Ayn Rand quote

[-]

 Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.

Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in. 

(you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift)

[Anonymous]

No, I am either entitled to every damn thing I produce or I will not produce at all! I will not compromise! ...and it is not a false black-and-white dichotomy! As their is life and death, there is freedom and slavery!

Who is to define a legitimate purpose? Again, the whims and desires of the few but certainly not all! ...and the only well-defined democratic process that exists is voluntary individual trade! Everything else leaves an enslaved minority.

A society that you envision could not be as complex (in terms of division of labor) than ours. It would necessarily be less technologically advanced. Another trade-off that I am not willing to make. (although the less important one)

I think you need to look around. We are on a nearly unregulated body (the internet) yet we have tons of people producing. We have excellent efficiency when it comes to delegating different types of labor. I just hired several people to help construct my website and podcast. I can imagine it being just as complex and advance. The desire for technology and stuff in general will always exist and generally there will always be enough incentive for it to be met. In fact, the incentive is no greater than it is with no restrictions.

All we need to do is eliminate the monopoly on force and give all people, on an individual level, an amount of power than cannot be reckoned with.

[Anonymous]

 Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.

Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in. 

(you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift)

I think you need to take a look at how many people are suffering today because of the state. What we have tried through force is absolutely no better.

The fact is that there will always be suffering and statism only makes it worse.

[-]

Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.

Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in.  

(you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift)

I think you need to take a look at how many people are suffering today because of the state. What we have tried through force is absolutely no better.

The fact is that there will always be suffering and statism only makes it worse.

I choose modern society. It is (talking about western europe here) quite a nice place. Little suffering, a lot of freedom. Taxes do not limit me nearly as much as starvation or illness (or violence without a lawful and "collective" recourse).
If you want to go back in time, be my guest. Just do not take me with you on the trip.

Id also like to repeat myself, because you chose to skip over it:
"An anarchistic society has never existed on earth. There is a good reason for that. You can have anarchy only for a very short moment of time, until some people become more powerful/influential than their fellows. --> Enter tyranny or (if you are lucky) an oligarchy."

"Modern democracy is the least of evils (at least its somewhat stable and better than the other stable alternatives), we might yet improve it on some, though."

I find that point quite important. In theory, well-intended anarchism (vernor-vinge like, you might like his books, btw, they are very good) is a very nice ideal (i like to read about it), but it will never work in practice. The end result is sure to be rather messy and unpleasant.

[-]

A society that you envision could not be as complex (in terms of division of labor) than ours. It would necessarily be less technologically advanced. Another trade-off that I am not willing to make. (although the less important one)

I think you need to look around. We are on a nearly unregulated body (the internet) yet we have tons of people producing. We have excellent efficiency when it comes to delegating different types of labor. I just hired several people to help construct my website and podcast. I can imagine it being just as complex and advance. The desire for technology and stuff in general will always exist and generally there will always be enough incentive for it to be met. In fact, the incentive is no greater than it is with no restrictions.

You could hire those people so easily (and rely on their services) because - if they fail to honor their contract - you can SUE THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. You are assuming the internet is anarchistic, just because it is on the technical side? The whole social background - which you ignore or take for granted, either one - IS essential even on the internet. ISPs and other services rely on the backing of law.

I am not denying the desire for advancement, just the ability of high productivity and division of labor in an anarchistic society.

[-]

weird double post, ignore

[Anonymous]

Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.

Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in.  

(you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift)

I think you need to take a look at how many people are suffering today because of the state. What we have tried through force is absolutely no better.

The fact is that there will always be suffering and statism only makes it worse.

I choose modern society. It is (talking about western europe here) quite a nice place. Little suffering, a lot of freedom. Taxes do not limit me nearly as much as starvation or illness (or violence without a lawful and collective recourse).
If you want to go back in time, be my guest. Just do not take me with you on the trip.

Id also like to repeat myself, because you chose to skip over it:
"An anarchistic society has never existed on earth. There is a good reason for that. You can have anarchy only for a very short moment of time, until some people become more powerful/influential than their fellows. --> Enter tyranny or (if you are lucky) an oligarchy."

"Modern democracy is the least of evils (at least its somewhat stable and better than the other stable alternatives), we might yet improve it on some, though."

I find that point quite important. In theory, well-intended anarchism (vernor-vinge like, you might like his books, btw, they are very good) is a very nice ideal (i like to read about it), but it will never work in practice. The end result is sure to be rather messy and unpleasant.

You say this with no actual practice. You just prefer to stay with the status-quo: violence.

[Anonymous]

A society that you envision could not be as complex (in terms of division of labor) than ours. It would necessarily be less technologically advanced. Another trade-off that I am not willing to make. (although the less important one)

I think you need to look around. We are on a nearly unregulated body (the internet) yet we have tons of people producing. We have excellent efficiency when it comes to delegating different types of labor. I just hired several people to help construct my website and podcast. I can imagine it being just as complex and advance. The desire for technology and stuff in general will always exist and generally there will always be enough incentive for it to be met. In fact, the incentive is no greater than it is with no restrictions.

You could hire those people so easily (and rely on their services) because - if they fail to honor their contract - you can SUE THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. You are assuming the internet is anarchistic, just because it is on the technical side? The whole social background - which you ignore or take for granted, either one - IS essential even on the internet. ISPs and other services rely on the backing of law.

I am not denying the desire for advancement, just the ability of high productivity and division of labor in an anarchistic society.

No, I probably couldn't sue them. Small claims courts are terrible and overpriced. Some government we have, eh? Also, there's plent of open-source hardware out there (mesh-networking) and desire to sustain this lovely place indefinitely without government.

[-]

Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.

Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in.  

(you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift)

I think you need to take a look at how many people are suffering today because of the state. What we have tried through force is absolutely no better.

The fact is that there will always be suffering and statism only makes it worse.

I choose modern society. It is (talking about western europe here) quite a nice place. Little suffering, a lot of freedom. Taxes do not limit me nearly as much as starvation or illness (or violence without a lawful and collective recourse).
If you want to go back in time, be my guest. Just do not take me with you on the trip.

Id also like to repeat myself, because you chose to skip over it:
"An anarchistic society has never existed on earth. There is a good reason for that. You can have anarchy only for a very short moment of time, until some people become more powerful/influential than their fellows. --> Enter tyranny or (if you are lucky) an oligarchy."

"Modern democracy is the least of evils (at least its somewhat stable and better than the other stable alternatives), we might yet improve it on some, though."

I find that point quite important. In theory, well-intended anarchism (vernor-vinge like, you might like his books, btw, they are very good) is a very nice ideal (i like to read about it), but it will never work in practice. The end result is sure to be rather messy and unpleasant.

You say this with no actual practice. You just prefer to stay with the status-quo: violence.

Do not mistake force for violence. The (threat of) force is a must. Application of force (violence) will and has to occur, I dont deny that any state relies on it. I approve of it. So yes, I approve of this violence, as you define it (within the confines i talked about: purpose, legitimacy, democratic control).
But I dont think the absence of violence is actually possible. An actual anarchy... much much more violence (because it would become a tyranny very fast, probably multiple regional/local tyrannies)

But, you dont think that would happen, I assume.
You think it CAN work? Without somebody trying to take advantage of the lack of established authority? I find that very hard to imagine. (again: i can plug Vernor Vinge, you will like his books and they are excellent even if I do not describe to anarchy/hardcore-libertarianism).

Off to bed,
my regards
and have a nice day.

[-]

No, I probably couldn't sue them. Small claims courts are terrible and overpriced. Some government we have, eh? Also, there's plent of open-source hardware out there (mesh-networking) and desire to sustain this lovely place indefinitely without government.

YOUR government.  I could sue and wouldnt have much trouble doing it. (Even going to bed, I just had to bite.  )

I regard the USA as somewhat of a failing state. Both in terms of it overreaching: see your prison system/criminal law, patriot act, FISA court, etc, and it underachieving/failing at the basic tasks of a modern government: see affordable healthcare, equal access to education, a functioning legal system (some overreaching there too, e.g. frivolous lawsuits, but your lower courts are atrocious, everybody tries to get into federal courts, just because some of them actually CAN judicate).
No wonder you are unhappy, your government is much more intrusive than necessary without delivering the results that could legitimize it.


I look forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow.
I mostly want one question answered: How do you envision the rise of an anarchist (whatever you would call it) society, without somebody immediately (or rather during the "change") trying to usurp authority. How would you envision the continued absence of force/violence to be stable?

[Anonymous]

No, I probably couldn't sue them. Small claims courts are terrible and overpriced. Some government we have, eh? Also, there's plent of open-source hardware out there (mesh-networking) and desire to sustain this lovely place indefinitely without government.

YOUR government.  I could sue and wouldnt have much trouble doing it. (Even going to bed, I just had to bite.  )

I regard the USA as somewhat of a failing state. Both in terms of it overreaching: see your prison system/criminal law, patriot act, FISA court, etc, and it underachieving/failing at the basic tasks of a modern government: see affordable healthcare, equal access to education, a functioning legal system (some overreaching there too, e.g. frivolous lawsuits, but your lower courts are atrocious, everybody tries to get into federal courts, just because some of them actually CAN judicate).
No wonder you are unhappy, your government is much more intrusive than necessary without delivering the results that could legitimize it.


I look forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow.
I mostly want one question answered: How do you envision the rise of an anarchist (whatever you would call it) society, without somebody immediately (or rather during the "change") trying to usurp authority. How would you envision the continued absence of force/violence to be stable?

I believe our only hope for a free society is decentralizing the control of our wealth: Bitcoin. I believe things will gradually fall into place from there. To totally eliminate the need for coercion completely, we will have to reach a post-scarcity situation, which seems to be inevitable no matter how slow we go in terms of technological progress.

[jgraham]

...and it is not a false black-and-white dichotomy! As their is life and death, there is freedom and slavery!

Depends.  It is only not a false dichotomy if you define anything but complete freedom as slavery.  From a medical point of view the terms alive and dead are, from the doctors I regularly talk to assigned to bodies with and without a beating heart.  Any body without a beating heart is dead and a body with a beating heart - even if furnished artificially - is alive.

From my conversations with people who have been slaves in the more colloquial - dare I say "standard" - usage, for example Jews from the concentration camps during WWII.  I'd infer they would take exception to what seems to be your definition.

Anyway, despite that I look on Objectivsts in about the same light as Ghandi looked at Christians.  I did like in AS how she referred to all non-rational discourse as bullying.  I use that quote a fair bit.

[Anonymous]

...and it is not a false black-and-white dichotomy! As their is life and death, there is freedom and slavery!

Depends.  It is only not a false dichotomy if you define anything but complete freedom as slavery.  From a medical point of view the terms alive and dead is from the doctors I regularly talk to assigned to bodies with and without a beating heart.  Any body without a beating heart is dead and a body with a beating heart - even if furnished artificially - is alive.

From my conversations with people who have been slaves in the more colloquial - dare I say "standard" - usage, for example Jews from the concentration camps during WWII.  I'd infer they would take exception to what seems to be your definition.

Anyway, despite that I look on Objectivsts in about the same light as Ghandi looked at Christians.  I did like in AS how she referred to all non-rational discourse as bullying.  I use that quote a fair bit.

Objectivism, as Rand herself would say, is an anti-concept... Well, more like a non-concept. Her philosophy is almost a raw form -- a humorous parody, if you will -- of all philosophical and political manifestos.

In the end, we can never truly know anything -- especially unilaterally. However, through our preferences and the eventual destruction of unsustainable systems, we will eventually achieve a unilateral good.

Of course, unless, our species becomes extinct. Which wouldn't be so bad. It would end a lot of potential suffering.

[luv2drnkbr]

I'm in the middle of this debate.  Until a few months ago, I thought I was a liberal democrat.  Now, I'm leaning on anarchy.  The trouble is, I think that most people are too selfish for anarchy to work.  They will not contribute to an anarchist society and thus any anarchy of even moderate size will look similar to what Mad Max lived in.  However, government has so much red tape and corruption that it's such a sizable waste that I'm not sure I favor that over Mad Max!  So I'm not sure where I stand--maybe the truly best ground is what I have now... a society with a government functioning the best that it can, but I alone can act freely because I have the knowledge and ability to completely protect myself and my privacy if and when I so choose.  So that's what I'm doing.  I can live in or out of society at my own whim, and as I am self employed, I could even theoretically (though I haven't done so) pay however much in taxes I choose.

As an aside, I think Atlas is pwning these debates.  Good job kiddo!  (And as a second aside, I finally just started reading Atlas Shrugged since I figured I should, and politics and ideologies aside, I think it's just a darn good book.)

[jgraham]

Objectivism, as Rand herself would say, is an anti-concept... Well, more like a non-concept. Her philosophy is almost a raw form -- a humorous parody, if you will -- of all philosophical and political manifestos.

Actually I'd say that Objectivism - that is to say what virtually all the people who I've met who self-assign that term exude - is more a cult of personality than an actual philosophy.  Which is probably only attractive for those who consider Rand to be their intellectual better.   It seems in more useful formal sense to be poorly defined - perhaps that's what you mean.  Perhaps I'll get some time to go through OPAR but I'm not optimistic.

Noted that you didn't admit being incorrect about Freedom and Slavery.

I think it's just a darn good book.

I'd love to hear an explanation for this.  AS as important a work as may be...is...at best 1200 pages in search of an editor.  It probably has more in common with Pilgrims Progress than any actual work of fiction.  At least Bunyan's work was concise.

[Anonymous]

I am not going to claim myself as correct nor incorrect. It's a matter of value on an individual level.

[jgraham]

I am not going to claim myself as correct nor incorrect. It's a matter of value on an individual level.

Well, that was easy.  Life and death as defined medically are not values on an individual level ergo you were incorrect.

[Anonymous]

I am not going to claim myself as correct nor incorrect. It's a matter of value on an individual level.

Well, that was easy.  Life and death as defined medically are not values on an individual level ergo you were incorrect.

It's taking my definition of life out of context. I define life as sentience not by the functioning of the body that hosts it. In addition, the majority of life has to sustain itself by its own will and virtues -- besides parasites.

Anyways, it seems you are in the mood for competition ergo a game of social power.

[jgraham]

It's taking my definition of life out of context. I define life as sentience not by the functioning of the body that hosts it.

All too easy...

Just as the concept “man” does not consist merely of “rational faculty” (if it did, the two would be equivalent and interchangeable, which they are not), but includes all the characteristics of “man,” with “rational faculty” serving as the distinguishing characteristic—so, in the case of wider concepts, the concept “animal” does not consist merely of “consciousness and locomotion,” but subsumes all the characteristics of all the animal species, with “consciousness and locomotion” serving as the distinguishing characteristic.

Anyways, it seems you are in the mood for competition ergo a game of social power.

...and labeling isn't like that at all. 

"easy" also would imply a lack of competition.  So you're also incorrect there too.

[Anonymous]

It's taking my definition of life out of context. I define life as sentience not by the functioning of the body that hosts it.

All too easy...

Just as the concept “man” does not consist merely of “rational faculty” (if it did, the two would be equivalent and interchangeable, which they are not), but includes all the characteristics of “man,” with “rational faculty” serving as the distinguishing characteristic—so, in the case of wider concepts, the concept “animal” does not consist merely of “consciousness and locomotion,” but subsumes all the characteristics of all the animal species, with “consciousness and locomotion” serving as the distinguishing characteristic.

Anyways, it seems you are in the mood for competition ergo a game of social power.

...and labeling isn't like that at all. 

"easy" also would imply a lack of competition.  So you're also incorrect there too.

This is a matter of semantics. There's no real argument here.