Anarchy

[mugen]

What is my laughable? Could you please put it in a clause?

 

[lurkerguy]

What is my laughable? Could you please put it in a clause?

WTF?

I want the last 5 minutes of my life back.

 

[ebola?]

Okay...can we somehow save the thread from going to shit?
ad-homs will get us nowhere.
At the same time, popularity cannot be equated with validity.

ebola

 

[qwe]

a) 'dead obvious evils'? pray tell, peer of milton friedman and keynes, what 'dead obvious evils' are the corollary of capitalism?

while i wouldn't use the word evil, it's clear that capitalism is not compatible with the goal of minimizing suffering. for example, it helps cause a disparity in wealth to such an extent that people starve to death, and it's pretty far fetched to say we can have a capitalist system where everyone who is capable of and willing to work has a job/income

 

[lurkerguy]

Okay...can we somehow save the thread from going to shit?
ad-homs will get us nowhere.
At the same time, popularity cannot be equated with validity.

ebola

However, meticulously providing credible sources for all your claims does suggest validity, and Chomsky does.

As far as him being popular, I was just refuting mugen's claim that only uneducated teenagers take Chomsky seriously.

Obviously, more than just teenagers take him seriously if he is the the most quoted American in the world.

That was the point I was trying to make.

I didn't mean to get frustrated, but he accused me of improper spelling, and in the next post he asks a totally unintelligible question.

Anyone would get frustrated if they tried their best to present their case, only to realize they had been arguing with with a brick wall the entire time.

 

[mugen]

However, meticulously providing credible sources for all your claims does suggest validity, and Chomsky does.

How do you know that he provides credible sources? If you credulously accept Chomsky in lieu of formal education, what possible ability do you have to judge whether a source is credible or not? Your discernment is about as good as noting that he has provided references.

As far as him being popular, I was just refuting mugen's claim that only uneducated teenagers take Chomsky seriously.

That wasn't much of a refutation.

Refutations, to be decisive, at a minimum involve some statement of fact. Typing his name into Google then copying and pasting some glib and unreferenced PR paragraph is not a statement of fact. Moreover, even if he is the most frequently quoted in general writing or on the internet, that means very little. Go to a peer reviewed law or economics database and see how frequently he appears in the literature that actually matters as opposed to the inane mental pissings of idiot ideologues on the Internet, and douchebag humanities students in the real world.

Actually, I did it for you: I searched JSTOR, EconLit, LexisNexis and Westlaw. The guy is an absolute nobody outside of shitty polsci journals that serve as a forum for opining. The fact is that he isn't published because he writes nothing suitable for journals. He doesn't know shit about either topic, and his writings outside of linguistics are limited to silly, puerile diatribes or 'if only the world were so' daydreaming.

I didn't mean to get frustrated, but he accused me of improper spelling, and in the next post he asks a totally unintelligible question.

Unintelligible to the unintelligent. Look it up - you might learn something.

Anyone would get frustrated if they tried their best to present their case, only to realize they had been arguing with with a brick wall the entire time.

I am arguing with an anarchist and Chomsky supporter, and I never had even the faintest expectation that, by posting in a thread where anarchy was being discussed, that anyone would come out even slightly the more educated or even one or two neurons might fire and one participant might think 'well gee, maybe if I read a few books I'll at least understand why all those people who represent the orthodoxy, at least some of whom must be fairly intelligent and rational, hold the views that they do'. I am not frustrated, though. I guess not everybody, huh?

It's kinda like arguing with a Young-Earth Creationist: you know you'll never get anywhere, because if the person was even remotely amenable to reason or logic, they wouldn't hold the beliefs they do, but you shrug, grin, go 'what the hell', and do it anyway.

while i wouldn't use the word evil, it's clear that capitalism is not compatible with the goal of minimizing suffering.

True, because that isn't the concern of an economic system, and an economic system that tried to would cause disutility.

for example, it helps cause a disparity in wealth to such an extent that people starve to death, and it's pretty far fetched to say we can have a capitalist system where everyone who is capable of and willing to work has a job/income

You're confusing 'the economy in practice' with 'capitalism'. Pretty fucking far fetched to label the economy-as-is as having much to do with capitalism as theorised.

 

[lurkerguy]

How do you know that he provides credible sources? If you credulously accept Chomsky in lieu of formal education, what possible ability do you have to judge whether a source is credible or not? Your discernment is about as good as noting that he has provided references.

His main references are classified United States military documents released after decades of being kept confidential.

I can post you a reference list from one of his books if you want.

I guess declassified documents aren't even credible enough for you though.

Once again, you don't provide any solid arguments, you just spout off about how everyone except you is uneducated.

What is my laughable? Could you please put it in a clause?

Why is your laughable?

Could I put it in a clause?

Your right, I could never comprehend your fabulously amazing level of articulation without years of study Professor.

Clause

A clause is a group of words containing a subject and verb which forms part of a sentence. The first sentence on this page is made up of two clauses: the first clause from "A clause" to "verb," the second from "which" to the end.

So basically, you want me to stop speaking in full sentences, and debate only in clauses?

You don't even know how to use the words you claim to know.

I will tell you how I feel in a clause:

Mugen is a retard,

 

[sn0wburt0n]

anarchy wouldn't work. as a libertarian i hope for minarchy at best.. meaning the govt should only have enough power to prosecute violent offenders and fix my damn roads.

 

[lurkerguy]

That is what anarchy is.

Anarchists just want to challenge all forms of authority they feel are unjustified.

They have no problem with justifiable authority.

I guess people just totally misunderstand what Anarchism is.

a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum.

 

[ebola?]

Okay...I guess I'll weigh in.

>>
How do you know that he provides credible sources? If you credulously accept Chomsky in lieu of formal education, what possible ability do you have to judge whether a source is credible or not? Your discernment is about as good as noting that he has provided references.>>

Manufacturing Consent is rather well-justified, presenting a wide array of content analysis from mainstream media. I think a lot of his other work is less insightful though. You also tread dangerous ground when you presume how well educated others are on the sole basis of whether or not they agree with you. In this thread alone, people on both sides have been most mistaken in these presumptions (not that they're relevant in the first place).

>>Go to a peer reviewed law or economics database and see how frequently he appears in the literature that actually matters>>

It is rather telling that you pick out THESE disciplines as the only that matter, for they are those that are deployed most often to justify the status quo. There is a variety of fruitful research going on of numerous ideological stripes.

>>that anyone would come out even slightly the more educated or even one or two neurons might fire and one participant might think 'well gee, maybe if I read a few books I'll at least understand why all those people who represent the orthodoxy, at least some of whom must be fairly intelligent and rational, hold the views that they do'.>>

We can play the credential game, if you'd like, but that is beside the point (I can PM you my Vita though. ). Perhaps by suspending judgment only briefly, you may learn something about why some rational and intelligent people choose to identify as political radicals.

>>
QWE:
while i wouldn't use the word evil, it's clear that capitalism is not compatible with the goal of minimizing suffering.

Mugen:
True, because that isn't the concern of an economic system, and an economic system that tried to would cause disutility.
>>

Look past your trust in your models for a second to their very axioms. What is utility? What is disutility? Are these not subjective pleasure and pain? Do not efficient markets purport to maximize the former (to the extent that is possible through economic activity)? Does this not entail that suffering induced systemically by the world-capitalist system indicates a failure on the system's OWN TERMS?

>>
You're confusing 'the economy in practice' with 'capitalism'. Pretty fucking far fetched to label the economy-as-is as having much to do with capitalism as theorised.>>

The perfect competition you model, this "capitalism", is as utopian as the most fanciful of anarcho-communist scenarios.

ebola

 

[mugen]

Manufacturing Consent is rather well-justified, presenting a wide array of content analysis from mainstream media. I think a lot of his other work is less insightful though. You also tread dangerous ground when you presume how well educated others are on the sole basis of whether or not they agree with you. In this thread alone, people on both sides have been most mistaken in these presumptions (not that they're relevant in the first place).

If he is quoting the mainstream media to validate his claims, god help him.

It is rather telling that you pick out THESE disciplines as the only that matter, for they are those that are deployed most often to justify the status quo. There is a variety of fruitful research going on of numerous ideological stripes.

That is equally presumptuous. I chose those two because those are the two fields most directly and broadly engaged when Chomsky begins piously sulking like a little bitch and lamenting that not all share his ineffable probity and altruistic vision for the world.

We can play the credential game, if you'd like, but that is beside the point (I can PM you my Vita though. ). Perhaps by suspending judgment only briefly, you may learn something about why some rational and intelligent people choose to identify as political radicals.

A few days ago I thought about posting in this thread with a few of the prima fronte reasons why anarchy is the most fucking incredibly, mindboggling stupid and logically impossible ideologies, but I figured that if it wasn't obvious to the posters, who have thought about it for more than 5 minutes, there was no point.

In any case, if it isn't self-interest, then it will only get disdain from me. I really have no time for anyone who would, with some degree of composure, conclude that it is better to act, to the detriment of one's interests, in pursuit of some banal norm taught at childhood, rather than in furtherance of self-interest. It is completely irrational, and I just cannot understand anyone that thinks it makes sense. Who would ever, after having thought about it for more than a second, think it a good idea to act otherwise than in self-interest?

Look past your trust in your models for a second to their very axioms. What is utility? What is disutility? Are these not subjective pleasure and pain? Do not efficient markets purport to maximize the former (to the extent that is possible through economic activity)? Does this not entail that suffering induced systemically by the world-capitalist system indicates a failure on the system's OWN TERMS?

Que? I don't understand the last sentence.

The perfect competition you model, this "capitalism", is as utopian as the most fanciful of anarcho-communist scenarios.

It is, but the assumptions capitalism makes are not quite as nauseatingly saccharine as anarchy. I can't help it that most are so hopelessly irrational and can't achieve a even a simulacrum of bounded rationality.

 

[Pegasus]

Mugen is well-composed as always, I see...

 

[lurkerguy]

A few days ago I thought about posting in this thread with a few of the prima fronte reasons why anarchy is the most fucking incredibly, mindboggling stupid and logically impossible ideologies, but I figured that if it wasn't obvious to the posters, who have thought about it for more than 5 minutes, there was no point.

Anarchism is stupid.

People who believe in it are stupid.

I won't bother to present any facts or coherent arguments to back up my opinion, it isn't worth my time.

Just more of the same.

For all the time you spend posting in this thread, you would think you could take 5 fucking minutes to say why you think Anarchism is the most impossible ideology.

You haven't said anything.

Your only argument is that if people don't agree with you all ready, it isn't even worth explaining your views, because anyone who doesn't agree with you must be retarded and beyond help.

Can you be any more arrogant than that?

t is, but the assumptions capitalism makes are not quite as nauseatingly saccharine as anarchy. I can't help it that most are so hopelessly irrational and can't achieve a even a simulacrum of bounded rationality.

Capitalism is better than any other ideology, because you say so.

Anyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

Again, facts or reasoned arguments are nowhere to be found.

Mugen says so, so it must be true.

Damn I should have responded in a clause right?

My bad.

 

[Slay]

well this thread is too long and i couldnt read the all posts sorry if someone mention this before

i think anarchy is one of the coolest thing ever but i think it is AGAINST the human nature. humans are creatures living as a part of a pack. on our planet some animals live together, in a pack (like wolfs or dogs), this pack needs an alpha male who leads the pack. humans do the same, man need a leader to "herd" them. without an alpha-male, sooner or later they will destroy each other. this is why i think its "against" human nature.

 

[Amebix]

a) 'dead obvious evils'? pray tell, peer of milton friedman and keynes, what 'dead obvious evils' are the corollary of capitalism? which models do economists rely on that, rather than predicting a few equilibrium conditions, predict 'EVIL1!!!11'

b) not everyone cares for your juvenile, confused and uneducated notions of a 'conscience'. i mean really: you're a professed anarchist. could you be more of a naive teenage dick? anarchism is so logically defunct that it is laughable/contemptible/makes me want to weep for having to share a ball of rock with ppl who think it is a good idea.

What model do they rely on? The one that puts profit over people, that one that values the almighty buck more then life. Like ive posted earlier, half a million babies die each year because of debt repayment. Thats okay to you? Hell that alone should be a good enough reason for change. European spending on ice cream alone would pay for water and sanitation for everyone in the world, with $2 billion left over, doesnt that just FUCKING SCREAM that this is a TERRIBLE system?

 

[ebola?]

>>
If he is quoting the mainstream media to validate his claims, god help him.
>>

No. He quotes the mainstream media to highlight its role in justifying the current world economy and polity. The evidence is appropriate for his claims.

>>I chose those two because those are the two fields most directly and broadly engaged when Chomsky begins piously sulking like a little bitch and lamenting that not all share his ineffable probity and altruistic vision for the world.>>

I would point to literature in political science and sociology, but you appeared to at least dismiss the former out of hand with no explicit justification.

>>if it isn't self-interest, then it will only get disdain from me. I really have no time for anyone who would, with some degree of composure, conclude that it is better to act, to the detriment of one's interests, in pursuit of some banal norm taught at childhood, rather than in furtherance of self-interest. It is completely irrational, and I just cannot understand anyone that thinks it makes sense. Who would ever, after having thought about it for more than a second, think it a good idea to act otherwise than in self-interest?>>

The way I see it, either
1. you are mistaken or
2. you are using a concept of self-interests so nebulous and encompassing that it goes beyond the self-interest described by the analytical models of economics.

In the case of 1, I will present a theoretical counter-example.
Take the prisoner's dilemma. Should the two prisoners act in complete self-interest and rat on each other, or should they each assume that the other will not rat and accept the minor sentence? The second case maximizes the sum utility for the two actors involved even though it requires behavior from the two that is not rational in a strict sense. THIS is the utility of social norms, as "banal" as they can be.

>>Que? I don't understand the last sentence.>>

The question is, if capitalism should maximize utility for those involved, how can it also increase suffering for those actors, as suffering is negative utility. You may say that increases in utility induced by capitalist trade off-set these harms, but this rests on the questions of what the alternative systems are. Also, given that money spent on consumption-goods for a particular individual likely has diminishing returns (how much pleasure can 1 individual feel?), the strong empirical tendency of capitalism toward wealth inequality is likely harmful in terms of the sum-utility for the individuals involved.

>>
It is, but the assumptions capitalism makes are not quite as nauseatingly saccharine as anarchy>>

This sounds like a mere question of preference.

ebola

 

[protovack]

What is utility? What is disutility? Are these not subjective pleasure and pain? Do not efficient markets purport to maximize the former (to the extent that is possible through economic activity)? Does this not entail that suffering induced systemically by the world-capitalist system indicates a failure on the system's OWN TERMS?

Well, we have reached the central point here.

The problem with this type of thinking is that it doesn't hold up in the real world. Sure, you could point out inherent "inconsistencies" in capitalist orthodoxy, such as suffering, but to me that doesn't really represent a problem. Just a short time ago, we were all suffering. Whether by a King, an Emperor, or just plain old natural forces, we have for a long time been slaves.

With the rise of a capitalist class, the old power elite have finally been put in their place. There are no more legions of wealthy princes....landowning aristocrats who contribute nothing to society. Sure you still have some vestigial families...but money rules.

If you want to make money, you have to PRODUCE something! For the first time in history, a single individual can become rich without having to bow down before some feudal lord. Instead of tax rates being nearly 90%....they are closer to 30%. Instead of enriching royal families, we are enriching business owners, who then lend money to new operations - and from that we get growth, both in population and standard of living.

As for anarchism, nothing is stopping anarchists from setting up their own communal living system. There is no law that says a farmer must sell their product on the market. Nothing stops traditional christian groups from living how they want to.

If anarchists are so committed to "organization" then why haven't they gotten themselves organized yet?

I think the reason is that for the anarchist, it is all about the ideas. It is an idea game to them. They don't particularly care whether it "would work" or whether it is "compatible with human nature."

Here is the thought process. Pick two virtues, utilitarianism and altruism. Then derive from those the idea that coercion is inherently incompatible with them. Then voila, you have your ready made society, perfect as a snowflake. Totally logical and internally consistent. They strive for a perfect congruence between the ideals and the "reality."

It seems to me that this kind of logical order only exists internally. Nature is an unpredictable mass of events, and human society is no different. This is what we learned from science. We found that the orbits of the planets were not perfect spheres, and that we in fact were orbiting the sun in an ellipse. This was horrifying because most people believed perfect circles represented divine movement.

Anarchists want to believe in perfect spheres, even though reality says something different. The extreme order and logic of anarchism is derived from a few basic axioms, and that is why it is a weak system. The axioms are too "perfect" to be true or useful.

 

[lurkerguy]

There are no more legions of wealthy princes....landowning aristocrats who contribute nothing to society.

Have you met my land lord?

If you want to make money, you have to PRODUCE something!

Not if your a capitalist.

You can just pay other people to produce things for you, and keep most of the profits for yourself without doing any manual labor.

 

[protovack]

Tell that to my land lord.

So a wealthy prince just gave him the property for free?

Not if your a capitalist.

You can just pay other people to produce things for you, and keep most of the profits for yourself without doing any manual labor.

And is there a private army forcing me to work for any particular company?

BTW there is nothing stopping you from starting a non-profit organization to produce things.

 

[lurkerguy]

So a wealthy prince just gave him the property for free?

His dad gave it to him.

What does he contribute to society?

And is there a private army forcing me to work for any particular company?

BTW there is nothing stopping you from starting a non-profit organization to produce things.

If your poor you have everything stopping you from doing anything, but wage slavery.

Work for just enough to survive, or starve.

If you work for pennies for a few years, and save up, you could improve your life, and that is a huge improvement over feudalism for sure.

It could get much better though, you shouldn't have to be a wage slave for years just to have the opportunity to improve yourself.

I'll give you an example:

My uncle owns a painting company.

He does no work what so ever.

Every month he mails in a check to Verizon for an add in the paper.

If someone calls him and says they want their house painted, he tells them how much it will cost, and has workers do it for $10/hour.

He averages about $10,000-$20,000 depending on the size of the house, sometimes even more for commercial jobs.

He pays the workers maybe $250 a piece tops, $2000 for all of them at most.

They have to do all the hard work, real work, because they can't afford to put an ad out in the paper.

They could save up their $250 from the job & try to start a business with advertising, but that is not possible, because they are only paid enough to survive week to week.

Now they could get two jobs sure, but what the hell, you have to work 16 hours a day?

It can get better that is all I am saying.