eMansipater and anarchism

[eMansipater]

Diverted from Governments and Bitcoin:

Wrong bolding.  People have to commit to jurisdictions.  You're either in or out, but you can change your status without coercion (at some limited rate).  Otherwise this is just ridiculous--live in a country but then pop out if you're ever charged with a crime, etc.  Keep in mind some jurisdictions could be anarchist zones.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you advocating the validity of the social contract?

Contracts are a lousy way to describe societies, since the primary way people enter into them (by being born) starts them off at a place where they can't understand what they're agreeing to.  Plus, I tend to think of contracts as a lot less cut-and-dried than most capitalists do.  There's no such thing as having a human being's consent to everything.  But increasing the amount of consent required to impact someone's life generally reduces harm in a society.

[sortedmush]

Diverted from Governments and Bitcoin:

Wrong bolding.  People have to commit to jurisdictions.  You're either in or out, but you can change your status without coercion (at some limited rate).  Otherwise this is just ridiculous--live in a country but then pop out if you're ever charged with a crime, etc.  Keep in mind some jurisdictions could be anarchist zones.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you advocating the validity of the social contract?

Contracts are a lousy way to describe societies, since the primary way people enter into them (by being born) starts them off at a place where they can't understand what they're agreeing to.  Plus, I tend to think of contracts as a lot less cut-and-dried than most capitalists do.  There's no such thing as having a human being's consent to everything.  But increasing the amount of consent required to impact someone's life generally reduces harm in a society.

So is the social contract valid?

[kiba]

So is the social contract valid?

He never said that.

[BitterTea]

So is the social contract valid?

I like Molyneux's definition of the social contract.

Geographical (country)

Unilateral (State-> citizen).

Implicit (Not signed/ formal)

It sounds like eMansipator does not favor the first or last aspects of the social contract, but perhaps the second.

Forgive me if I'm making assumptions about your world view, but I can't imagine it will be long before you abandon the idea of citizenship or the state altogether.

What is the state at its core? A monopoly on the use of force. The sole authorized provider of law and law enforcement services. Why not allow private entities to compete for those services as well?

[deadlizard]

People have to commit to jurisdictions. 

"Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken."

Good luck forcing me to take oath.

[sortedmush]

So is the social contract valid?

He never said that.

So it's not?

[kiba]

So it's not?

He never answered your question.

[FatherMcGruder]

The sole authorized provider of law and law enforcement services. Why not allow private entities to compete for those services as well?

Aren't there already plenty of governments to choose from?

[deadlizard]

The sole authorized provider of law and law enforcement services. Why not allow private entities to compete for those services as well?

Aren't there already plenty of governments to choose from?

I choose no government, where is the box for no government? 

[eMansipater]

So is the social contract valid?

I like Molyneux's definition of the social contract.

Geographical (country)

Unilateral (State-> citizen).

Implicit (Not signed/ formal)

It sounds like eMansipator does not favor the first or last aspects of the social contract, but perhaps the second.

Forgive me if I'm making assumptions about your world view, but I can't imagine it will be long before you abandon the idea of citizenship or the state altogether.

What is the state at its core? A monopoly on the use of force. The sole authorized provider of law and law enforcement services. Why not allow private entities to compete for those services as well?

It's actually the 'contract' part of social contract that makes it impossible for me to express my views effectively by saying "It's valid" or "It's invalid."  Societies function through the commitment of their members--that's a technical description not a normative one.  Regarding the state and force, it seems to me that the primary force in question is concerning resources through taxes and fines, and concerning liberty through imprisonment or possibly conscription--let me know if I've missed something key.  The reason anarchy holds little appeal to me is that material resources are way more irrelevant to human beings than most capitalists realise; and that a great deal of internal changes in people need to precede any increase in liberty for destruction not to ensue.  My perception is that for most anarchists it is the resource angle that drives their eagerness.  The only way I could get on board with anarchy would be in a world that had addressed the internal change issue first, so I've got less than zero interest in anarchy theorists who aren't forging significant progress in that regard.

So is the social contract valid?

He never said that.

So it's not?

As above, I don't think either simple answer will effectively explain my position.  Perhaps you could elaborate on what you're trying to find out, what you mean by social contract, and/or what specifically about it is most pertinent here?

[FatherMcGruder]

I choose no government, where is the box for no government? 

Antarctica, the abyssal plains, Luna, Mars...

[eMansipater]

I choose no government, where is the box for no government?  

Antarctica, the abyssal plains, Luna, Mars...

None of which are practically accessible at this time.  But you forgot Somalia.  I'm not being ethnocentric and sarcastic--people in Somalia are just human beings trying to solve human problems.  I legitimately think anarchists should consider moving there and trying to do the same.

[sortedmush]

The only way I could get on board with anarchy would be in a world that had addressed the internal change issue first, so I've got less than zero interest in anarchy theorists who aren't forging significant progress in that regard.

Perhaps not all people in the world are ready. I think I am. And want to seek out and cooperate with others who feel the same way. If only you'd let us try without funding the people who'll lock us up or kill us for trying. Theorising forever will of course get us nowhere. A lot of us are here because this technology gives us a chance to prove to you that we can do it. Look long and hard at what we are saying on this forum. Do you really consider us a violent threat to your way of life? A threat worth locking up or killing?

The internal issue is important. But we're never going to get anywhere if we're waiting for a uniform opinion on what it means to be human. If it means anything at all.

Isn't the non aggression principle a good start? Does it appeal to you at all?

[FatherMcGruder]

None of which are practically accessible at this time.  But you forgot Somalia.  I'm not being ethnocentric and sarcastic--people in Somalia are just human beings trying to solve human problems.  I legitimately think anarchists should consider moving there and trying to do the same.

"Anti-government" capitalists only have their lack of gumption to blame.

[eMansipater]

The only way I could get on board with anarchy would be in a world that had addressed the internal change issue first, so I've got less than zero interest in anarchy theorists who aren't forging significant progress in that regard.

Perhaps not all people in the world are ready. I think I am. And want to seek out and cooperate with others who feel the same way. If only you'd let us try without funding the people who'll lock us up or kill us for trying. Theorising forever will of course get us nowhere. A lot of us are here because this technology gives us a chance to prove to you that we can do it. Look long and hard at what we are saying on this forum. Do you really consider us a violent threat to your way of life? A threat worth locking up or killing?

The internal issue is important. But we're never going to get anywhere if we're waiting for a uniform opinion on what it means to be human. If it means anything at all.

Isn't the non aggression principle a good start? Does it appeal to you at all?

In a non-sarcastic way, I do believe you should pop out to Somalia and give it a try.  If the governments I pay taxes to ever threatened to invade a functioning anarchism you can be guaranteed I would oppose it loud and clear.  Just like my taxes are only a portion of their budget, my input is only a portion of their decision process, but I tend to be quite effective at making my input at least as proportionally significant as my taxes.  In this case because of my personal contact with you I'm pretty sure I could reach a very large audience.

Personally, I'm actually working on the internal change issue myself--it's the foundation of all functioning societies regardless of how they are organised.  But specialising is good, and experimental anarchism would provide valuable data.  Just make sure to keep excellent records!

[Garrett Burgwardt]

The problem with "popping out to Somalia" is that compared to what we're used to, of course it will be a poor place to live. Relative to neighboring countries, it has grown incredibly fast from being at essentially absolutely nothing, and is, again relative to its neighbors, a good place to live.

The only significant barrier to progress now is foreign government intervention.

[eMansipater]

The problem with "popping out to Somalia" is that compared to what we're used to, of course it will be a poor place to live. Relative to neighboring countries, it has grown incredibly fast from being at essentially absolutely nothing, and is, again relative to its neighbors, a good place to live.

The only significant barrier to progress now is foreign government intervention.

"We're" quite varied--for example I've lived in two of its neighbours for a significant portion of my life.  That's one of the reasons it's so obvious to me that the wealthiest 5% of the world's quest for more resources is misplaced.  To put it bluntly, if you're drastically wealthier than most people in the world will be in your lifetime, perhaps more resources are a lousy way to be satisfied.  That about sums up my disinterest with resource-oriented political ideologies.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

The problem with "popping out to Somalia" is that compared to what we're used to, of course it will be a poor place to live. Relative to neighboring countries, it has grown incredibly fast from being at essentially absolutely nothing, and is, again relative to its neighbors, a good place to live.

The only significant barrier to progress now is foreign government intervention.

"We're" quite varied--for example I've lived in two of its neighbours for a significant portion of my life.  That's one of the reasons it's so obvious to me that the wealthiest 5% of the world's quest for more resources is misplaced.  To put it bluntly, if you're drastically wealthier than most people in the world will be in your lifetime, perhaps more resources are a lousy way to be satisfied.  That about sums up my disinterest with resource-oriented political ideologies.

Good point, hadn't considered that

Where did you live? Able to comment on what it's like?

[FatherMcGruder]

In Mogadishu, people submit to competing warlords' governments in turns. On the roads, they submit to the highwaymen. In the countryside they submit to the kritarchy of Xeer. Somalis do not enjoy anarchy.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

In Mogadishu, people submit to competing warlords' governments in turns. On the roads, they submit to the highwaymen. In the countryside they submit to the kritarchy of Xeer. Somalis do not enjoy anarchy.

Why do they fight against the establishment of any sort of government then?

And the Xeer is a truly private law enforcement system, nothing wrong with that.


Honestly I'm not interested in talking with you FatherMcGruder, neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. In my opinion your argument doesn't make any sense and seems oppressive, and vice versa.