Game_Over Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 A few hundred years ago, the state did little more than run crown courts and raise armies of mercs now and again. That is closer to anarchism than it is to a modern statist society. Regardless, you said that socialism leads to a state, implying that they go hand in hand. Either socialism is required for statism or it isn't. Which is it? I didn't realise that there were degrees of Anarchy, I kind of thought Anarchy was all or nothing. And I already conceded that I am a statist, I just want a much smaller less intrusive state than the kind Socialists always end up constructing. TBH I really don't know what you are trying to get at here, Imperial Japan had a state, was that Socialist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 For someone who favours a smaller state your hair splitting for the sake of it looks a lot like an attempt to fragment the libertarian tendencies in favour of the statists. I genuinely thought he was an anarchist now I think he is saying he wants an anarchistic state which I would say is an oxymoron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 For someone who favours a smaller state your hair splitting for the sake of it looks a lot like an attempt to fragment the libertarian tendencies in favour of the statists. Minarchists are statists. Either you think people own themselves and the products of their labour or you do not. In other words either you think taxation is unacceptable or you do not. Equally, you either think it is ok to monopolise some natural resource (such as land) or you do not. In other words, you either think it is ok to use threats to define property rights or you do not. While I used to be a minarchist, I realised the importance of the moral and consistent argument. Theft isn't acceptable, no matter who is doing it and neither is aggression. While you can argue that a small degree unacceptable behaviour is better than a large degree, it doesn't make it right. I became an anarchist, when I could no longer make excuses for unacceptable behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I didn't realise that there were degrees of Anarchy, I kind of thought Anarchy was all or nothing. And I already conceded that I am a statist, I just want a much smaller less intrusive state than the kind Socialists always end up constructing. TBH I really don't know what you are trying to get at here, Imperial Japan had a state, was that Socialist? The point I'm making, is that we almost lived in an anarchist society, not all that long ago. Away from the cities, the crown courts had little impact and neither did the calls for mercenaries. That makes your argument that it is impossible to have no state, rather thin. As for statists being socialists, it was you who suggested that socialism leads to statism. If this is the case, how can you remove the socialism from statism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I genuinely thought he was an anarchist now I think he is saying he wants an anarchistic state which I would say is an oxymoron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Minarchists are statists. Either you think people own themselves and the products of their labour or you do not. In other words either you think taxation is unacceptable or you do not. Equally, you either think it is ok to monopolise some natural resource (such as land) or you do not. In other words, you either think it is ok to use threats to define property rights or you do not. While I used to be a minarchist, I realised the importance of the moral and consistent argument. Theft isn't acceptable, no matter who is doing it and neither is aggression. While you can argue that a small degree unacceptable behaviour is better than a large degree, it doesn't make it right. I became an anarchist, when I could no longer make excuses for unacceptable behaviour. So you ARE an anarchist, because as you say the idea of a minianarchist is like being a minivegetarian - who only eats chickens on the basis they are much smaller than cows. Now we have established that I am a statist and you are an anarchist what I am arguing is that states are inevitable with my evidence being the whole of recorded human history. There are also clearly socialist states and states that are not socialist you seem to be trying to argue that any state is socialist to a degree, so that by being a statist I am therefore a Socialist. Well I'm pretty certain that no one in the Japanese Imperial government or the government of Imperial Germany was a Socialist. BTW I am not trying to wind you up here, I am genuinely intrigued by the fact that you are obviously pretty smart but cannot see what I believe are obvious logical contradictions in your philosophy. Edited June 5, 2012 by Game_Over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The point I'm making, is that we almost lived in an anarchist society, not all that long ago. Away from the cities, the crown courts had little impact and neither did the calls for mercenaries. That makes your argument that it is impossible to have no state, rather thin. As for statists being socialists, it was you who suggested that socialism leads to statism. If this is the case, how can you remove the socialism from statism? Yes but you are now arguing about degrees - which is my position. You are an anarchist so want NO state I just want a much smaller state which effectively rules out Socialism as most people currently understand it. What I am trying to convince you of is that states naturally evolved because people preferred them to the alternative which is what you are now proposing. In other words what you believe to be the future was discarded thousands of years ago for reasons people are probably sick of me trying to explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) So you ARE an anarchist, because as you say the idea of a minianarchist is like being a minivegetarian - who only eats chickens on the basis they are much smaller than cows. Now we have established that I am a statist and you are an anarchist what I am arguing is that states are inevitable with my evidence being the whole of recorded human history. There are also clearly socialist states and states that are not socialist you seem to be trying to argue that any state is socialist to a degree, so that by being a statist I am therefore a Socialist. Well I'm pretty certain that no one in the Japanese Imperial government or the government of Imperial Germany was a Socialist. BTW I am not trying to wind you up here, I am genuinely intrigued by the fact that you are obviously pretty smart but cannot see what I believe are obvious logical contradictions in your philosophy. You believe in state schooling, hospitals, policing, courts, army and so forth, funded by general taxation. That is a state socialist concept. You are for the state taking the choice of the individual away for the benefit of the group, which is by definition state socialism. Regardless, it was you, while reading your history books, who asserted that socialism leads to statism. I'm just asking why you think it is possible to remove the socialist side, leaving the state unchanged? P.S. Vegetarians who eat chickens and fish also get my goat, if that helps! EDIT: tweaked Edited June 5, 2012 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Yes but you are now arguing about degrees - which is my position. You are an anarchist so want NO state I just want a much smaller state which effectively rules out Socialism as most people currently understand it. What I am trying to convince you of is that states naturally evolved because people preferred them to the alternative which is what you are now proposing. In other words what you believe to be the future was discarded thousands of years ago for reasons people are probably sick of me trying to explain. I'm not against socialism - I'm against statism (whether state socialism, state capitalism, state communism or any other form involving a state). Statism is coercion. People freely associating in a group is not statism, but it is socialism. People naturally prefer to group, as individuals are more effective when working together, than working alone. Again, this is socialism. What isn't needed, is the coercion. While one group may try to coerce the other, in order to take their productivity, it doesn't make coercion desirable. Whoever is using coercion to get what they want, whether Tescos, the Coop or the UK state, should be chastised, not supported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 You believe in state schooling, hospitals, policing, courts, army and so forth, funded by general taxation. That is a state socialist concept. You are for the state taking the choice of the individual away, which is by definition state socialism. Regardless, it was you, while reading your history books, who asserted that socialism leads to statism. I'm just asking why you think it is possible to remove the socialist side, leaving the state unchanged? P.S. Vegetarians who eat chickens and fish also get my goat, if that helps! I said socialism leads to tyranny you are just claiming that any form of taxation equates to tyranny. Regarding health care as an example I would have voluntary health insurance If you didn't have insurance and then became ill you would pay out of your own pocket If you couldn't pay, the state would offer you a loan which you would then be obliged to repay if you took up the offer. If you didn't take up the offer that would be your choice If you took the loan but died, the loan would be taken out of your estate If you had no estate it would be written off If this is Socialism - them I'm a Socialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I'm not against socialism - I'm against statism (whether state socialism, state capitalism, state communism or any other form involving a state). Statism is coercion. People freely associating in a group is not statism, but it is socialism. People naturally prefer to group, as individuals are more effective when working together, than working alone. Again, this is socialism. What isn't needed, is the coercion. While one group may try to coerce the other, in order to take their productivity, it doesn't make coercion desirable. Whoever is using coercion to get what they want, whether Tescos, the Coop or the UK state, should be chastised, not supported. People group together for mutual protection - the coercion is applied externally by other groups of humans who will quite happily steal everything you have if you are not prepared to defend it. This is how we ended up with states and why any humans who do not wish to participate last approximately 5 minutes, unless they manage to survive in a cave at the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I said socialism leads to tyranny you are just claiming that any form of taxation equates to tyranny. Regarding health care as an example I would have voluntary health insurance If you didn't have insurance and then became ill you would pay out of your own pocket If you couldn't pay, the state would offer you a loan which you would then be obliged to repay if you took up the offer. If you didn't take up the offer that would be your choice If you took the loan but died, the loan would be taken out of your estate If you had no estate it would be written off If this is Socialism - them I'm a Socialist What I took from your post, is that socialism leads to a statism, which I disagree with. If you meant something else, then we're probably arguing over a point that neither of us made. In the above example, there is much to agree with. If you replaced the coercive state, with a voluntarily funded organisation of some sort, then I'd be happy as Larry. I would argue that an insurance company isn't a socialist concept. However, you could have a socialist organisation - a cooperative/mutual - who provide said insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) People group together for mutual protection - the coercion is applied externally by other groups of humans who will quite happily steal everything you have if you are not prepared to defend it. This is how we ended up with states and why any humans who do not wish to participate last approximately 5 minutes, unless they manage to survive in a cave at the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere. Which is why the state shouldn't be championed, as it is the external source of the coercion. I think people should group together, to protect one another, but coercion isn't needed to encourage them to do that - they will group naturally, for the reasons you outline; to gain mutual protection. edit: typo Edited June 5, 2012 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Which is why the state shouldn't be championed, as it is the external source of the coercion. I think people to group together, to protect one another, but coercion isn't needed to encourage them to do that - they will group naturally, for the reasons you outline; to gain mutual protection. I said a while back, I'd like to apply for a job as a fuel tanker driver. I and many others would be prepared to work for less than the £45k they are said to earn. I'm pretty sure I / we would not be allow to successfully tender for such a job........what 'ism' is preventing a person from offering their services at an honest market rate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I think it is pointless dreaming of an ideal world that cannot exist in a world determined by humans and 'game theory'. For 'anarchy' to win requires it to be stronger than all other forms of governance. FRB for instance is essentially a child of war. The establishment of the Bank of England allowed the government of the day to deploy maximum resources today against the French. Its success at garnering resources for war ahs made it the dominant economic and banking methodology. An anarchic establishment is doomed to failure as better organised states will always 'out resource' it. So, my recommendation is simply to leave that as a dream. Don't fight for it nor hope for it to come into being except for very short periods of time in highly volatile times where any organisation seems possible (like the Spanish revolution). Otherwise this will make you deeply unhappy for the rest of your life. Game theory dictates that people will only attack others, if they have a good chance of winning and the spoils are worthwhile. The difference between rich and poor, on a global scale, is getting smaller by the year, narrowing the benefit of war. Even if one party benefits, the sum of both parties is less, due to the cost of war. It doesn't make me unhappy that anarchism may never be achievable (at least in my life time). The clarity, consistency and the morality of the position pleases me. I would rather know what is wrong and never be able to fix it, than spend a lifetime rationalising over how much evil is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I said a while back, I'd like to apply for a job as a fuel tanker driver. I and many others would be prepared to work for less than the £45k they are said to earn. I'm pretty sure I / we would not be allow to successfully tender for such a job........what 'ism' is preventing a person from offering their services at an honest market rate? Statism? If you want to do a job and another wants to pay you to do a job, only a coercive party can prevent you doing so. Ofc, you would probably need plenty of insurance, to prevent you losing your house and future earnings if you crashed, but that's a different issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Game theory dictates that people will only attack others, if they have a good chance of winning and the spoils are worthwhile. What if the spoils are simply considered intangible things such as honour or glory? What if the proponents are simply psychopathic? You could easily have a ritualised society where honour is gained through killing with no thought of personal survival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-seven_Ronin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Statism? If you want to do a job and another wants to pay you to do a job, only a coercive party can prevent you doing so. Ofc, you would probably need plenty of insurance, to prevent you losing your house and future earnings if you crashed, but that's a different issue. OK. so statism ends today. What would happen tomorrow (and 6 months hence)?....... apart from several (thousands) of us applying for tanker drivers work. The most obvious will be fuel drops to 40-50p / litre? Of course if statism ended I / we would be free to drive without insurance ..........which is exactly what huge number are doing now anyway (think £2000 pa car insurance for unemployed 18 year old). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Why does every other thread on this site descend into some positive/negative liberty w4nkfest?! Situations very rarely turn out like the man/woman in the book says it logically will do, so why bother? It’s great to think that our individual visions of a golden society will rise after 90% of the population gets wiped out by nuclear war or zombie plague, but it isn’t going to happen. IMHO our best chance for fundamental change came and went in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 What if the spoils are simply considered intangible things such as honour or glory? What if the proponents are simply psychopathic? You could easily have a ritualised society where honour is gained through killing with no thought of personal survival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-seven_Ronin Then you have to defend yourself (including grouping with others) and persecute those who do such acts. There will always be nut cases and villains, but you shouldn't feel compelled to support them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 OK. so statism ends today. What would happen tomorrow (and 6 months hence)?....... apart from several (thousands) of us applying for tanker drivers work. The most obvious will be fuel drops to 40-50p / litre? Of course if statism ended I / we would be free to drive without insurance ..........which is exactly what huge number are doing now anyway (think £2000 pa car insurance for unemployed 18 year old). You could spend hours speculating what would happen. You could suggest that certain roads would become mutually owned by those who use them, funded by subscription, much like a voluntary road fund licence. You could also suggest that without insurance, the owners would ask that you didn't drive on them. There are many alternatives to state coercion, including common and individual ownership, subscription models, insurance and so forth. If you remove the coercion, alternative solutions will be sought, just as they were in the past and will again be in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Why does every other thread on this site descend into some positive/negative liberty w4nkfest?! Situations very rarely turn out like the man/woman in the book says it logically will do, so why bother? It’s great to think that our individual visions of a golden society will rise after 90% of the population gets wiped out by nuclear war or zombie plague, but it isn’t going to happen. IMHO our best chance for fundamental change came and went in 2008. When coercion is at the heart of the problem, it's pretty inevitable that many a debate will reach a point where it is discussed, IMO. If you gave up on freedom in 2008, why even bother posting here? Are you interested in solutions to problems or do you just want a good moan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 When coercion is at the heart of the problem, it's pretty inevitable that many a debate will reach a point where it is discussed, IMO. If you gave up on freedom in 2008, why even bother posting here? Are you interested in solutions to problems or do you just want a good moan? +1 PopGun's given up. Much to the delight of the politico-bankers.... ........Freedom!!!......long, may it not continue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 You could spend hours speculating what would happen. You could suggest that certain roads would become mutually owned by those who use them, funded by subscription, much like a voluntary road fund licence. You could also suggest that without insurance, the owners would ask that you didn't drive on them. There are many alternatives to state coercion, including common and individual ownership, subscription models, insurance and so forth. If you remove the coercion, alternative solutions will be sought, just as they were in the past and will again be in the future. Yes.....well we DO spend hours here anyway.......(even PopGuns posted many thousands here).....it's just the debate seldom (never?) moves on to specifics. Which is a shame, as specifics could demonstrate practically how true freedom could work....... It won't be 'easy'.......But 'easy' is what we have had............ 'til now....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 +1 PopGun's given up. Much to the delight of the politico-bankers.... ........Freedom!!!......long, may it not continue! I never had you as a member of Occupy... The sock puppets of TPTB shouldn't start celebrating yet. I'm just getting tired of reading the same tired circular arguments. Obviously we need to simulate the outcomes of three similar groups of people living on islands adopting one of the following: 1. 100% Freedom/Anarchy 2. Centrally Controlled co-op 'State' system 3. A Co-Op state with opt in/out system. We could obviously muse and speculate how each of these would turn out, however imo the outcomes wouldn't be as predictable as many would like to think. Would be more beneficial and interesting to watch than another summer of Big Brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.