If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[myrkul]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

[Hawker]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

[myrkul]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong.

[FinShaggy]

This month marks the 20th anniversary of its demolition.

Sounds to me like it did not work.

It did work, read the diagram. Just because they decided to do something else with it doesn't mean it didn't "work" it was a completely functioning city of anarchy.

[Hawker]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong.

No I meant what I said.  People fought to the death for this stuff - you may regard them as having been deluded fools but that doesn't mean it makes sense to re-write history so that only people who lived in the 1600s but had a 2103 perspective come out OK.

[FinShaggy]

Here is an example of it working.

[myrkul]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong.

No I meant what I said.  People fought to the death for this stuff - you may regard them as having been deluded fools but that doesn't mean it makes sense to re-write history so that only people who lived in the 1600s but had a 2103 perspective come out OK.

Then perhaps you are using a non-standard definition of "democratic"? Or maybe "consent"?

[Hawker]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong.

No I meant what I said.  People fought to the death for this stuff - you may regard them as having been deluded fools but that doesn't mean it makes sense to re-write history so that only people who lived in the 1600s but had a 2103 perspective come out OK.

Then perhaps you are using a non-standard definition of "democratic"? Or maybe "consent"?

300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom.  You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom.  But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you.  Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom.  Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today?  Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?

[myrkul]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

Then you meant to say "taxation based on the illusion of democratic consent," which is still going strong.

No I meant what I said.  People fought to the death for this stuff - you may regard them as having been deluded fools but that doesn't mean it makes sense to re-write history so that only people who lived in the 1600s but had a 2103 perspective come out OK.

Then perhaps you are using a non-standard definition of "democratic"? Or maybe "consent"?

300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom.  You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom.  But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you.  Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom.  Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today?  Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?

We're not talking about freedom. We're talking about taxation, democracy, and consent. Sparta (not Troy, btw) was anything but a democracy. I suspect the non-standard definition you're using is in deed "democratic," given that you keep referring to representatives and monarchies as your examples of "democratic consent." Let me correct that:

de·moc·ra·cy 
/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun
    A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

If you're looking for a Classical example, Athens would be your best bet.

But even then, Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: The idea that because an idea is popular, it is the best.

[Hawker]

...snip...

300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom.  You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom.  But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you.  Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom.  Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today?  Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?

We're not talking about freedom. We're talking about taxation, democracy, and consent. Sparta (not Troy, btw) was anything but a democracy. I suspect the non-standard definition you're using is in deed "democratic," given that you keep referring to representatives and monarchies as your examples of "democratic consent." Let me correct that:

de·moc·ra·cy  
/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun
    A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

If you're looking for a Classical example, Athens would be your best bet.

But even then, Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: The idea that because an idea is popular, it is the best.

Again, that tells us nothing about history and a lot about you.  You think that you can apply your 21st century ideas to the people who lived 100s of years ago and that makes you superior. 

[myrkul]

...snip...

300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom.  You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom.  But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you.  Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom.  Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today?  Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?

We're not talking about freedom. We're talking about taxation, democracy, and consent. Sparta (not Troy, btw) was anything but a democracy. I suspect the non-standard definition you're using is in deed "democratic," given that you keep referring to representatives and monarchies as your examples of "democratic consent." Let me correct that:

de·moc·ra·cy  
/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun
    A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

If you're looking for a Classical example, Athens would be your best bet.

But even then, Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: The idea that because an idea is popular, it is the best.

Again, that tells us nothing about history and a lot about you.  You think that you can apply your 21st century ideas to the people who lived 100s of years ago and that makes you superior. 

Let me know when you have a point to make.

[Hawker]

...snip...

300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom.  You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom.  But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you.  Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom.  Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today?  Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?

We're not talking about freedom. We're talking about taxation, democracy, and consent. Sparta (not Troy, btw) was anything but a democracy. I suspect the non-standard definition you're using is in deed "democratic," given that you keep referring to representatives and monarchies as your examples of "democratic consent." Let me correct that:

de·moc·ra·cy  
/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun
    A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

If you're looking for a Classical example, Athens would be your best bet.

But even then, Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: The idea that because an idea is popular, it is the best.

Again, that tells us nothing about history and a lot about you.  You think that you can apply your 21st century ideas to the people who lived 100s of years ago and that makes you superior. 

Let me know when you have a point to make.

My point stands.  We don't know how these ideas evolve.  We do know that our modern ideas of taxation based on consent, individual freedom and so on evolved between the War of the Roses and the English Civil War. 

[myrkul]

We do know that our modern ideas of taxation based on consent, individual freedom and so on evolved between the War of the Roses and the English Civil War. 

Now I think you're using a funny definition of "consent." By definition, taxation applies even to those who do not consent, else it wouldn't be taxation.

[Hawker]

We do know that our modern ideas of taxation based on consent, individual freedom and so on evolved between the War of the Roses and the English Civil War. 

Now I think you're using a funny definition of "consent." By definition, taxation applies even to those who do not consent, else it wouldn't be taxation.

I think you are being a pompous ass.  You look at the ideology of people that lived in the 1640s, say "Oh I know better now" and act superior. 

Get over yourself already.

[Alpaca John]

300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom.  You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom.  But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you.  Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom.  Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today?  Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?

This is the core of the discussion.

People like Myrkul don't seem to understand that freedom is not some sort of metaphysical concept. There are vastly differing concepts of freedom; a lot of people and cultures have their own interpretations of it.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

[myrkul]

We do know that our modern ideas of taxation based on consent, individual freedom and so on evolved between the War of the Roses and the English Civil War. 

Now I think you're using a funny definition of "consent." By definition, taxation applies even to those who do not consent, else it wouldn't be taxation.

I think you are being a pompous ass.  You look at the ideology of people that lived in the 1640s, say "Oh I know better now" and act superior. 

Get over yourself already.

Tsk, name calling? Really? I thought better of you, Hawker.

Besides, isn't this like saying "People who support the Heliocentric model of the solar system are pompous asses for saying they know better now than those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe."?

C'mon, man, science is all about discarding flawed premises as soon as they are found to be flawed, not holding onto them because people 500 years ago thought they were cool.

[Hawker]

300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom.  You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom.  But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you.  Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom.  Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today?  Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?

This is the core of the discussion.

People like Myrkul don't seem to understand that freedom is not some sort of metaphysical concept. There are vastly differing concepts of freedom; a lot of people and cultures have their own interpretations of it.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

Great post.

[Alpaca John]

This month marks the 20th anniversary of its demolition.

Sounds to me like it did not work.

It did work, read the diagram. Just because they decided to do something else with it doesn't mean it didn't "work" it was a completely functioning city of anarchy.

But it did not last, which I would consider to be a pretty vital aspect of 'it working'. It didn't last, therefore it didn't really work.

[wdmw]

This is the core of the discussion.

People like Myrkul don't seem to understand that freedom is not some sort of metaphysical concept. There are vastly differing concepts of freedom; a lot of people and cultures have their own interpretations of it.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

Definition of FREEDOM

1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

So, is the Danish definition 'Freedom from anxiety about economic insecurity'?  I suppose you can use the ablative form to really twist freedom around.

Perhaps someone defines freedom as 'Freedom from making decisions.'

[Hawker]

We do know that our modern ideas of taxation based on consent, individual freedom and so on evolved between the War of the Roses and the English Civil War. 

Now I think you're using a funny definition of "consent." By definition, taxation applies even to those who do not consent, else it wouldn't be taxation.

I think you are being a pompous ass.  You look at the ideology of people that lived in the 1640s, say "Oh I know better now" and act superior. 

Get over yourself already.

Tsk, name calling? Really? I thought better of you, Hawker.

Besides, isn't this like saying "People who support the Heliocentric model of the solar system are pompous asses for saying they know better now than those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe."?

C'mon, man, science is all about discarding flawed premises as soon as they are found to be flawed, not holding onto them because people 500 years ago thought they were cool.

Politics is not science.  1000 years ago, slavery was fine and abortion a huge evil.  Now its the opposite.  That means morality changed - it doesn't mean that we are superior beings to those that were alive back then.

You are claiming that you are more moral or more clever than people who came before you because your ideas are more up to date than their ideas is pompous.  I'd love not to mention it, really.  But you do seem to want to lord it over the people who died for the "illusion of freedom" just because you don't agree with what they saw as freedom centuries ago.