Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 04:48 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 04:52 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 05:52 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Why should science be the guiding principle on how we model our society.
Firstly, because science works, bitches!!!
Secondly, modeling society does not work. No models imposed from above. We stick with principles and the society will emerge voluntarily.
Thirdly, moral philosophy is even more important than science, as far as society is concerned. Philosophy works with principles, which are logical and essential both for function of science and society.
Fourthly, because those who defend non-philosophical and non-scientific society use the same defenses as Christians use for God and Church. That really gets my goat. Science earned my trust and I want it everywhere.

(16-05-2014 05:52 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  I have read Hayek before you could even walk.

Hayek disaproved of national banks and state control over currency and especialy the bail out policy of Kensian economics. His theories are however non-scientific they apply evolutionary concepts on society, similar to how the psychologist Bühler applied evolutionary principles partialy on his studies of moral developments in psychology. Neither of which are scientific because when replicated the experimants do not necerely bring the same results, due to the lack of a consistent testing ground.
So they both may be applied, but can only hint to how things work and do not work as perfect models for predicting social developments.
I don't mean to insult you, I just can't presume when you have read Hayek or anyone, that you also understood him. Nobody can truly understand anything, unless they have lots of other related works for comparison. When I look at something through multiple lenses of multiple other fields, people stop comprehending me, because they only know their field from one point of view. That is not what I'd call understanding - merely knowledge - and I don't know if that is or isn't your case.

I wonder why do you mention Hayek and not Ludwig von Mises. Maybe Hayek got more attention from media, because he compromised and included a role for the government. If we was totally government-free, he'd have as much place in textbooks as Lysander Spooner.
As for experiments on society, sciences are arranged in hierarchy by the control over their subject and environment. Mathematics is the "purest" science, because its control over numbers is absolute. Not all sciences are in control of their subject, but they are still sciences. I'd say the deciding factor is an interest in empirical reality and rational approach. The less "pure" sciences can still remain sciences if they pay attention to findings from the more fundamental sciences. For example sociology should be based on economy, statistics, psychology, neurology and even philosophy.

(16-05-2014 05:52 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Also, Hayek did not disaprove of safety networks and advocated the establishment of national health services payed by tax money. He called himself not a liberterian, but an "old whig" in reference to the British Whig party of the 19th century.

Advice that American liberterians consistantly ignore.

Hayek was an economic and social liberterian. Not a social darwinist like you lot.

Your consistent attitude of being some wise old man who can lecture others, is becoming annoying.
Hey, nobody has a problem with safety networks or establishment! The problem is, if the establishment moves from advocating them to enforcing them. Because if the establishment can enforce such a useful thing as social safety network, it can also enforce much less useful things. It's like using tigers and lions for mouse catching. If the safety nets are so useful, then surely people can be convinced to invest into them voluntarily, as they are on the market, or were convinced by agitation to have their own nation and culture. If you think otherwise, it's the same kind of force and paternalism that leads to Nazional Sozialism or the Internationale socialism, same shit, just different size and keeps piling up.

I am sorry for sounding like a lecturer. The truth is, I suck at the true art of lecturing, asking the questions through Socratic method so that you arrive at the conclusions by yourself and you feel smarter and it doesn't feel like lecturing.
Somehow, it doesn't work for me, people respond with non-sequiturs that stun me like a deer in the headlights. Hell, maybe I am the most paternalistic socialist lecturer of them all. Fuck me. Facepalm Sorry, I have my problems. I was always punished for not knowing the answers and for that reason it is very difficult for me to empathize with people who know less. Now I know that consciously and maybe I can do something about it. We'll see in a few weeks of therapy.


Philosophy is a peculiar thing. If you can DO the principles and logically derive stuff from them, you can be a better philosopher than those who know all the history of philosophy and its mistakes.
I understand the non-aggression principle. You probably don't and Hayek, if he was a "social libertarian", whatever that means, also didn't. "Social" means "funded by coercion."
I understand the economic fact that the only thing that keeps us socially secure is production, not arbitrary re-distribution. The way to be more secure is to be more productive and put aside some investment stocks for old age, or to have deeply positive relationships with people (such as family) so they will love to have us around and cared for. There's no replacement for productivity and love in the world, everything else is a pie in the sky. Namely, Bismarck's pie in the sky that he made up to satisfy the 19th century Marxists, who were unloved by their parents and knew jack-shit about economy.
So when you say "social", I don't hear Hayek, I hear Bismarck talking out him.

"Money is the great instrumentality for manufacturing."
"The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets."
"If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists."

- Lysander Spooner


I am not really a social darwinist, I see this social darwinism as a technical inevitability of the instrument of money. I don't like it any more than you do, but I accept it as a technical fact.
The moment I see a government-free capitalistic society, I will go and start convincing people to support The Venus Project, which is as far from capitalism and market as cloud computing is to a game of Monopoly. But there is one thing I despise even more than social darwinism - I despise armed bureaus with self-important wise old men who know all about what people should do, enjoying their legal immunity, high tax salary and copious bribes. One thing worse than social darwinism is a paternalistic tax farm. People in the capitalistic social darwinism thrive by cooperation, productivity and mobility, but at the tax farm there is no cooperation and productivity is misused, usually for war. Fuck Bismarck.

(16-05-2014 05:52 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  All you say, has been said before, by similar people on this forum. A point you ignored previously, since it seems to be your only goal to post as much Americanised liberterian stuff as possible and preaching an Americanised gospel of the free market. All whilest ignoring that this is mainly a social platform for people to meeet up and share life and not just politics. In a way, you coming here to convert people, doest make you that much different from the sobs repeating christian appologetics.
In practice, we are all libertarians. These ideas go through the mind of everyone who has to pay taxes or wonders why prices go up all the time. Or like me, wonders why don't alarms go off when my Economy 101 teacher told me that the state can only cover its debts by borrowing more. (because it doesn't produce anything) No-one of us does what a tax collector does, or a policeman, a law-maker or a judge. Libertarianism or anarchism is simply an everyday society, found from the grocery store to the sandbox playground of children. Everywhere we don't threaten court action and don't pull a gun at people for disagreeing, that's liberty. Everyday anarchy, practical anarchy.

Some philosophers justified it from the first principles and suggested methods of reliable dispute resolution with no violent monopoly authority, but that's just a detail. We all have an experience of anarchy (civil society of equals) and we prefer it hell a lot more than being commanded by superior power. We prefer rules that everyone is expected to go by and there is no supreme master who can make and break rules.

There has never been free market or free society. There were only lesser or greater degrees of economic freedom which led to lesser or greater economic growths. But in presence of state, this growth was always politically taken over and used for war or growth of public sector.
As for your complaints, well, I might have derailed a topic or two elsewhere. But the reason is, I don't see difference between how we are manipulated by Christianity, how the government manipulates us and how our parents manipulate us.
The truth is, I have never understood religious manipulation until I understood the parental manipulation. I was raised pretty much secular and the faults of Christianity were more of an intellectual exercise. Now they really bug me for being manipulative, even though it's not my personal problem. Frankly, everything manipulative pisses me off now. I am now hyper-sensitive to manipulation and the state triggers all my anti-manipulation alarms now. Many people here are passionately pissed at religious bullshit. *putting on Morpheus' glasses* What if I told you there is a secular bullshit as well?

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 09:52 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
A lot of my comment came both out of anger about the one-liners about anarchism wuthout any further debate ("I used to be an anarchist, then I grew up") and the fact that I don't even know on which side to be on. I believe that anarchism is truly the best world view, but I'm not idealistic enough to actually consider the chances of anarchism being achieved. This all makes for a hilarious irony in my response, calling others strawmanning idiots just before putting words into people's mouths. Well, hilarious if you take away the shame I suppose.

Well don't I feel like a dingus? Drooling I'll try and practice what I prea- ahem, advocate from now on.


On a related note, there's European elections this thursday. I don't want to vote, I'm planning not to. This is because I don't believe in a "lesser of two evils". Any thoughts? Should I compromise my ideals for the sake of partaking in democracy or should I not be a hypocrit and stand by what I believe in? I'm leaning towards the latter.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 09:52 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  On a related note, there's European elections this thursday. I don't want to vote, I'm planning not to. This is because I don't believe in a "lesser of two evils". Any thoughts? Should I compromise my ideals for the sake of partaking in democracy or should I not be a hypocrit and stand by what I believe in? I'm leaning towards the latter.

Two evils? What, none of the 10+ parties contesting the elections in NL suit you? Even a little bit?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 10:28 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Two evils? What, none of the 10+ parties contesting the elections in NL suit you? Even a little bit?

Well yeah, a little bit. The Pirate Party has some good ideas about free information and open internet and they seem to take a reasonable stance on a lot of issues.

I guess it's a lesser of a lot of evils. I don't think partaking in the system I oppose is good, even if I do it in the least harmful way. I might vote one day, but right now I'm not sure if compromise is the way to go. That's why I'll hold off on voting this time. I'm only 18, I've got a lifetime of elections ahead of me. Big Grin

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 10:28 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Two evils? What, none of the 10+ parties contesting the elections in NL suit you? Even a little bit?

Well yeah, a little bit. The Pirate Party has some good ideas about free information and open internet and they seem to take a reasonable stance on a lot of issues.

I guess it's a lesser of a lot of evils. I don't think partaking in the system I oppose is good, even if I do it in the least harmful way. I might vote one day, but right now I'm not sure if compromise is the way to go. That's why I'll hold off on voting this time. I'm only 18, I've got a lifetime of elections ahead of me. Big Grin

Two thoughts:

If you don't vote, you don't get to complain. Angry

The most effective way to destroy the system is from the inside. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 12:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you don't vote, you don't get to complain. Angry

George Carlin covered this. I get to complain about all of it, while voters get to complain about people they didn't vote for. I don't complain about details of policy though, just about the whole shebang.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 12:53 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 12:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you don't vote, you don't get to complain. Angry

George Carlin covered this. I get to complain about all of it, while voters get to complain about people they didn't vote for. I don't complain about details of policy though, just about the whole shebang.

No, you had a chance to impact the system and choose not to thus giving up your right to complain.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 01:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 12:53 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  George Carlin covered this. I get to complain about all of it, while voters get to complain about people they didn't vote for. I don't complain about details of policy though, just about the whole shebang.

No, you had a chance to impact the system and choose not to thus giving up your right to complain.

I don't want to take part in this system, because I think it is an unjust and ineffective one. I abstain from partaking so that it will not perpetuate with my help. I always have a right to complain, but in this case I also think it's justified.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 01:12 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 01:11 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No, you had a chance to impact the system and choose not to thus giving up your right to complain.

I don't want to take part in this system, because I think it is an unjust and ineffective one. I abstain from partaking so that it will not perpetuate with my help. I always have a right to complain, but in this case I also think it's justified.

So rather than doing something you choose inaction thus choosing the worst evil possible apathy.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 01:24 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 01:12 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:11 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  I don't want to take part in this system, because I think it is an unjust and ineffective one. I abstain from partaking so that it will not perpetuate with my help. I always have a right to complain, but in this case I also think it's justified.

So rather than doing something you choose inaction thus choosing the worst evil possible apathy.

It's not apathy, I care enough to think a lot about this decision. I choose inaction within parlementary democracy. Aside from that I will try and explain my beliefs to others, hopefully convincing them and once I go to uni I'm planning on joining groups/certain protests/etc.

I understand that you think I'm just some lazy leftie, but like I said, I don't want to perpetuate this system.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: