Totalitarianism is legalised blackmail from state to populace.
Anarchy is illegitimised blackmail from the strong and/or resourceful to those that lack.
In reality, both are toxic.
Why does anyone wants to be an anarchist?
Posts
Total:
71
-->
@Athias
No. Only one is logically consistent.
Which interpretation of rights is the only one that's logically consistent?
Did humans have rights before they were able to interpret them?
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Yes...A state of disorder...Absolute freedom of the individual.
How does freedom of the individual result in a "state of disorder"?
B. Governments are real enough.
Never said they weren't real. I said they were philosophical concepts.
C. "Give rise to the management of a State"......Exactly....True socialism is only a philosophical concept.
This makes little sense. Is true socialism anarchy? Is true socialism's giving rise to a State mean that by proxy the State, too, is "only a philosophical concept"?
-->
@Danielle
Which interpretation of rights is the only one that's logically consistent?
Individualism.
Did humans have rights before they were able to interpret them?
Based on my previous response about the origin of rights, the answer to this question would be an apparent, no.
-->
@Athias
Individualism.
Can you be more specific? Both Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek champion individualism. Karl Popper is pro democracy (pro government) and Hayek, a favorite among "anarchists," believes in the utility of government regulations to curb negative externalities. Hayek also believes the government has a role in preventing fraud and in providing a social safety net. By your standards that makes him a socialist. What type of individualism are you referring to?
Based on my previous response about the origin of rights, the answer to this question would be an apparent, no.
At what point in human history did we start to have rights? Is it possible for any other species/non-living entity to have rights?
-->
@Athias
A. Ask whosoever defined the word.
B. A real government is a real government and a philosophical concept is a philosophical concept.
C. Giving rise to the management of a state/hierarchical system is the inevitability of human social nature, therefore true socialism is only a concept....Y. What shall we do now?....Z. You do this and I will do this.....X. Will always ask the question and Y. will seize the opportunity to control.
-->
@Danielle
Can you be more specific? Both Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek champion individualism. Karl Popper is pro democracy (pro government) and Hayek, a favorite among "anarchists," believes in the utility of government regulations to curb negative externalities. Hayek also believes the government has a role in preventing fraud and in providing a social safety net. By your standards that makes him a socialist. What type of individualism are you referring to?
Hence, I did not make reference to any one alleged "champion" of individualism. Individualism is not defined by any one public figure, but by its tenets, principles, and precepts. There's no "type" of individualism. Only individualism. And Hayek and Popper are as individualist as the Pauls (both Ron and Rand) are Libertarian.
At what point in human history did we start to have rights?
Hard to pin-point. The human condition has accompanied us since our own origins. Even if the analysis is made some time later, that doesn't mean that it can't apply in retrospect.
Is it possible for any other species/non-living entity to have rights?
I do not equate "other species" with "non-living." The answer to both is no.
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Ask whosoever defined the word.
There are a few definitions of the word, anarchy. Since in this discussion's context, my use of the term refers to the absence of a state, how does your application of the term serve as a counterargument to my position?
B. A real government is a real government and a philosophical concept is a philosophical concept.
What are the mass, volume, and density of government?
C. Giving rise to the management of a state/hierarchical system is the inevitability of human social nature, therefore true socialism is only a concept....Y. What shall we do now?....Z. You do this and I will do this.....X. Will always ask the question and Y. will seize the opportunity to control.
States and hierarchical systems are not biconditionally equivalent. In order to make sense of your contention, you'd have to first substantiate that premise. (An example of hierachy that is not a State: a nuclear family.)
-->
@Athias
A state is a hierarchical system....And a state will encompass a nuclear family....You ultimately cannot separate the two.
And absence of state, either means replacement of state or not, and I contend that, no hierarchical structure, is not a human option.
State is as crude as it is, or as developed as it will become.
-->
@zedvictor4
A state is a hierarchical system....And a state will encompass a nuclear family....You ultimately cannot separate the two.
Not all hierarchies are "States." Hence, the two are not biconditionally equivalent. If you are asserting as much, then you have to substantiate how the two are inseparable.
And absence of state, either means replacement of state or not, and I contend that, no hierarchical structure, is not a human option.
I extend my contention above.
-->
@Athias
Explain how, human interaction and/or cooperation doesn't always rely on some level of hierarchical distinction
-->
@zedvictor4
Explain how, human interaction and/or cooperation doesn't always rely on some level of hierarchical distinction
I don't have to. You are the one asserting that interaction and/or cooperation always rely on some level of hierarchical distinction. And my contention isn't necessarily against "hierarchy;" It's against the State. You are equating the two without substantiating your reasons.
-->
@Athias
What is there to substantiate?
State in any form is hierarchical....It's how a state is able to function.
Any human co-operative no matter how liberal, relies upon A being able to tell B what to do, and B accepting that A will tell them what to do. Failure of this system will either lead to separation or temporary chaos, though in either instance resolution will be the establishment of new hierarchical structures.
it will be interesting to see how things pan out after the current U.S. elections. Will A accept B, or will there be temporary chaos?
-->
@zedvictor4
What is there to substantiate?State in any form is hierarchical....It's how a state is able to function.
That a contention against the State is one necessarily against "hierachy." That is, State = hierarchy; hierachy = State.
Any human co-operative no matter how liberal, relies upon A being able to tell B what to do, and B accepting that A will tell them what to do. Failure of this system will either lead to separation or temporary chaos, though in either instance resolution will be the establishment of new hierarchical structures.
What does any of that have to do with the opposition to the State?
-->
@Athias
There's no "type" of individualism. Only individualism.
Define the one logical interpretation of individualism.
Even if the analysis is made some time later, that doesn't mean that it can't apply in retrospect.
So now you're saying that humans did have rights before they could interpret them? Why?
I do not equate "other species" with "non-living." The answer to both is no.
Neither do I. I was asking about other species (like animals) or non-living (like robots). Why wouldn't they have rights if they could interpret them?
-->
@Danielle
Define the one logical interpretation of individualism.
This description suffices:
Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern.-- Craig Biddle
So now you're saying that humans did have rights before they could interpret them? Why?
No, only the analysis can apply in retrospect. The rights themselves can neither be exercised nor precede the analysis.
Neither do I. I was asking about other species (like animals) or non-living (like robots). Why wouldn't they have rights if they could interpret them?
Can they "interpret" them? Robots and animals aren't moral agents.
-->
@Athias
Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern.
You've stated that Individualism is the one logically consistent interpretation of rights from human analyses. This description does not explain what the Individualist view on rights is. For instance do I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster? Is there anyone you can defer to who does espouse the logically consistent Individualist interpretation of rights? (I assume you believe Hayek and Popper do not.)
The rights themselves can neither be exercised nor precede the analysis.
So if you have not yet concluded you are doing something immoral, it does not qualify as immoral?
Can they "interpret" them? Robots and animals aren't moral agents.
Not yet ;) Robots may be capable of 'thinking' pretty soon.
-->
@Danielle
You've stated that Individualism is the one logically consistent interpretation of rights from human analyses. This description does not explain what the Individualist view on rights is.
Actually it does. It's the premise for all individualist moral arguments. There's no "Bill of Individualist Rights"; if you intend to present a laundry list of actions which we would then comb through to determine whether or not they're deemed moral under individualist moralism, then I'm game.
For instance do I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster?
No, you do not have a right to put your baby in a dumpster. Can you put your baby in a dumpster? Yes. Would it be deemed immoral to do so? No. You do not owe the baby your labor ("...to keep and use the product of his effort...")
Is there anyone you can defer to who does espouse the logically consistent Individualist interpretation of rights?
I can; but I won't.
So if you have not yet concluded you are doing something immoral, it does not qualify as immoral?
This is a contrast between "mens rea" and "actus reus." "Not having yet concluded" which I'm going to presume is synonymous with "ignorance" determines moral liability of a moral agent.
Not yet ;) Robots may be capable of 'thinking' pretty soon.
How is bringing them up relevant, then?
-->
@Athias
Actually it does. It's the premise for all individualist moral arguments. There's no "Bill of Individualist Rights"
Actually it doesn't. Which part of the below statement explains why I don't have the right to put my baby in a dumpster? I'm not looking for an itemized list of what rights we have, but there should be guidance on how to determine if something qualifies.
Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern.
No, you do not have a right to put your baby in a dumpster. Can you put your baby in a dumpster? Yes. Would it be deemed immoral to do so? No. You do not owe the baby your labor ("...to keep and use the product of his effort...")
Why don't I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster? The only reason I wouldn't is if that somehow overrides the baby's rights, correct? Otherwise I would have the right to do anything I want to the baby just like I can to a stuffed animal or farm animal.
I can; but I won't.
Really? Why wouldn't you for the sake of dialog make your position more clear by referring to an example you have in mind?
"Not having yet concluded" which I'm going to presume is synonymous with "ignorance" determines moral liability of a moral agent.
Sure, but I'm not really asking about moral culpability; just the existence of rights. You've been saying rights do not exist outside the scope of human understanding. What about human agreement then? Wouldn't humans not only have to analyze and understand what rights are, but also come to an agreement on what those rights are (how to determine if we have right to do X)?
How is bringing them up relevant, then?
You said rights come from human interpretation. I'm wondering if being human is a condition you have for rights (and if so, why that is).
-->
@Danielle
Actually it doesn't. Which part of the below statement explains why I don't have the right to put my baby in a dumpster? I'm not looking for an itemized list of what rights we have, but there should be guidance on how to determine if something qualifies.
Because you're requesting description as to the reason you bear an entitlement to a specific action. You have no more a "right" to place your baby in a dumpster than I do to eating chocolate ice cream. We do have a right to our person and to behave said person as we see fit. It's about the fundamental; not any one extension of it. So let me repeat myself: Can you place your baby in a dumpster? Yes. Would it be deemed immoral by individualist moralism? No.
Why don't I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster? The only reason I wouldn't is if that somehow overrides the baby's rights, correct? Otherwise I would have the right to do anything I want to the baby just like I can to a stuffed animal or farm animal.
Let's analyze your statement using the description I offered. Does placing a baby in a dumpster infract on the inalienable right it has to live its life as it sees fit, to act in its own judgement, to keep and use the product of its effort, and to pursue the values of its choosing?
Really? Why wouldn't you for the sake of dialog make your position more clear by referring to an example you have in mind?
Because you and I are having this dialogue. A proxy for my position is unnecessary. If there's anything that you don't quite grasp in my explanation, then I will do my best to make it more clear. Furthermore, I typically hold myself responsible for the things I state and argue, not that of anyone else.
Sure, but I'm not really asking about moral culpability; just the existence of rights. You've been saying rights do not exist outside the scope of human understanding. What about human agreement then? Wouldn't humans not only have to analyze and understand what rights are, but also come to an agreement on what those rights are (how to determine if we have right to do X)?
The practice requires some form of consensus; the analysis/rationalization does not, given that arguments are neither validated nor invalidated by consensus--unless specifically referencing a consensus. One's participation in any moral system ought to be determined by his or her agreement. Can a group of people come together and form some agreement as to that which constitutes a right (e.g. Democracy?) Yes. That doesn't necessarily make it logically consistent.
You said rights come from human interpretation.
I said rights are moral concepts informed by an analysis of the human condition. But semantics...
I'm wondering if being human is a condition you have for rights (and if so, why that is).
Humans are moral agents and rational actors. Robots and non-human animals aren't.
-->
@Athias
Opposition to a Sate will quickly evolve from individual to shared concept, into organised hierarchical opposition.
Though it was you who dropped "opposition to a state" into the discussion.
So unless you are going to be more specific, then State and opposition are going to remain hypothetical.
-->
@zedvictor4
Opposition to a Sate will quickly evolve from individual to shared concept, into organised hierarchical opposition.
This does not substantiate the reason for equating "State" with "hierarchy." This is mere presumption.
Though it was you who dropped "opposition to a state" into the discussion.
It was you who sought to challenge and counterargue the argument I had set forth.
So unless you are going to be more specific, then State and opposition are going to remain hypothetical.
Go back and read that which I wrote about the State; as for "opposition," seeking removal would suffice in giving it description.
-->
@Athias
We do have a right to our person and to behave said person as we see fit.
Then why don't I have a right to put my baby in a dumpster, especially if it's not immoral? Taking a bath isn't immoral and I assume you'd agree I have the right to do that. You said individualism leads us to the logical analyses of which rights we have. You said individualism posits an "inalienable right to live as one sees fit" which you've just repeated here. So why don't I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster if that is what I see fit?
Does placing a baby in a dumpster infract on the inalienable right it has to live its life as it sees fit, to act in its own judgement, to keep and use the product of its effort, and to pursue the values of its choosing?
Why does that matter? You didn't say anything about my rights being contingent on or relative to another's rights, preferences or judgment.
A proxy for my position is unnecessary.
I was asking because people can identify as being of the same school of thought while holding contrary positions, so saying you are an "individualist" does not tell me which position you would take on issue X whereas deferring to someone I'm familiar with might. For instance, an anarchist like Mises is different than one like Proudhon. But I agree a proxy is not necessary.
Can a group of people come together and form some agreement as to that which constitutes a right (e.g. Democracy?) Yes. That doesn't necessarily make it logically consistent.
I agree. I think I'd like to abandon this tangent for now before I go down some epistemological rabbit hole regarding the criteria of truth, but let me try rephrasing with another question: Do rights matter (have any meaningful real world application) if there is no consensus on what those rights are and/or no way to enforce them?
One's participation in any moral system ought to be determined by his or her agreement.
I'm not sure what you mean by moral system, but what does agreement have to do with it?
Humans are moral agents and rational actors.
Not all of them.
Robots and non-human animals aren't.
Yet. What does moral agency have to do with rights? Are you suggesting that you only have rights if you're capable of understanding another's rights? Does a 1 month old not have rights then?
-->
@Danielle
Then why don't I have a right to put my baby in a dumpster, especially if it's not immoral?
You're essentially asking me: "why don't I have a right to [eat chocolate ice cream]?" Because you don't have an exclusive claim to that action. Now as the proprietor of your person, and the owner of presumably a bowl of chocolate ice cream, you can consume the bowl of ice cream at your discretion because you own your person, and you own the bowl of ice cream. But you don't own the act. You neither possess nor claim it at the exclusion of others.
Taking a bath isn't immoral and I assume you'd agree I have the right to do that.
No, you don't have a right to take a bath. You have a right to your person. You are the owner of your bath. Placing one in the other would therefore not be immoral since your consent is implicit.
You said individualism leads us to the logical analyses of which rights we have. You said individualism posits an "inalienable right to live as one sees fit" which you've just repeated here. So why don't I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster if that is what I see fit?
Because you can never claim the acting of placing your baby in a dumpster at the exclusion of all others. Case in point: what if the father disputes this act? Whose alleged "right" do we honor then?
Why does that matter? You didn't say anything about my rights being contingent on or relative to another's rights, preferences or judgment.
All moral systems are contingent and/or relative. I'm speaking of individualism not isolation.
I was asking because people can identify as being of the same school of thought while holding contrary positions, so saying you are an "individualist" does not tell me which position you would take on issue X whereas deferring to someone I'm familiar with might. For instance, an anarchist like Mises is different than one like Proudhon. But I agree a proxy is not necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by moral system, but what does agreement have to do with it?
I don't present arguments from "schools of thought." I identify the principles and tenets of individualism in accordance to its description, formulate premises using said principles and tenets, and extend them to their logical conclusions. I then use those conclusions to determine its logical application. I don't parrot the rationalizations of others. And if I require a pithy statement in place of my own, then I'll quote (and I've quoted Mises before.) With that said, I must impress that you and I are the ones having this dialogue.
Do rights matter (have any meaningful real world application) if there is no consensus on what those rights are and/or no way to enforce them?
It suffices to say that there is no "meaningful real world application" if everyone who participates doesn't buy in. I won't offer a pretense which elides that fact. But let me ask, as far as the context of "enforcement" goes, how meaningful is enforcement when the enforcement itself undermines the right(s) it is intended to protect?
I'm not sure what you mean by moral system, but what does agreement have to do with it?
By moral system, I mean a framework of moral concepts. Essentially, one ought not be compelled to subscribe to any one.
Not all of them.
Not all of them. This is typically a matter of time.
Yet.
That's speculative.
What does moral agency have to do with rights?
Everything. The exercise of rights and moral agency go hand in hand. How can rights, which I described earlier as moral concepts, derive from an analysis of the human condition without moral agents? On whom or what would the analysis focus?
Are you suggesting that you only have rights if you're capable of understanding another's rights?
Not necessarily.
Does a 1 month old not have rights then?
Yes, they don't. Feel free to place him/her in a dumpster. Any rights concerning infants unfortunately for them extends the discretion of their parents. Of course, in this hegemonic state, the rights of infants are merely extensions of State authority. In essence, they're property of the State.
8 days later
-->
@Athias
We do have a right to our person and to behave said person as we see fit.
Why is that?
You're essentially asking me: "why don't I have a right to [eat chocolate ice cream]?" Because you don't have an exclusive claim to that action.
So semantics. I got ya.
Because you can never claim the acting of placing your baby in a dumpster at the exclusion of all others. Case in point: what if the father disputes this act? Whose alleged "right" do we honor then?
What if myself (and everyone else in society) disputes your analyses of rights? Whose alleged "rights" do we honor then?
With that said, I must impress that you and I are the ones having this dialogue.
I can appreciate that. You remind me of myself in my early 20s. I read every publication by Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Engels and Rothbard I could get my hands on. I even read some anarcho-syndicalists and communists for funsies. I was very libertarian (practically an-cap) for a good portion of my life, and of course when I was in college got very into philosophy. Who doesn't get a lil boner by Ayn Rand when they're 19, amirite? I thought abiding by the laws of logic were paramount and got annoyingly anal about axiomatic truths so I get where you're coming from. I even had Huey as my debate icon for the longest time lol. So I actually find this conversation very endearing and was only curious where you were at in your thought processes, that's all.
You can disregard this as I was just giving you context for my question.
It suffices to say that there is no "meaningful real world application" if everyone who participates doesn't buy in.
This is what I was getting at. The TLDR is that any idea on rights (as it pertains to government, property or commerce) essentially boils down to might makes right. If you're the only one who believes X then your views don't really matter insofar as being applicable. It comes down to what ideas you can defend and enforce among people. When you ask "how meaningful is enforcement when the enforcement itself undermines the right(s) it is intended to protect" I completely understand that paradox and question that many philosophers have tried to resolve. But here we are, and I expect if we go down a Socratic rabbit hole you'll come to similar conclusions most have had regarding the "necessary evil" of government and overriding of strict individualism for a functioning society. However I'm happy to engage in the back and forth because maybe I'll consider a new perspective I hadn't before.
By moral system, I mean a framework of moral concepts. Essentially, one ought not be compelled to subscribe to any one.
But one is compelled. Ignoring arguments for determinism and against free will (i.e. predisposition through genetics or environment compelling choices), what about babies? Would it be immoral or against what one ought to do or has a right to do if they give an infant medicine or life saving treatment? I think if we acknowledge any rights concerning infants regards the discretion of their parents or the state, we recognize how arbitrary our conditions for the existence of rights are - that's why I was asking about other species and non humans. We just make up the criteria as we go along, and because there is no moral absolute or moral imperative it's not necessarily immoral to do certain things in the name of government just like we "allow" certain things to be done for babies in the name of good parenting.
I'm probs not explaining this properly in between work calls. I almost forgot about this thread. I'm confident if you think about your "ideal government" or rather ideal society without government though, certain circumstances or conditions would arise where you wouldn't be able to apply some sort of straight edged logic as easily as you think. I suspect you'll figure that out in due time and probs not in this thread. I'm enjoying the conversation though.
-->
@Sum1hugme
1. Initiating force against someone who is not initiating force against you is unethical.
Seems reasonable.
2. governments existence is based on the seizing of private property by force which is initiating force against someone who's not initiating force against the government the first place.
Governments, for the most part, exact force in accordance to law. Law is designed to protect private property (among other things). For example, theft is illegal. So, in attempting to protect private property, governments enact force upon people who transgress law, hence making this action "ethical".
Not a bad attempt, though.
3. Therefore, government's existence is unethical
-->
@MgtowDemon
Their law is imposed. So by appealing to their law, you are rationalizing away the point by appealing to authority.
-->
@Sum1hugme
The law is intersubjectively constructed through the will of people, thus it is "imposed" by the people. Governments are not entities devoid of any human input, in fact their existence is possible only through human input. They reflect reasonable desire which, in some cases, protects private property. Moreover, is it so unclear how law could protect/prevent any individual committing theft? Or breaking and entering? Or trespassing? If there are no official and (mostly) impartial ways of persecuting people who breach private property ethics, then who/what will? Are you suggesting mob rule?
-->
@MgtowDemon
I'm not saying law doesn't protect property, but the state has historucally established it's sovereignty via force
-->
@MgtowDemon
The state's existence is predicated on the monopolization of force