4 ms·

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

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.
- parasubvert 13y ago
  You have not shown that your usage is entirely standard - myself and others have repeatedly pointed to aspects of Wikipedia articles that contradict your use of the term. "Office politics" is not casual language, it actually is using the term "politics" as most refer to it in modern times: the process of determining power arrangements among beings. But this is still semantics. I can accept your definition of politics as being the activities within the state. Lets call "the process of determining power arrangements among beings" as "power struggles". I've claimed there are a number of thinkers that have varying views on "power struggles", some of which presume a state, others of which do not. One thing that seems to be clear is that there will always be power struggles in any community of beings: no system will eliminate them. So the question is, on what basis do we agree to contain power?

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.
parasubvert 13y ago
You have not shown that your usage is entirely standard - myself and others have repeatedly pointed to aspects of Wikipedia articles that contradict your use of the term. "Office politics" is not casual language, it actually is using the term "politics" as most refer to it in modern times: the process of determining power arrangements among beings. But this is still semantics. I can accept your definition of politics as being the activities within the state. Lets call "the process of determining power arrangements among beings" as "power struggles". I've claimed there are a number of thinkers that have varying views on "power struggles", some of which presume a state, others of which do not. One thing that seems to be clear is that there will always be power struggles in any community of beings: no system will eliminate them. So the question is, on what basis do we agree to contain power?