5 ms·

You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution. And everyone else is say

You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution. And everyone else is saying that non-politics is still politics. But in order to be consistent with your claim that all politics are bad whereas anarchy is good, you have to claim that anarchy is not politics. At any rate, with non-politics everyone still governs their own body, so it's not unreasonable to view absolute anarchy as 7 billion different totalitarian nations.

baddox 13y ago
> You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution. It depends what you mean by "left-wing" and "right-wing." There are certainly a lot of differing beliefs which can be held without approving of politics. > But in order to be consistent with your claim that all politics are bad whereas anarchy is good, you have to claim that anarchy is not politics. You're still phrasing this like a semantic argument. I am not trying to argue what the "true meanings" of words are, because that's useless (although it's clearly a very attractive style of argument to many people in this thread). I have told you what definitions I am using, and clearly, anarchism is not politics according to my definitions. I would prefer you address the actual ideas I have expressed, rather than argue over "true meanings" of words. Also, I am not saying that all discussion of political philosophy is bad, because that field inevitably concerns itself with beliefs which advocate refraining from political activity. > so it's not unreasonable to view absolute anarchy as 7 billion different totalitarian nations. It is unreasonable if you want to have intelligent discussions using concise terms. That's why, if the members of a discussion are unable or unwilling to agree upon a few basic definitions, the only arguments available are semantic arguments. Thus, discussions involving the concept of "nations" or "states" should be based on an agreement of terms, and the only conceivable useful definitions for those terms would exclude individual humans.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  As far as I can tell, reading upwards, your ideas are simply that politics are bad and non-politics are good. Are there any other ideas? The problem is precisely that you're defining terms to suit your arguments. All colors are bad, white is especially bad, therefore only the absence of color is good. But in many respects black functions just like the other colors. You can't say, well I'm defining terms like this, and it happens to suit me, so let's just discuss my ideas, namely that black is incredible, because it isn't a color. I don't agree with your axioms, so none of the claims in your system make logical sense. You're doing the same thing when you deny that an individual under absolute anarchy is equivalent to a state - presumably a state requires two or more people for you. Defending "your" land by yourself in the wilderness with a gun is still government. It's fine to discuss the form of government you like most - maybe anarchy is great - but it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as superior to all other governments because for some magical reason it is not a government and therefore does not contain any of the supposedly evil properties of governments, namely submission to the authority of another which inevitably gets abused. What you propose entails one of the most sinister consequences, namely that an individual's own authority, strength, and material wealth will be the final arbiter of power. My ideal is the exact opposite of global anarchy: one government, one currency, one set of rights, and no borders. But we can't have a reasonable discussion if my ideal is a priori terrible because it's political, and your ideal is wonderful because it's non-political / apolitical / whatever.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > The problem is precisely that you're defining terms to suit your arguments. No, I'm not. The problem is that you are dead set on your perceived "true meaning" of the word, and you cannot get past anyone using a different definition regardless of how explicit they are about it. My argument is not that the string of letters "politics" is bad, which would then require me to set a precise definition of the word to make my argument fit my other beliefs. My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad. "Politics" is the perfect word to use when referring to "participation in government," so I used that term. When people brought up a potential different definition of "politics," I immediately gave the definition I was using in my first claim. That should be the end of the semantic argument, but people persist, many ignoring my actual claim. > All colors are bad, white is especially bad, therefore only the absence of color is good. Nothing I said is remotely of this form. I said politics are bad, then I defined politics as precisely as I could, period. > You're doing the same thing when you deny that an individual under absolute anarchy is equivalent to a state - presumably a state requires two or more people for you. Wrong again. If you desire to enter into a discussion about states using a definition of "state" that includes individuals, then so be it. We could have that discussion without having any semantic arguments. You still cannot get past the idea of "true meanings." The point is to speak and discuss things given an agreed upon set of definitions. In theory, all the words you use could be pure gibberish, provided that all participants were aware of their definitions in that discussion. Obviously, that's not the easiest way to have a discussion, but then again, neither is this thread. > It's fine to discuss the form of government you like most - maybe anarchy is great - but it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as superior to all other governments because for some magical reason it is not a government and therefore does not contain any of the supposedly evil properties of governments, namely submission to the authority of another which inevitably gets abused. This is another disagreement on the definition of terms, and we cannot continue this discussion until we agree on a definition. My definition of "government" does not include voluntary organizations. If you present your definition, then I could agree to use it (just for this discussion, of course), and then we could talk about whatever you actually want to talk about. Again, in this paragraph, you are appealing to your perceived "true meaning" of the word "government," and until you provide that definition, you haven't really presented any ideas that can be intelligently discussed. > What you propose entails one of the most sinister consequences, namely that an individual's own authority, strength, and material wealth will be the final arbiter of power. Here, you depart from making semantic arguments and instead make a simple straw man argument. I never claimed to advocate that, and I do not advocate that. > My ideal is the exact opposite of global anarchy: one government, one currency, one set of rights, and no borders. > But we can't have a reasonable discussion if my ideal is a priori terrible because it's political, and your ideal is wonderful because it's non-political / apolitical / whatever. But as I have pointed out numerous times, I'm the one not making a priori arguments based on a string of characters like "political" or "government." I'm providing definitions and using those to construct actual ideas, rather than appealing to "true meanings." I have not and will not design an argument by placing a label on your proposal containing the string of characters "political," then pointing and saying "See! It's political therefore it's bad." Nor do I place a label on my proposals then argue that they are good because of what the label says. Those would be semantic arguments, and I seem to be one of few people in this thread not making semantic arguments.

baddox 13y ago

> You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution. It depends what you mean by "left-wing" and "right-wing." There are certainly a lot of differing beliefs which can be held without approving of politics. > But in order to be consistent with your claim that all politics are bad whereas anarchy is good, you have to claim that anarchy is not politics. You're still phrasing this like a semantic argument. I am not trying to argue what the "true meanings" of words are, because that's useless (although it's clearly a very attractive style of argument to many people in this thread). I have told you what definitions I am using, and clearly, anarchism is not politics according to my definitions. I would prefer you address the actual ideas I have expressed, rather than argue over "true meanings" of words. Also, I am not saying that all discussion of political philosophy is bad, because that field inevitably concerns itself with beliefs which advocate refraining from political activity. > so it's not unreasonable to view absolute anarchy as 7 billion different totalitarian nations. It is unreasonable if you want to have intelligent discussions using concise terms. That's why, if the members of a discussion are unable or unwilling to agree upon a few basic definitions, the only arguments available are semantic arguments. Thus, discussions involving the concept of "nations" or "states" should be based on an agreement of terms, and the only conceivable useful definitions for those terms would exclude individual humans.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
As far as I can tell, reading upwards, your ideas are simply that politics are bad and non-politics are good. Are there any other ideas? The problem is precisely that you're defining terms to suit your arguments. All colors are bad, white is especially bad, therefore only the absence of color is good. But in many respects black functions just like the other colors. You can't say, well I'm defining terms like this, and it happens to suit me, so let's just discuss my ideas, namely that black is incredible, because it isn't a color. I don't agree with your axioms, so none of the claims in your system make logical sense. You're doing the same thing when you deny that an individual under absolute anarchy is equivalent to a state - presumably a state requires two or more people for you. Defending "your" land by yourself in the wilderness with a gun is still government. It's fine to discuss the form of government you like most - maybe anarchy is great - but it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as superior to all other governments because for some magical reason it is not a government and therefore does not contain any of the supposedly evil properties of governments, namely submission to the authority of another which inevitably gets abused. What you propose entails one of the most sinister consequences, namely that an individual's own authority, strength, and material wealth will be the final arbiter of power. My ideal is the exact opposite of global anarchy: one government, one currency, one set of rights, and no borders. But we can't have a reasonable discussion if my ideal is a priori terrible because it's political, and your ideal is wonderful because it's non-political / apolitical / whatever.
- baddox 13y ago
  > The problem is precisely that you're defining terms to suit your arguments. No, I'm not. The problem is that you are dead set on your perceived "true meaning" of the word, and you cannot get past anyone using a different definition regardless of how explicit they are about it. My argument is not that the string of letters "politics" is bad, which would then require me to set a precise definition of the word to make my argument fit my other beliefs. My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad. "Politics" is the perfect word to use when referring to "participation in government," so I used that term. When people brought up a potential different definition of "politics," I immediately gave the definition I was using in my first claim. That should be the end of the semantic argument, but people persist, many ignoring my actual claim. > All colors are bad, white is especially bad, therefore only the absence of color is good. Nothing I said is remotely of this form. I said politics are bad, then I defined politics as precisely as I could, period. > You're doing the same thing when you deny that an individual under absolute anarchy is equivalent to a state - presumably a state requires two or more people for you. Wrong again. If you desire to enter into a discussion about states using a definition of "state" that includes individuals, then so be it. We could have that discussion without having any semantic arguments. You still cannot get past the idea of "true meanings." The point is to speak and discuss things given an agreed upon set of definitions. In theory, all the words you use could be pure gibberish, provided that all participants were aware of their definitions in that discussion. Obviously, that's not the easiest way to have a discussion, but then again, neither is this thread. > It's fine to discuss the form of government you like most - maybe anarchy is great - but it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as superior to all other governments because for some magical reason it is not a government and therefore does not contain any of the supposedly evil properties of governments, namely submission to the authority of another which inevitably gets abused. This is another disagreement on the definition of terms, and we cannot continue this discussion until we agree on a definition. My definition of "government" does not include voluntary organizations. If you present your definition, then I could agree to use it (just for this discussion, of course), and then we could talk about whatever you actually want to talk about. Again, in this paragraph, you are appealing to your perceived "true meaning" of the word "government," and until you provide that definition, you haven't really presented any ideas that can be intelligently discussed. > What you propose entails one of the most sinister consequences, namely that an individual's own authority, strength, and material wealth will be the final arbiter of power. Here, you depart from making semantic arguments and instead make a simple straw man argument. I never claimed to advocate that, and I do not advocate that. > My ideal is the exact opposite of global anarchy: one government, one currency, one set of rights, and no borders. > But we can't have a reasonable discussion if my ideal is a priori terrible because it's political, and your ideal is wonderful because it's non-political / apolitical / whatever. But as I have pointed out numerous times, I'm the one not making a priori arguments based on a string of characters like "political" or "government." I'm providing definitions and using those to construct actual ideas, rather than appealing to "true meanings." I have not and will not design an argument by placing a label on your proposal containing the string of characters "political," then pointing and saying "See! It's political therefore it's bad." Nor do I place a label on my proposals then argue that they are good because of what the label says. Those would be semantic arguments, and I seem to be one of few people in this thread not making semantic arguments.