News:

SMF - Just Installed!

Main Menu

PSA Anarchism

Started by J, January 29, 2020, 03:26:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Anarchon

Quote from: BadQuaker on February 03, 2020, 01:10:16 PM
Well, pretty much everything you said is wrong. I could recommend a dozen books that refute what you said, but why should I bother? You already told me you won't read up on the topic.

So we are at a standstill. You will believe what you want to believe and that's the end of the matter. You aren't worth my efforts, and I'm no evangelist, oh, and I simply don't care if you ever learn the truth or not.
Therefore from this day forward, anytime I see a comment on this thread I will mark it read without reading it, because Anarchon, you aren't worth my time.

This is an appeal to authority.  Das Kapital is also a book.  If I'm wrong, simply point out why that is.

Anarchon

Quote from: J on February 03, 2020, 11:21:05 PM
I agree more with Ben (sorry I am using your name, as we are not familiar).

My opinion for Anarchon.

If one were to be around an abusive or broken family, one could draw some of those conclusions. I have seen this in my own personal experience and it was part of the reason I left for the military. I was also a habitual runaway, probably would have worked if police would stop sending me back, but I don't believe the immediate family was forcing the problem, it was a tad different in my experience.

As for my relationship with my own children, I do not view them as property. They are completely sovereign souls. My purpose with them is the meet all their needs and prepare them for the world that we share, cold and harsh as it seems to be most days. I suppose I'm missing what you are intending by the word force.

You are also, admittedly, one of us outliers.  Perhaps you would, when your 5y.o. kid tells you he hates you, packs his favorite toy in a backpack, and says he's running away, open the door for him.  Perhaps you would, when your kid wanders out into traffic, just let him go as he freely chooses, instead of running to carry him back.  But, the majority of humanity, which is whom I'm discussing, would not.

aConsensualist

>>>This is an appeal to authority.  Das Kapital is also a book.  If I'm wrong, simply point out why that is.

FWIW I'm inclined to agree.  OTOH it may not be intended as any appeal; it may just be sharing.

But now I've read the thread and I can't figure this out...

>>>"false hierarchical societal structure"


What is that intended to mean?  You can't possibly be saying that all hierarchies are forceful, right?  That would be silly...every business has an hierarchical structure and none of them are forceful.  So I figure I'm missing something, but I don't know what.  Plus BQ's statement on the point looked easily spot on.  So before I opine when I get time, what does this phrase mean?  Thanks.

P.S.  Oh, maybe you're saying that any hierarchy that is forced, is a false one.  That would make some sense in at least one interpretation, if that's it.

Anarchon

#18
Sharing is fine.  Being capable of supporting a claim is a different matter.  As for the term "false hierarchical societal structure", you'd have to ask BQ, as he's the one that created it. 

To be clear, I mean that the hierarchies in the context I initially referred to, include force.  To rephrase, I believe involving some form of government in our social structures is natural for man; and that if we want to be free of this, it will take some evolving past our natural instincts, whether biologically or intellectually. 

Obviously a binary tree structure in computer science doesn't involve the initiation of force, yet it is a hierarchy.

aConsensualist

Thanks.  BQ can clarify the phrase if he wishes.  But THIS...

>>>I believe involving some form of government in our social structures is natural for man; and that if we want to be free of this, it will take some evolving past our natural instincts, whether biologically or intellectually.


Whew, do I disagree with that.  First there's the evidence.  I don't care to argue the justifications for creating the slave-system that we call "government," but the fact is that they've been around for an extreme minority of humans' time on Earth.  Sure there have always been stronger and weaker people so that's a sort of hierarchy, but prior to governments that wasn't the key element in determining how societies, such as they were, were run.

So I go to logic to try and explain that.  Prior to the invention of the written word, it was impossible to pass the bullshit theories around widely.

Naturally as a (devout!) atheist, I associate a lot of it with God and the wild ethical theories--most obviously philosophical altruism--that those books spread around the world.  Don't get me wrong...I don't give the slightest hoot about what anyone believes.  Nor do I personally care whether they get there by simple faith for which there can be no response, or convoluted "reason" by which they sincerely believe this is how everything happened.

But I do care (maybe mistakenly) when peeps try to pass off the false as true.  Remember, the question you raise is whether it's "human nature" or not to enslave others, specifically through the institution of government.  To me, both logic and the evidence answer in the negative.

Obviously there may always be a few who seek to loot and plunder others.  But if we look around even now, we see that a notable minority of people are like that.  The vast majority of people don't do that.  It was only in the last 10,000 years (or less) that nearly everyone chose to institutionalize the function.  They did it because they were persuaded that it's true and that no other way is available to stop the looting.  To me it's just another obvious lie...those who do do that teach others that it must be this way.  "Nothing is certain except death and taxes."

That's an obvious strategy for looters and an obvious lie, and the reason it happened is because looters were able to persuade everyone else.  So voila, government.  But here I'd just say that it's obviously not "human nature."  Peeps were just very persuaded that it is...another lie that helps motivate people into sincerely believing that slavery is the only possibility.  False...the possibilities are endless.

Anarchon

#20
I agree that the number of sociopaths is small.  But my claim isn't solely about them.  It's also about the masses of sheep that rest easy in that structure.  There are only a few alphas, but betas are a part of nature too.  As for religion, I think it was one of the first frameworks the sociopaths used to govern. 

aConsensualist

Quote from: Anarchon on February 05, 2020, 11:12:35 PM
I agree that the number of sociopaths is small.  But my claim isn't solely about them.  It's also about the masses of sheep that rest easy in that structure.  There are only a few alphas, but betas are a part of nature too.  As for religion, I think it was one of the first frameworks the sociopaths used to govern.

That sounds alright to me, but it doesn't touch the question of whether being structured in a forceful hierarchical society is human nature or not.  If anything it supports my case that it's not, else why would you need the stories of religion to create what you describe accurately as "one of the first frameworks the sociopaths used to govern"?  You wouldn't need such a framework, let alone a fantasized one, if it were our nature from the get-go.  Plus it would render this place, for example, as an attempt to defy human nature.  I get that you believe it may be, but I sure can't see the evidence.

You seem (to me) to be getting to that conclusion by definition.  You're using "alpha" and "beta" apparently to describe only aspects of physical battle, and I don't think that's right.  Was Henry Ford an alpha male?  Thomas Edison?  Elon Musk?  Donald Trump?  They all strike me as "alpha-type," but obviously that doesn't refer to their physical warrior capability.  Plus there are a zillion "beta" males who could probably kick the asses of those "alpha" males.  IOW usage of "alpha" and "beta" as you do doesn't make the case at all.  If you simply define them as meaning what you wish them to mean in order to make your point, you haven't identified anything at all, least of all anything about human nature.  It almost looks like you defeat your own argument...

>>>It's also about the masses of sheep that rest easy in that structure.


Exactly right...they choose it because they believe they rest easier.  Silly maybe, but still a choice.  Being a choice makes it an alternative, not human nature.

Plus if it were actually human nature, it would have always been around.  Repeating, it hasn't always been around and you wouldn't need any religion to make any kind of "framework"...IF it were human nature.  Formalized...

If being forcefully aggressive or forcefully subdued were human nature, then it would always be around and there would be no need for stories to cognitively establish such a framework.

Consequent denied.  Hence antecedent denied.  Hence it's not human nature.  The End.

Anarchon

Would you at least agree that we see those forceful hierarchies with other animals in nature?  If so, then we only need to talk about why humans would be different.  I think we aren't as different from chimps as we like to think, but I will admit that we have to potential to change our own behavior from that which is instinctual.  Not too many of us run around just grabbing and raping the women we want, or just dropping trou and shitting wherever we please, but I don't think we've changed that much as far as social structure/government is concerned.

You and BQ seem to think government hasn't always been around.  I think it has, albeit to varying degrees of strength.  I'm admittedly a horrible historian, however.  This is one of the reasons I asked BQ to back up his claim with this long list of voluntaryist societies.  I'd earnestly like to learn about them.  However, I would bet dollars to donuts that I'd be able to find that they did use some form of government.

The alpha-beta-nature reference was an analogy, not to say being an alpha is the equivalent of being a sociopath, even though in some cases it's true.

aConsensualist

>>>Would you at least agree that we see those forceful hierarchies with other animals in nature?

Some?  Sure, this is well known.  And some don't, so that doesn't help at all.  I don't even know what you think this might prove.  It's also well known that forceful hierarchies among humans exist even now.  Ha, commonly.  That's why we're here, I thought.

But you are trying to make the case that these forceful hierarchies are human nature.  You haven't offered a single drop of evidence yet.  Did I answer this question correctly?  Any of it wrong?  As you should see, it doesn't help your case at all.  If you believe it does, then please set out why.

>>>If so, then we only need to talk about why humans would be different.

Why?  How does acknowledging that in nature, some animals engage forceful hierarchies and some don't, help support that it's human nature?

>>>I think we aren't as different from chimps as we like to think

Much more of this with no appeal to reality, and I might agree!

>>>but I will admit that we have to potential to change our own behavior from that which is instinctual.

Technically that right there tells us that it's not human nature.  It's correct too because it's among the set of acts that are determined by choice and not nature.  Lungs to breathe air is part of our nature, and you'll notice that we can't change that by choice.  Formally, here's my point...

[Rand]  "The mind is man's basic means of survival."  Here, the point is that the forceful human hierarchies do exist, and they exist by choice...by men's minds choosing to have them.  If it were "human nature," then that choice wouldn't be the reason it exists.  Like lungs.  But okay, I don't particularly want to argue by technicalities like that.  If you need any help showing that this argument is weak, I can help!

>>>>Not too many of us run around just grabbing and raping the women we want,

Gee, but they all use lungs as human nature commands.  You're arguing against yourself.  How can something be "human nature" but "not too many of us do it"?   Manifest contradiction.

>>>You and BQ seem to think government hasn't always been around.

I can't speak for BQ, but I believe it because it's known as a simple fact.  First, this doesn't say there was a time without hierarchies...I don't know about that but we're talking forceful hierarchies here...basically governments.  No, they haven't always been around and various tribal societies, even if they had this hierarchy or that (again, I don't know), doesn't tell us that they were forceful hierarchies.  That's just a simple fact.  So far, and I'm paying attention, I haven't seen you defend any claim beyond, "Some people are stronger than others."  Well yeah. duh...but it's a far cry from there to the assertion that those stronger people have always subdued the weaker.  And you're going beyond even that, claiming that doing so (which didn't happen anyway) is somehow evidence that it was done because of human nature.  I'm almost rooting for you, if only to see even one drop of evidence.  So far you haven't offered any at all for the claim.

>>>I'm admittedly a horrible historian, however.


Y'know, epistemically that line in this context reduces to, "If I don't know X but I claim that X is true, then my lack of knowledge is evidence for X."

>>>This is one of the reasons I asked BQ to back up his claim with this long list of voluntaryist societies

WHY???  You can have a non-voluntaryist society a million ways besides forceful hierarchies being human nature.  Lol...as we see!

I'm thinking maybe you don't know your own claim.  That would bring into question why you keep making it.  No big deal BTW; the real stumper is why anyone would so strongly believe something they don't even bother understanding themselves.  Offhand, it seems like that ought to come first and then effort can be expended trying to find out if it's true.

I'm taking a break for a day or two, so feel free to try and collect yourself, clarify the claim in your head, and then offer whatever evidence you have.

-----------------------------------------------

I hope you realize that none of this really has to do with you nor the many logical errors that you're making.  I don't give a hoot what any person chooses to believe, nor why.  But this particular logical mishmosh has been engaged forever and there's no doubt that the majority of people now would agree with you and not me.  THEY WERE LIED TO, for thousands of years.  It's part of the scam and for many decades now, I derive enjoyment from exposing scams.

Anarchon

#24
Quote from: aConsensualist on February 07, 2020, 03:34:12 AM
You haven't offered a single drop of evidence yet. 

I have.  Look around.  Ruling is the rule.  Government could not exist so prevalently if it were truly human nature to oppose it.  None of us can be certain of the truth of ancient man, but I think we do both know today.  The vast majority of humanity consists of statists.

Bill

QuoteThe vast majority of humanity consists of statists.

Bingo...
Gun control is mind control.

"Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back."?

[attributed to]Heraclitus

aConsensualist

Quote from: Bill on February 08, 2020, 02:46:52 PM
QuoteThe vast majority of humanity consists of statists.

Bingo...

Bingo Bingo!!  Not sure what we'd expect to see at the moments of final optimization.  No shocker to me, but leaves the question of human nature open.