyone for themselves get rich/powerful and gather all the resources one can for oneself and those one deems useful to oneself' were the maxims of caveman politics.
-->
@Best.Korea
Even I heard those questions over 100 times. In fact, one of the most common questions for anarch is how to keep order in society. The fact that you think he, professor of philosophy, never heard that question before and is now unable to answer it, just tells me that you are trolling here.
Link me to him addressing the questions please. If it's along TED talk, give me the timestamp, I have better things to do than listen to the full talk of caveman politics being glorified.
Also, guys, you really shouldnt let RM debate the professor, as he is literally just gonna spam troll attacks on him such as when he claimed that living with polar bear is real anarchy. So please, dont embarrass the site and send someone else to debate the professor, I am thinking someone like Savant or whiteflame, someone calm.
I have not lost my temper in a 1v1 debating arena on here as far as I recall, in fact even on DDO I think I didn't. Rap battles are different. At worst I just FF.
Link me to him addressing the questions please.
Sure, as soon as he answers your questions, then you will be notified.
-->
@Best.Korea
You said he's been asked them before. :)
Either take it back or show me him answering it.
You said he's been asked them before. :)Either take it back or show me him answering it
No, I dont need to do either of those.
Sorry, I dont click on random links.
-->
@RationalMadman
So do you then disagree with the statement that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit"?Sure
Okay great so you just conceded absolutely everything because that was the only point I was making, that ancap is not all about just the strong winning.
Smarter and weaker members can band together against strong, powerful thugs which is the most reliable way to ensure the 'maxim' of ancap is defeated, by defying Ancap altogether and establishing a government, police force etc.
In this instance, can you tell me why a government and police would be beneficial?
Now you're backtracking your claim. Before you said "Ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", now you're saying "survival of the fittest plays a big role in ancap".It is. To which you replied that in a war that wasn't Ancap, the stronger side lost due to pulling out of the war as back home people were against it and it seemed like the Cold War was won regardless at that point and they were just kicking a horse while it's down.
I'm not sure if you're slow, but I already said the Vietnam example has nothing to do with Ancap, but rather attacks a very specific point, being "is it true that the entity with the stronger guns always wins".
Somehow your brain, wylted's Benjamin's and BKs can't quite grasp that.Don't forget public freedom!?
The user public-freedom was also in disagreement with you, thereby making you officially in disagreement with 4 statists and 1 ancap.
I didn't say that in anarchy there is no coercion, bribery, rape etc. Not sure why you're straw manning.In that case voluntarism isn't the axiom or core value in anarchy.
Something can be the axiom whilst still being violated. This is as stupid as arguing "even though the UN says slavery is a fundamental deviation from human rights, that because slavery exists, it cannot be a fundamental principal of human rights.
I have only defined anarchy as the system which preferences freedom as its ultimate maxim. Not sure how I'm committing any stimulative fallacy.But it doesn't. It says it does but it doesn't. If I am free to bully you and oppress you with 0 restrictions, that's not real freedom it's knuckleheaded illusion of freedom.
You have the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate the NAP.
The reality of anarchocaputalism is that not only in practise is it caveman politics but even in theory it is.Since you are so confident in this position, I'm interested in what sources have you consulted to arrive at this conclusion - what informs your understanding of ancap?You want me to appeal to authority to explore a blatant truth?
So you are saying you have read absolutely zero literature on the matter? Talk about dunning kruger.
-->
@Bones
His answers in the AMA thread with the answers reveal which of us was completely correct and which of us suffers from dunning kruger.
-->
@RationalMadman
It’s a real pity that he with a PHD, professor at the university of Colorado, and 80 published works has had their entire worldview shattered by a mid tier online debater who’s never read a single work on libertarianism nor anarchism
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it too late to ask him to comment about Chaz/Chop? (the autonomous zone)
What is Chaz?
-->
@Tidycraft
A minor insurrection in seattle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Was that supposed to be anarcho-capitalism (whatever you guys are saying)
-->
@Tidycraft
Anarcho-capitalism is poorly defined, so I don't know. There were people with guns telling other people what they could and could not do, but when isn't there? and that is the point RM was making; but since it's poorly defined we don't know if RM is actually debunking what they are talking about.
-->
@Bones
Do you get some joy appealing to authority over and over like a hall monitor worshipping the school principal or something? How was your reply relevant to mine?
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you get some joy appealing to authority over and over like a hall monitor worshipping the school principal or something?
I just find it simultaneously disrespectful and pitiful that you would accuse some qualified professor in philosophy as having "dunning kruger" (which mind you is the incorrect usage of the term) with regards to this entire world view. Just take a step back and look - if you were a mid tier debater lecturing a professor in a topic they have not read a single book on and then accuse them of "dunning kruger", how would you react in this circumstance?
How was your reply relevant to mine?