Hello there...

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 43
Topic's author
#31
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
you have literally no idea what you're talking about, let me reframe what you just said:

A state has legitmacy because that state made laws.... You are trying to justify authority by stating that that authority does something, whether that's good or bad, you realize your argument is circular right?
Topic's author
#32
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Psychology, Government, History, Comp
#33
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I studied anarchism intensively for several years, so I'm well aware of most of the arguments.

A confederated democracy raising a professional army (probably through taxes, but you didn't say), is a state. If a state is handling a professional army and a judicial system, then that isn't anarchism solving those problems. 
#34
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
A state has legitmacy because that state made laws.... You are trying to justify authority by stating that that authority does something, whether that's good or bad, you realize your argument is circular right?
It is axiomatic but not circular.

All legitimised systems have laws and governance, anarchy may have illegitimate pseudo-laws but the very thing required to legitimise them as concrete laws and to legitimise the anarchy as a legitimate state/nation is a governing body with a legislative branch. In fact the governing body could be unlelected and monarchic, democracy isn't a necessity only a governing body is.

It is axiomatic (self-fulfilling) but it is not circular because the argument does focus on your point about legitimacy and anarchy.

Anarchy cannot be legitimate, it can only be illegitimately temporarily controlled chaos.
#35
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
Equality is impossible in anarchy, there's no government to enforce it.
This part of my argument is neither circular nor something you replied to.

7 days later

Topic's author
#36
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
A circular argument is self-fulfilling.... 

"the arguer illicitly uses the conclusion itself (or a closely related proposition) as a crucial piece of support, instead of justifying the conclusion on the basis of agreed-upon facts and reasonable inferences."
So here - the conclusion - "the state has the authority to do x" is justified by the State using its authority. Something which axiomatic can be, and often is, circular.

Furthermore, you are distinguishing between "pseudo" and "concrete" yet you haven't actually established that difference. How is one system "psudeo" and another "concrete"? The presence of a prison system? A government run from the top bottom? It seems that any definition that would give an state power over an anarchic society are begging the question. 

And as for your last lil' bit - that's cuz' its absurd - most anarchy based societies that i've read about use contracts in order to negotiate such things, like defense forces that have strict standards - this sort of thing is considered a justified and necessary hierarchy or use of force in most anarchacic circles - because it is necessary that people who are absolutely violent would need to be restrained, however... well - the actual frequency of such occurences? Inequality -just how the world works.
Topic's author
#37
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
You can think that, but you'd be wrong, a principal tenet of anarchism is to avoid hierarchies unless it is both necessary and justified - the composition of the structure is vitally important to the actual content of it, and typically a confederate democracy isn't considered one - because its built from the bottom up - again this is a very basic part of anarchism, interesting that you've "studied it for many years".
#38
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
 a principal tenet of anarchism is to avoid hierarchies unless it is both necessary and justified 
this fits more into the box of chomskyite rather than anarchy
#39
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
Maybe the reason you find this website much worse than whatever other places you hang out is that this isn't an echo chamber. You're talking nonsense at this point and have an anger about you that's a bad vibe to deal with.

It is not circular to say if all legitimate systems require legislation to legitimise them, anarchy can't be legitimate.

You think it's circular because the 'legi' gets repeated quite a bit.
#40
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
You've utterly missed the point - saying "you don't have to live in a house" ignores the fact that you will die eventually if you continually sleep outside with no access to shelter
Even if this is true, no one owes me a house. 

you are politically forced to pay rent and water bills
You are not forced to pay rent or water bills. People pay rent because they want to live in a nice home. People pay water bills because they want hot water. 

The bottom line is that no one owes me anything - I do not have an intrinsic right to inhabit someone else's building unless they consent to it - which is usually a process called renting. 
#41
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@Bones
would you agree that if someone is coerced (not physically) into sex it is still rape?
#42
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Democracies are governments that are bottom up. That's still a government. 

The only qualifier of anarchism is the absence of a state. If there's a state, it isn't anarchism
#43
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
this sort of thing is considered a justified and necessary hierarchy or use of force in most anarchacic circles - because it is necessary that people who are absolutely violent would need to be restrained, however... well - the actual frequency of such occurences? Inequality -just how the world works.
All good for a fairytale to remain a fairytale.

Try enact this and in best-case scenario a ruthless but fair gang dominate the terrain.