6 ms·

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 precis

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.
- parasubvert 13y ago
  I actually think you're caricaturing the problems people are having with your argument. The issue is not being dead set on a "true meaning", it's that you have rejected the term "politics" in the meaning others here have attributed to it (i.e. the process of resolving power relations among individuals - not necessarily about governments or states), but have not replaced it with a suitable alternative that we can use to move the discussion forward. In so doing, it comes across (at least earlier in the thread) that you're claiming that such a process is not required in an anarchy.
  - baddox 13y ago
    But I have presented the definition I was using in my first comment. At that point, disagreeing with my definition is pointless, and no longer addresses my first comment. Besides, I have shown repeatedly that my usage is indeed standard. The Wikipedia articles on politics and political science both overwhelmingly show this. Only in casual language, like "office politics," is the term used to refer to non-government interactions.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      As far as I can tell, you haven't said anything besides politics and government, as you define them, are categorically bad. You haven't provided any reasons why. My claim is that non-politics and non-government, as you define them, are not a solution. The reason is that they are exactly circumscribed by politics and government, as you define them. The definition of X provides the definition of !X. Thus, they do not ultimately differ. This is a really important point: loyalty and rebellion are very closely related in that they are two sides of the same coin, both dictating your behavior. You don't need permission to sail in international waters (non-politics), but there's lots of places you can't go (politics) if you're going to stay in them. To be clear, I do understand what you mean when you say non-politics and non-government. My definitions are as follows: to govern is to marshal force in the establishment of rights. To marshal force in the establishment of rights is to govern. This includes your definition of government and your definition of non-government. > My definition of "government" does not include voluntary organizations. Even if you join a voluntary non-governmental organization that provides you rights by marshaling force, regardless of whether or not I join your organization, I am still governed by it, in so far as the protections you have been promised by that organization will apply to me. If you pay for damage to your property to be illegal, I am going to be in trouble if I damage it, so I must obey the law that you have created with your wealth, or face the consequences. My questions about your ideal form of government (or shall we say "protection" for your sake) are as follows: how does such a system restrain the power of the most rich? How does such a system prevent the abuse of the most poor? It seems to me to be some kind of nightmare world where material wealth and social connections end up being the final arbiters of justice. We effectively have anarchy at the international level today since the UN has no real power. Why is this a good thing? The US, with its vast amounts of power, is able to bully many of the other countries into submission, and there is no oversight. I fail to see how anarchy at the individual level would be substantially different.

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.

parasubvert 13y ago
I actually think you're caricaturing the problems people are having with your argument. The issue is not being dead set on a "true meaning", it's that you have rejected the term "politics" in the meaning others here have attributed to it (i.e. the process of resolving power relations among individuals - not necessarily about governments or states), but have not replaced it with a suitable alternative that we can use to move the discussion forward. In so doing, it comes across (at least earlier in the thread) that you're claiming that such a process is not required in an anarchy.
- baddox 13y ago
  But I have presented the definition I was using in my first comment. At that point, disagreeing with my definition is pointless, and no longer addresses my first comment. Besides, I have shown repeatedly that my usage is indeed standard. The Wikipedia articles on politics and political science both overwhelmingly show this. Only in casual language, like "office politics," is the term used to refer to non-government interactions.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    As far as I can tell, you haven't said anything besides politics and government, as you define them, are categorically bad. You haven't provided any reasons why. My claim is that non-politics and non-government, as you define them, are not a solution. The reason is that they are exactly circumscribed by politics and government, as you define them. The definition of X provides the definition of !X. Thus, they do not ultimately differ. This is a really important point: loyalty and rebellion are very closely related in that they are two sides of the same coin, both dictating your behavior. You don't need permission to sail in international waters (non-politics), but there's lots of places you can't go (politics) if you're going to stay in them. To be clear, I do understand what you mean when you say non-politics and non-government. My definitions are as follows: to govern is to marshal force in the establishment of rights. To marshal force in the establishment of rights is to govern. This includes your definition of government and your definition of non-government. > My definition of "government" does not include voluntary organizations. Even if you join a voluntary non-governmental organization that provides you rights by marshaling force, regardless of whether or not I join your organization, I am still governed by it, in so far as the protections you have been promised by that organization will apply to me. If you pay for damage to your property to be illegal, I am going to be in trouble if I damage it, so I must obey the law that you have created with your wealth, or face the consequences. My questions about your ideal form of government (or shall we say "protection" for your sake) are as follows: how does such a system restrain the power of the most rich? How does such a system prevent the abuse of the most poor? It seems to me to be some kind of nightmare world where material wealth and social connections end up being the final arbiters of justice. We effectively have anarchy at the international level today since the UN has no real power. Why is this a good thing? The US, with its vast amounts of power, is able to bully many of the other countries into submission, and there is no oversight. I fail to see how anarchy at the individual level would be substantially different.