Debate Now Anarchy: What is it, what is it not?

[LOki]

It seems the point asserted is a mathematical truth: 0+0+0+0+....=0.

Abstract or not, if these men had no right to something as individuals, that right doesn't exist when they gather as a group.

Self-evident.

Math has nothing to do with anything here.

The logic of math seems appropriate to the premise.

"Abstract or not" -- your words. You insist something is true whether it is abstract or not?

No. In the case presented, the abstract (or not) nature of rights is just not at issue.

Are you capable of parsing that distinction, Princess Cupcake?

No one claims an individual right to another's individual properties or anything else before hand, so you are insisting your premise has to be accepted in any argument.

1) You seem to be agreeing with the premise.

2) I'm not insisting anything, really. And the premise is to applied to only one argument.

3) You conclusion is a non-sequitur.

You have done what theists do when they say prove there is no god

see?

No. Seriously. It looks to me like you have imagined an axe and an imaginary hone, and are just grinding furiously on nothing, with nothing.

now get out into the real world

Your delusions have no bearing on the real world, Cupcake.

 

[LOki]

Lack of respect for personal and private rights is not a principal quality of anarchism, but it certainly is a principal quality of stastism.

says who?

If you can find it or demonstrate it is the case for anarchism, you are free to present it.

In fact, you've had every opportunity to do so, but you didn't.

Why is that?

is there an official anarchist handbook?

Is that what you imagine must be necessary, Cupcake?

Really?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

Cupcake.

To you, the logic of math may seem appropriate to the premise. But what often seems to be true or appropriate in life ends up being exposed as childish nonsense.

Rights are abstract things. They do NOT exist outside the mind. We may put actions into place based on the abstract, but the rights themselves do NOT exist in the natural world. Like the religious, you demand people buy into certain premises in order to debate anarchy.

You have yet to link to the definitive handbook on what anarchy is and isn't. Why is that? Because it does not exist. Very appropriately, anarchy reigns all over discussions of what anarchy is and isn't.

 

[LOki]

...

Cupcake.

To you, the logic of math may seem appropriate to the premise. But what often seems to be true or appropriate in life ends up being exposed as childish nonsense.

Rights are abstract things. They do NOT exist outside the mind. We may put actions into place based on the abstract, but the rights themselves do NOT exist in the natural world.

Numbers are abstract things. The logic of math is still valid in the real world.

Like the religious, you demand people buy into certain premises in order to debate anarchy.

I've made no such demand. You're wrong. It's self evident.

But, like the superstitious, you make this all up, and you will deny that you have... and only your resolute devotion to your belief will be your measure of the validity of your belief.

You have yet to link to the definitive handbook on what anarchy is and isn't. Why is that? Because it does not exist.

Then it is ENTIRELY (and not surprisingly) irrational for you to ask me for it, Cupcake.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...
it.

you are simply demanding that people agree with you that some abstract thoughts are self evident

 

[LOki]

...
it.

you are simply demanding that people agree with you that some abstract thoughts are self evident

Only in your retarded imagination, Cupcake.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Have at it!

Stating something is 'self evident' and then attacking anyone who disagrees, is no different than stating God exists and he is mad at you, and then attacking anyone who disagrees. .

 

[LOki]

Have at it!

Stating something is 'self evident' and then attacking anyone who disagrees, is no different than stating God exists and he is mad at you, and then attacking anyone who disagrees. .

Your intentionally crafted false equivalence is a straw-man.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

again

Stating something is 'self evident' and then attacking anyone who disagrees, is no different than stating God exists and he is mad at you, and then attacking anyone who disagrees. .

 

[Treeshepherd]

There's a spectrum which runs from anarchy to authoritarianism. It's not a left/right thing.

Anarchy is all around us. The internet backbone was developed anarchistically, to large degree. Not only that, but the internet promotes anarchy in the form of Uber, Airbnb, self-learning, etc..

My parents live on a private road. It's governed via anarcho-capitalism. There's no king or president of the road association. People go out and clean the gutters without there being a rule about it. They have consensus meetings, pay dues agreed upon, and everybody keeps a chainsaw ready for when a tree falls on it.

 

[LOki]

again

Stating something is 'self evident' and then attacking anyone who disagrees, is no different than stating God exists and he is mad at you, and then attacking anyone who disagrees. .

Again, your intentionally crafted false equivalence is a straw-man, still.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The internet backbone was developed anarchistically, to large degree.

Nope. Not true

 

[LOki]

Dear Reader,

Let me explain this to Dante, lest anyone who drops into this thanks he's just not been properly informed.

Example: The mathematical expression, 0+0+0= X.

It is self-evident that X = 0.

Of course, Dante will dispute this. He will say this is just like religion. But the rest of us are lucid.

In the case of Spooner's premise:

• if we agree that there is no individual right to trespass: the value of the individual right to trespass = 0.
• if we agree that there is no individual right to rob others: the value of the individual right to rob others = 0.
• if we agree that there is no individual right to murder: the value of the individual right to murder = 0.

If we are to find the sum total of rights to trespass, rob, and/or murder of any group--no matter how large--it is self-evident that the group has no such right... the sum of such rights is ZERO. Obviously.

Now Dante will claim I have made a demand of somebody here; that I am insisting that the premise be accepted. Which is obviously not the case. It's not my argument... it's not my premise.

But if Dante has a problem with the premise, perhaps he can present valid reasoning--rather than false equivilancy--to illustrate the fault in Spooner's premise.

Thank you.

And Dante, you're welcome.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People who state things are 'self evident' rarely if ever have to prove what they say.

Even the idea that Jefferson's claims of 'all men are created equal' and what it meant to him back then, is the same as what people are claiming it means these days is silly nonsense. The equality that was supposed to be self evident was one of equal in nature. Yet, equal in nature is an idea that is cruel.

In nature animals, humans are born equal yet with different abilities, some with birth defects, many with social positions that guarantee a horribly pathetic life on this Earth.

People are born free? We insist that it be viewed that way, but reality dictates otherwise. Ideals are abstract thoughts. They guide mankind, but they exist at the whims of humanity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dear Reader,

Let me explain this to Dante, lest anyone who drops into this thanks he's just not been properly informed.

...

Now Dante will claim I have made a demand of somebody here; that I am insisting that the premise be accepted. Which is obviously not the case. It's not my argument... it's not my premise.

But if Dante has a problem with the premise, perhaps he can present valid reasoning--rather than false equivilancy--to illustrate the fault in Spooner's premise.

Thank you.

And Dante, you're welcome.

Your words, your premises.

Abstract or not, if these men had no right to something as individuals, that right doesn't exist when they gather as a group.

Self-evident.
​

Lysander Spooner, like you and others is insisting that the premise of something being self evident is the starting point. An agreed upon statement of fact. It is not

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."​

 

[LOki]

Dear Reader,

Let me explain this to Dante, lest anyone who drops into this thanks he's just not been properly informed.

...

Now Dante will claim I have made a demand of somebody here; that I am insisting that the premise be accepted. Which is obviously not the case. It's not my argument... it's not my premise.

But if Dante has a problem with the premise, perhaps he can present valid reasoning--rather than false equivilancy--to illustrate the fault in Spooner's premise.

Thank you.

And Dante, you're welcome.

Your words, your premises.

Abstract or not, if these men had no right to something as individuals, that right doesn't exist when they gather as a group.

Self-evident.​

​

Paraphrasing Spooner's premise for the deliberately obtuse does not make it mine.

​

Thanks anyway.

​

Lysander Spooner, like you and others is insisting that the premise of something being self evident is the starting point. An agreed upon statement of fact. It is not

You've had every opportunity to demonstrate this. Yet you don't.

Why is that?

Perhaps you can present valid reasoning--rather than false equivilancy--to illustrate the fault in Spooner's premise.

 

[boedicca]

At a high level, Anarchy is the opposite of Control as well as the latter's partner. In the middle is what used to be Civil Society. This middle consists of the voluntary interactions of private individuals and groups who have enough shared values and respect for others that they don't need government to direct their actions.

It's not a coincidence that as Government has seized more control and eroded Civil Society that Anarchy has grown on the other side of the spectrum. When we have a system where individuals are subordinated and controlled, the dysfunction and corruption of unfettered Government Power actually enable Anarchy. Anarchy serves The Masters by providing an excuse for their ever increasing power grabs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You've had every opportunity to demonstrate... Yet you don't.

Why is that?

Perhaps you can present valid reasoning--rather than false equivilancy--to illustrate the fault in Spooner's premise.

Dante doesn't have to demonstrate anything when somebody else makes a claim such as something being self evident. It is up the the person who claims something is self evident to offer how and why.

Like religionists with the claim that there exists a higher power watching over humanity and guiding it, you offer up a claim of certain rights being self evident, and insist others must accept it as a fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

At a high level, Anarchy is the opposite of Control as well as the latter's partner. In the middle is what used to be Civil Society. This middle consists of the voluntary interactions of private individuals and groups who have enough shared values and respect for others that they don't need government to direct their actions.

It's not a coincidence that as Government has seized more control and eroded Civil Society that Anarchy has grown on the other side of the spectrum. When we have a system where individuals are subordinated and controlled, the dysfunction and corruption of unfettered Government Power actually enable Anarchy. Anarchy serves The Masters by providing an excuse for their ever increasing power grabs.

Arguments like this have been proffered up before. Since day one of the founding of the USA.

So there is nothing new here. Just tired old arguments refitted with mentions of how big government has grown. Well the nation has grown too

 

[boedicca]

At a high level, Anarchy is the opposite of Control as well as the latter's partner. In the middle is what used to be Civil Society. This middle consists of the voluntary interactions of private individuals and groups who have enough shared values and respect for others that they don't need government to direct their actions.

It's not a coincidence that as Government has seized more control and eroded Civil Society that Anarchy has grown on the other side of the spectrum. When we have a system where individuals are subordinated and controlled, the dysfunction and corruption of unfettered Government Power actually enable Anarchy. Anarchy serves The Masters by providing an excuse for their ever increasing power grabs.

Arguments like this have been proffered up before. Since day one of the founding of the USA.

So there is nothing new here. Just tired old arguments refitted with mentions of how big government has grown. Well the nation has grown too

Condolences on our inability to grok eternal truths.