Individual rights v. governent intervention

Lets take a critical look at that constitution you believe in returning to.

Click to expand...

I like doing that! I don't have any barriers against looking at things. Thanks for sharing.

But what I haven't seen yet...

and would love to see...

but am not sure I ever will see...

is a pro-anarchy advocate taking a critical look at anarchy.

With the same approach and detail. And objective; not all rainbows and unicorns, or glossing over. Or just switching back to looking at states.

Any chance of that happening?

It's unclear what sort of "critical look" would satisfy you, but I expect it to be one which relentlessly excoriates anarchy.

None of us here have advanced a utopian position. We've agreed that most types of aggressive crime will still be present, and will be dealt with in a fashion similar to how they are addressed today.

The goals are to reduce violation of right by requiring voluntary assent to governance, and to mitigate the potential for mass-democide created by unchecked government.

That these are effects of compulsory government is undeniable. That an anarchic system is poised to reform them is nearly inarguable.

What you're demanding is akin to insisting on "analyzing" and "taking a critical look" at the effects of abolition before carrying it out. But it's irrelevant. Nobody argued that every outcome from abolition was going to be "rainbows and unicorns". Some predicted the sort of unrest we saw during reconstruction. But it was irrelevant beforehand, because it did not change the moral necessity of abolition. After the fact, problems could be addressed as they developed, without doing away with abolition itself.

HP995 said:

I like doing that! I don't have any barriers against looking at things. Thanks for sharing.

But what I haven't seen yet...

and would love to see...

but am not sure I ever will see...

is a pro-anarchy advocate taking a critical look at anarchy.

With the same approach and detail. And objective; not all rainbows and unicorns, or glossing over. Or just switching back to looking at states.

Any chance of that happening?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. Your reply is non-sequitur. A misdirection. A gracious misdirection, but a misdirection nonetheless.

You said you wanted to return to the constitution.

I countered your statement about returning to the constitution by citing historical facts that show the constitutional deterioration began literally in the first administration. If anything is obvious, it is that the govern-ers will not adhere to the constitution in a manner that preserves it. Two hundred years of chiseling and chainsawing has shredded it.

Why exactly would you want to return to something that didn't work from day one? And, how would you get the govern-ers to preserve it after you've returned to it?

I'm sorry. Your reply is non-sequitur.

Click to expand...

I get the feeling that people are sitting there desperately consulting a Wiki list of fallacies to try to employ. :lol:

Do it accurately, make sure you understand and get it right, or don't do it - unless you want to me correct your correction. Which is a waste of time.

(Hint: look at exactly what I said.)

Why exactly would you want to return to something that didn't work from day one? And, how would you get the govern-ers to preserve it after you've returned to it?

Click to expand...

Again, look what I said and didn't say. But I appreciate your input. As I've said before, I haven't been actively promoting a plan. The plan advertised here is anarchy.

I'm all for analyzing the problems of states. (Notice I mentioned flaws in the Constitution before you did.) I welcome that. But I believe that if anarchy is being advertised in this thread, it should be analyzed in this thread.

And that's why I refuse to be sidetracked (at the moment) with problems of states. We already have that. I want to see a critical look at what is being proposed and advertised here. And there's a lot of resistance!

It's unclear what sort of "critical look" would satisfy you, but I expect it to be one which relentlessly excoriates anarchy.

None of us here have advanced a utopian position. We've agreed that most types of aggressive crime will still be present, and will be dealt with in a fashion similar to how they are addressed today.

Click to expand...

I really appreciate this response. It's down to earth.

I would desire exactly the same sort of "critical look" that we see directed at the problems of states. Same approach, just as relentless, just as objective in either analysis.

HP995 said:

I get the feeling that people are sitting there desperately consulting a Wiki list of fallacies to try to employ. :lol:

Do it accurately, make sure you understand and get it right, or don't do it - unless you want to me correct your correction. Which is a waste of time.

(Hint: look at exactly what I said.)



Again, look what I said and didn't say. But I appreciate your input. As I've said before, I haven't been actively promoting a plan. The plan advertised here is anarchy.

I'm all for analyzing the problems of states. (Notice I mentioned flaws in the Constitution before you did.) I welcome that. But I believe that if anarchy is being advertised in this thread, it should be analyzed in this thread.

And that's why I refuse to be sidetracked (at the moment) with problems of states. We already have that. I want to see a critical look at what is being proposed and advertised here. And there's a lot of resistance!

Click to expand...

This is just more non-sequitur.

You stated your position. I cited facts against it. You then dodged and failed to support your position. I pointed those out, and asked a couple questions. Here they are again:

You said you wanted to return to the constitution. Why would you want to return to something that started deteriorating from day one? How would you get the govern-ers to preserve the constitution once it was returned to?

HP995 said:

SNIP I get the feeling that people are sitting there desperately consulting a Wiki list of fallacies to try to employ. :lol:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. Are you making a joke out the fact that some in this thread avoid committing fallacies, and having learned about them, can recognize when others commit them?

I mention this in part because your comment is somewhat insulting. More precisely, your use of the word desperately is somewhat insulting. Please refrain.

The other reason I mention it is because it too is a dodge. I specified an exact fallacy; and, you went to a generalization about fallacies, distracting from the exact fallacy with a comment serving to minimize it by minimizing all fallacies. Why try to minimize or distract? If your comment was not non-sequitur, why not just demonstrate it was not the fallacy I specified?

HP995 said:

I am a Constitutionist. The Constitution was a very good effort and is an effective solution. It does have some gaps that have been exploited.

I believe a return to the Constitution would be better and safer than a jump into anarchy.

We all recognize that states are dangerous when they are not strictly limited.

The graphic has some great points about harm done by certain states in certain times, but it is propaganda. Like all good propaganda it contains a lot of truth while conveying some distortions.

However, the proposed solution is not examined critically in detail. I'm tempted to make a graphic about anarchy with rainbows and unicorns!

Click to expand...

An effective solution is a pretty sweeping statement.

Yes. I agree the constitution is an effective solution--if the problem you are trying to solve is how to arrange a compulsory government that can grow and grow to the greater and greater benefit of the govern-ers at the greater and greater expense of the governed, meanwhile arriving one day at a condition where it can threaten regional peace anywhere on the planet, threaten the economy of the entire planet, and directly and/or indirectly kill lots of innocents along the way.

History is littered with facts that show the constitution was not effective at preserving itself against deterioration and abuse.

Which exact effectiveness(es) did you have in mind?

What a great collection, Nightmare! Easy to read; clearly explained in simple terms.

Cool!

Nightmare said:

Thank you. You know that I aim to please.

Click to expand...

You're most welcome. I've been reading them. What a great resource. Shoot, there were some I didn't know had a name. I kinda felt doing it was illogical, but couldn't put my finger on why.

Citizen said:

You're most welcome. I've been reading them. What a great resource. Shoot, there were some I didn't know had a name. I kinda felt doing it was illogical, but couldn't put my finger on why.

Click to expand...

How are you going to post anything now, citizen?

[emoji12] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

I almost used the word "non-sequitur" myself.

It isn't a non-sequitur in the formal logic sense, whereby you state a conclusion which does not follow from the premise(s).

It's a non-sequitur in the informal sense, insofar as your request is apropos of nothing, is intentionally tangential to the point, is not necessary for addressing the point, and yet is presented as a prerequisite to further discussion.

marshaul said:

I almost used the word "non-sequitur" myself.

It isn't a non-sequitur in the formal logic sense, whereby you state a conclusion which does not follow from the premise(s).

It's a non-sequitur in the informal sense, insofar as your request is apropos of nothing, is intentionally tangential to the point, is not necessary for addressing the point, and yet is presented as a prerequisite to further discussion.

Click to expand...

I was using it in the literal sense, "it does not follow". If I used the indefinite article "a" in front, I apologize. That would make it a reference to the formal logical fallacy.

J_dazzle23 said:

How are you going to post anything now, citizen?

[emoji12] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

Click to expand...

That sounds like an off-topic personal attack. I find your suggestion that my posts are nothing but logical fallacies insulting. Please refrain.

Citizen said:

That sounds like an off-topic personal attack. I find your suggestion that my posts are nothing but logical fallacies insulting. Please refrain.

Click to expand...

Just injecting levity. No offense intended.

I think after 50 plus pages of professional interaction with me in this thread you might not assume I was personally attacking you. That's not my style

How are you going to post anything now, citizen?

Click to expand...

I find your suggestion that my posts are nothing but logical fallacies insulting. Please refrain.

Click to expand...

Just injecting levity. No offense intended.

Click to expand...

Sorry, mea culpa, my mouth twitched just a little when I read that!

And then:

More precisely, your use of the word desperately is somewhat insulting. Please refrain.

Click to expand...

I got the same refrain (that's a pun, think chorus) of "Please refrain."

There's a difference (I think) between personal attack and gentle humor.

And between good-natured conversation ("good sports") and military combat. If there's no respect except demanded respect, if we can't give and take treating each other as equals, why should we bother?

I believe I've been one of the most polite and considerate participants in this thread. We can go back and compare if you like. And I've been a good sport and patient about many comments.

Anyway, now that we mention it - there was also some real meaning behind my humor. That was the line:

I get the feeling that people are sitting there desperately consulting a Wiki list of fallacies to try to employ.

Click to expand...

That wasn't random. There's a point that needs to be made. Since we're focusing on these, I might as well go back and make the point more explicitly. Along the other items.

But Saturday was not a day off work for me...and I still have stuff to finish. To be continued! Fallacies and all.

HP995 said:

SNIP Sorry, mea culpa...

Click to expand...

You spent some time on that post. I notice you didn't spend that time responding to my questions or supporting your position about the constitution being an effective solution or wanting to return to the constitution.

As to treating one another as equals (your underline), I sure wish you would treat me as one and answer or respond to my questions as though I was an equal deserving the respect of an on-topic direct answer to my questions, rather than evading them.

I'm sick of talking on circles here. Some honest questions. Opinionated, direct answers would be appreciated. I've taken some time off this thread to give the idea some quality thought.

1. How do you moderate currency, and standardize it? Also preventing counterfeiting?

2. How to provide public services to anyone besides the rich? Sewer, water, security, etc.

3. How to deal with a free market run rampant? Such as complete monopolies(yes, companies could do it just like the gov.)

4. How to solve conflict, especially for all those that cannot protect themselves (of which this is the majority, imo). Given that morals and values are NOT objective, there is a very real difference on what is acceptible to every person.

If you could kindly answer then in numbered order, it would keep the clarity of my questions intact.

Thanks!

J_dazzle23 said:

I'm sick of talking on circles here. Some honest questions. Opinionated, direct answers would be appreciated. I've taken some time off this thread to give the idea some quality thought.

1. How do you moderate currency, and standardize it? Also preventing counterfeiting?

2. How to provide public services to anyone besides the rich? Sewer, water, security, etc.

3. How to deal with a free market run rampant? Such as complete monopolies(yes, companies could do it just like the gov.)

4. How to solve conflict, especially for all those that cannot protect themselves (of which this is the majority, imo). Given that morals and values are NOT objective, there is a very real difference on what is acceptible to every person.

If you could kindly answer then in numbered order, it would keep the clarity of my questions intact.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I notice you have lots and lots and lots of questions that always just happen to seem to be sort of contradictory to genuine anarchy. Yet, you say you are only asking questions to find out the answers, saying you're not necessarily opposed to many of the principles (if I recall your position.) I think its way past time for us to keep answering your endless questions. I think I would really like to hear your suggestions towards genuine liberty.

1. How would you moderate currency? Would you allow multiple currencies? Instead of standardizing it, why would you oppose multiple currencies, letting each float one against another, or even float against a harder-to-inflate standard like gold? Or, even a bi-metallic standard such as gold and silver in the same economy? What would be the pitfalls of trying to regulate a bi-metallic standard? Could letting the market sort out its own float between two or even three metals (say, platinum) avoid the pitfalls of a baseless paper currency? I'll wait while you look. No reason we should be a library of answers for someone genuinely interested, and who could look on his own simply by typing it into google.

2. How would you provide "public" services to anyone but the rich? Would you spend the tax money they saved on something else, including the savings from the bureaucratic drag (government inefficiency always costs more than the private sector)? Would you prevent multiple water authorities from sharing infrastructure like the electrical generation and transmission system today? Or, the electrical co-ops of the past? Would you prevent people from donating charitably on their water bill like electric companies do today--solicit charitable donations for the impoverished?

3. How would you prevent monopolies and cartels? Would you actively try limit market share? Or, would you sit back and just watch them implode like the railroad cartels of the late 1800's when greed made cartel members try to secretly buck the cartel in order to earn more sales, busting the monopoly and lowering freight rates? And, would you create any government preferences that allowed certain companies to aquire an effective monopoly? Or, would you allow competition, making a monopolistic market share difficult as soon as potential competitors realized there was money to be made?

4. I know I already answered the question about conflict resolution. So, I want to hear your suggestion. How would you do it? Would you write it into the consensual-government contract that a person agreed to abide by arbitration? Why or why not? Would you still recognize the right to self-defense even against non-consenters? Would you prevent multiple consensual-governments operating competitively within a geographic area supplying security needs not too unlike the functions provided by police today? Would you limit that police protection to those who felt they could not do it themselves? Provide it to all as part of the consensual government contract? Offer it as a line-item service or part of a package of services?

I'm really curious to hear your suggestions, solutions, and ideas. We've given you tons already. More than enough for you to take the ball and run with it if you are genuinely interested. On the other hand, if you're just a naysayer whose tactic is to seize the initiative by posing questions, putting anarchists in the position of seeming to have to answer questions, I'm no longer interested. So what do you say. Give it a shot. Tell me your suggestions.

Heck, lets make it easy. Lets focus in-depth on just one item. Lets start with the monetary system, your first item.

Citizen said:

I notice you have lots and lots and lots of questions that always just happen to seem to be sort of contradictory to genuine anarchy. Yet, you say you are only asking questions to find out the answers, saying you're not necessarily opposed to many of the principles (if I recall your position.) I think its way past time for us to keep answering your endless questions. I think I would really like to hear your suggestions towards genuine liberty.

1. How would you moderate currency? Would you allow multiple currencies? Instead of standardizing it, why would you oppose multiple currencies, letting each float one against another, or even float against a harder-to-inflate standard like gold? Or, even a bi-metallic standard such as gold and silver in the same economy? What would be the pitfalls of trying to regulate a bi-metallic standard? Could letting the market sort out its own float between two or even three metals (say, platinum) avoid the pitfalls of a baseless paper currency? I'll wait while you look. No reason we should be a library of answers for someone genuinely interested, and who could look on his own simply by typing it into google.

2. How would you provide "public" services to anyone but the rich? Would you spend the tax money they saved on something else, including the savings from the bureaucratic drag (government inefficiency always costs more than the private sector)? Would you prevent multiple water authorities from sharing infrastructure like the electrical generation and transmission system today? Or, the electrical co-ops of the past? Would you prevent people from donating charitably on their water bill like electric companies do today--solicit charitable donations for the impoverished?

3. How would you prevent monopolies and cartels? Would you actively try limit market share? Or, would you sit back and just watch them implode like the rail cartels of the late 1800's when greed made cartel members try to secretly buck the cartel in order to earn more sales, busting the monopoly and lowering freight rates? And, would you create any government preferences that allowed certain companies to aquire an effective monopoly? Or, would you allow competition, making a monopolistic market share difficult as soon as potential competitors realized there was money to be made?

4. I know I already answered the question about conflict resolution. So, I want to hear your suggestion. How would you do it? Would you write it into the consensual-government contract that a person agreed to abide by arbitration? Why or why not? Would you still recognize the right to self-defense even against non-consenters? Would you prevent multiple consensual-governments operating competitively within a geographic area supplying security needs like too unlike the functions provided by police today? Would you limit that police protection to those who felt they could not do it themselves? Provide it to all as part of the consensual government contract? Offer it as a line-item service or part of a package of services?

I'm really curious to hear your suggestions, solutions, and ideas. We've given you tons already. More than enough for you to take the ball and run with it if you are genuinely interested. On the other hand, if you're just a naysayer whose tactic is to seize the initiative by posing questions, putting anarchists in the position of seeming to have to answer questions, I'm no longer interested. So what do you say. Give it a shot. Tell me your suggestions.

Heck, lets make it easy. Lets focus in-depth on just one item. Lets start with the monetary system.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I don't have an endless supply of questions- in fact, before my last post I have asked exactly 3 over 50 pages. Repetitively, yes, but that'd because it took quite some time for anyone to answer them directly without a redirection away from my question.


Besides that- an interesting response, but remember that I am not suggesting any kind of government or lack of government system, YOU are. I'm curious about what your system would do to address these things.

I will reflect on your questions to myself, but I'll still wait for you to answer mine, as you are the one suggesting anarchy as a societal organization.

If you would prefer not to answer them, then by all means, carry on.

As for point #4- you might want to reclarify your direct answer, it's a bit vague. From what I understand....basically nothing other than mitigation, yes?


-edit- by the way, I'm not asking basic questions to the system of anarchy. You know as well as I that there are more than a few flavors of anarchy. I'm curious in exactly what YOU are suggesting in this thread. Therefore Google won't help me with that.

Again, if you prefer not to answer these direct questions, no harm, no foul.