2 ms·

No, as a matter of fact it simply never occurred to me that you might simply disagree thereby changing the underlying nature of reality in so doing. But I supp

No, as a matter of fact it simply never occurred to me that you might simply disagree thereby changing the underlying nature of reality in so doing. But I suppose I am not one for the acceptance that things are only what we label them with. If no differences can be iterated between one thing with a pretty label, say a democratic government for argument's sake, and another thing with an ugly label, say an organised crime ring with a byzantine structure designed to convey the perception of community support but which retains the core underlying features of being impossible not to participate in under threat of violence, parasitic and corrupt even by it's own rules; it just never occurred to me someone might truly be naive enough to honestly accept that the labels alone change the nature of the underlying labelled things. It's a fine trick if you can find enough suckers to pull it off I suppose.

Nursie 14y ago
Of course, because only your views represent the "underlying nature of reality", and anyone with a more positive view of collective government is necessarily blinded by labels. And it's so obvious that when it comes to human affairs, particularly those of a social/governmental nature, that there is one single empirical truth. Of course! How could I be so stupid? I don't think that most western nations do have a government that could be described as an organised crime ring. I don't think you can cite this as an empirical fact. In fact I think that all of the words you used there are overly-emotional negative labels you use to reinforce your own belief that democratic government is necessarily evil, a view I don't subscribe to.
- etherael 14y ago
  You completely missed the point of what I said. The labels you or I use to describe the institution in question are entirely irrelevant, it is the characteristics which those institutions have which dictate their actual material nature. Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so. If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body you would do far better pointing to examples of how one might choose not to participate in the structure of the state without being subject to it's violent sanction. That you can't do this is precisely why the pretty labels you plaster it with are utterly unconvincing to anyone unswayed by simplistic feelgood propaganda.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    "Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so." No, because we can point at a marsupial and agree on the characteristics. You and I do not agree on the characteristics of government or currency. --edit-- In fact many of the 'characteristics' you list are emotional labels as far as I can see. Yet you continue to insist that they are part of an 'underlying reality'. I disagree. "If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body" I don't hope to convince you of that, it's clearly central to your outlook on life. I only hope to convince you that not everyone sees it that way, and that not everyone that doesn't see it that way thinks the way they do because of ignorance.
    - etherael 14y ago
      They are not emotional labels, they are simply facts. Government is by definition; Violent; the state claims a monopoly on violence and employs the use of violence when forcing compliance with its edicts. Parasitic; the state functions by siphoning productivity from a captive populace and channelling it into the activities of the state such as bureaucracy, war and the continued maintenance and expansion of the state and its power. In the absence of a productive body there can be no state as there is nothing for the state to parasite from. Extortionate; the state obtains money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Now you can deny these all you like, but the simple fact remains that all states share the above characteristics. It's not a matter of opinion or viewpoint, those are simple facts. Disagreeing with them does in fact make you ignorant to the reality of the situation as it stands regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you feel.
      - Nursie 14y ago
        If you consider government to be formed of the people, rather than an external entity, then your view of these things changes. We, the people, reserve the use of violence to those we collectively appoint to help run our society. This is necessary in order to protect the rights we grant ourselves. How would you propose to protect what you see as your property rights without violence? Oh that's right, it's only violence when other people do it, not when you do it. We, the people, impose taxes (extortion! LOL) in order to provide collective services we all rely on. And I disagree both that democratic government is parasitic or that expansion of the state and state power are necessarily the aims of all democratic governments. So I absolutely can and do disagree that all states have those characteristics, that your ideal stateless existence is free of them or that all of these things are necessarily negative. Sorry. It really is a matter of opinion and viewpoint.

Nursie 14y ago

Of course, because only your views represent the "underlying nature of reality", and anyone with a more positive view of collective government is necessarily blinded by labels. And it's so obvious that when it comes to human affairs, particularly those of a social/governmental nature, that there is one single empirical truth. Of course! How could I be so stupid? I don't think that most western nations do have a government that could be described as an organised crime ring. I don't think you can cite this as an empirical fact. In fact I think that all of the words you used there are overly-emotional negative labels you use to reinforce your own belief that democratic government is necessarily evil, a view I don't subscribe to.

etherael 14y ago
You completely missed the point of what I said. The labels you or I use to describe the institution in question are entirely irrelevant, it is the characteristics which those institutions have which dictate their actual material nature. Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so. If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body you would do far better pointing to examples of how one might choose not to participate in the structure of the state without being subject to it's violent sanction. That you can't do this is precisely why the pretty labels you plaster it with are utterly unconvincing to anyone unswayed by simplistic feelgood propaganda.
- Nursie 14y ago
  "Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so." No, because we can point at a marsupial and agree on the characteristics. You and I do not agree on the characteristics of government or currency. --edit-- In fact many of the 'characteristics' you list are emotional labels as far as I can see. Yet you continue to insist that they are part of an 'underlying reality'. I disagree. "If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body" I don't hope to convince you of that, it's clearly central to your outlook on life. I only hope to convince you that not everyone sees it that way, and that not everyone that doesn't see it that way thinks the way they do because of ignorance.
  - etherael 14y ago
    They are not emotional labels, they are simply facts. Government is by definition; Violent; the state claims a monopoly on violence and employs the use of violence when forcing compliance with its edicts. Parasitic; the state functions by siphoning productivity from a captive populace and channelling it into the activities of the state such as bureaucracy, war and the continued maintenance and expansion of the state and its power. In the absence of a productive body there can be no state as there is nothing for the state to parasite from. Extortionate; the state obtains money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Now you can deny these all you like, but the simple fact remains that all states share the above characteristics. It's not a matter of opinion or viewpoint, those are simple facts. Disagreeing with them does in fact make you ignorant to the reality of the situation as it stands regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you feel.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      If you consider government to be formed of the people, rather than an external entity, then your view of these things changes. We, the people, reserve the use of violence to those we collectively appoint to help run our society. This is necessary in order to protect the rights we grant ourselves. How would you propose to protect what you see as your property rights without violence? Oh that's right, it's only violence when other people do it, not when you do it. We, the people, impose taxes (extortion! LOL) in order to provide collective services we all rely on. And I disagree both that democratic government is parasitic or that expansion of the state and state power are necessarily the aims of all democratic governments. So I absolutely can and do disagree that all states have those characteristics, that your ideal stateless existence is free of them or that all of these things are necessarily negative. Sorry. It really is a matter of opinion and viewpoint.