Rick Horton

imaginary concept? The concept is REAL. And it's effects are proof. The idea has effect, thus the idea is real. It's always been there. You are saying that you aren't dominated by these concepts? If you are controled by them and you think you are controled by something that doesn't exist, than you have a very big issue with what is and isn't imaginary. It's not a physical, but is an ideological reality that does get enforced. What evidence do you have that anything under the domination and order caused by The State can be said to be without effect from The State? The societal conditions created a landscape in which eBay was created and allowed. It could be ripped apart, regulated, etc... by the State. Its existence is dependent on the State. The State recognizes the actions of eBay as suitable, and permissable. Everything and everybody involved with eBay is effected by The State, so obviously the State has impact on the lives and morals of it's users. I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. The State doesn't depend on that. Can you back that up?

Correct. Wrong. Do you let other people stab you children? Cause them physical pain? Do you ever let other people cause them to choke?

Wow man. It sounds like your parents were real assholes.

Correct.

I wholly agree that violence is bad, but not all aggression is equal. I mean that's as odd as the biblical interpretation of stealing a loaf of bread being equal to murder in God's eyes. It's just shallow. A small slap on the wrist is probably not the best way to teach a baby something, but it's also not something that can be "equivicated" to being violent. There is aggression. There is physical aggression. There is violence. And I don't think it's all the same and I don't think it wise to condemn parents for spanking. Sure condemn them for beating violently with intent to do physical damage that would meet the level of abuse, right? I mean I can, and so do most people, differentiate from a spanking and domestic violence. An abusive parent is one who chooses not to distinguish between a spanking and violence. They can't draw the line, and go overboard. It's nuanced and there is a grey area, but the grey area is wide enough that a good parent can stay in the white and not dip toward, even, the grey areas before that wide stretch that leads to the black (violent) area of physical punishment. I think it's unwise also, to try and understand the dynamic of other people's family, unless there is an undeniable use of violence in that family. Spankings don't meet that level. People should probably focus on the dynamic of their own family unit before second guessing other people's parenting strategies or traditions. In no way do I accept violence with children, but I don't accept either, that all physical aggression meets the standard to be defined as violence. Everybody has to measure this with their own moral compass, but do so with caution. Claiming authority over other people's morals is puritan behavior unless the child is in danger. And it's very open to dispute when that level is breached, so be careful. Don't be a bull in somebody elses family China Shop.

Oh, I remember so fondly, lol, pushing my parents to the point of spanking me to see how far I could get them to go before they put there foot down. They' try to reason with me, but I wasn't interested in reason. I just wanted to test boundaries. I don't remember every thinking a spanking was abusive when given to me. I remember thinking, "shit", I guess this is where the line is drawn in my disobedience. That's only my perspective. My sister and I would giggle, and sneak out of our rooms and crawl down the hallway to peek at the late night television my parents were trying to watch in peace, and as husband and wife, and they'd keep telling us to get back to bed. We'd retreat and then like little buttheads we would giggle and keep scootching down the hall. Shit, man, we knew we were testing them, and we knew what was coming. I often think my mother was right, in reflection. She'd finally end up saying "It looks like you need your nightly spanking before you can fall asleep" Why we didn't listen is probably becaue we were very curious on testing boundaries. I've tested boundaries my whole life. That's me. I've never feared my parents. I mean we'd keep doing the same stuff and trying to test, test, test, and we were stubborn, and in no way interested in a lecture about why we should do this or that. We thought that boring. We just wanted to find the edges of what we could get away with. I've talked to so many people that remember the same thing. And in the common family it seems that most people remember that when they were kids they also weren't looking for lectures, or truths. They were looking for boundaries to work. And as I, most of them don't remember there parents in fear, although when they tested the boundary to the point of finding it, they'd run like hell from the coming spanking, lol. But THEN proceed to fight the next small battle of will. Kids have will too, y'know...

So, here's the question: Do other people recognize income mobility? Everybody can see the inequality, but do they think it is static? Why? What do you folks think? I see mobility, and want to find my way into the 1%, if only to fall down from it a month later because something. And, a hypothesis: Socialists, Anarcho or otherwise, do not think the individual has any mobility of income. Does that resonate, and/or make sense? Am I being Capt. Obvious? You are SO correct as far as I can tell. Money is NOT equality. In fact money reflects power.

I gave you the definition of a state and I am referring to anarchism as the belief that humans can and should live without a state as I defined it. Not without "rulers" as you broadly define them as anyone who has more power than anyone else. If you are saying that you believe there will always be some people with some degree of power more than others, that's fine. You may be right. What is being discussed in this thread is whether we can live without a state, not whether we can live without someone with some power which you call a "ruler". If you disagree with that definition of anarchy then we are just discussing two different things. What I and others here are talking about is whether we can live without a formal, organized state. Do you think we can or not? Not "rulers" of any kind however you define it. Do you think humans can live without a formal, organized, centralized government? Well, okay then. Since Stefan's definition of Anarchy (as stated over and over by himself) is a society without rulers I will accept that you disagree with him on what Anarchy means. Maybe you'r right. Maybe he distorted the meaning. I will concede then, that I'm disagreeing with Stefan's definition of Anarchy, so I guess we can move on from there. I wasn't aware that you don't agree with him on what Anarchy is. Even then, though, you haven't met the bar of being able to determine at all when a powerful group of people gets the priveledge of being called The State. The most powerful of any tribe, or group, city, Country, area, flock, etc... is The State, unless you have a magic way to decipher what makes powerful people "organized" Organized doesn't have a size to it. It has the element of cooperation, or working together. Obviously a group that controls others by its very essence would be "organized" irregaurdless of its size, shape, costumes, titles, etc.... so I argue that the most powerful group in any area is the State. Since the size of an area is abstract in determining what constitutes a State (unless you can point it out, factually) than what I'm saying is definitely applicable to the term State.

that about sums it up. Everyone else is saying "Quit equivocating" and he says NO U. Not much happening in this thread, just ambigious amphigory. Well said, Scout. Move on, then. I'm sorry I don't want to be your friend, but you are abusive so I called you a dick. You didn't care enough as a "friend" to watch my content before dismissing it, AND you proclaimed it, so yeah. I'm not going to give you undue respect.

You're going to have to take a real and honest stand, because you're faultering on anarchy's concepts. Anarchy is society without rulers. There is no evidence in natural science of a time when humans were equal, and when there wasn't a dominant member of the tribe that set the conditions for the rest to follow. No evidence. So when has Anarchy existed? It's a faith based concept that requires a belief in "some" future ability to do what science itself has never shown to exist in nature of humans, or any other life form for that matter. Competition is the method of all evolution, and all biologic subjects. We can't escape that. Competition admits to winners and losers, OBVIOUSLY, so the more consistent, or dominantly the winner wins, the more he will become " The State ". It doesn't matter thay you want to now call it some kind of vaguely decided "organized" State. That's disingenous. I showed you the dictionary definition of a state. Simply having someone in a tribe who is more or less dominant does not constitute a state. You would not find anyone of any credibility who would claim humans had states before the rise of civilization 10,000 years ago. You are continuing to twist the definition of state that we are using here to try to make it far more broad than it is. Tribes are absolutely not considered states. You can have an extended family of 30 or 40 or 50 people that live in close vicinity (which is basically what a tribe is up to maybe 200 people). If they have one or two people who are dominant in the group, does that family become a state? If you say yes then you have lost all credibility on this issue. A state is more complex than just having some people naturally be dominant within a group of people. As the definitions I showed you make clear, states are "organized." They are not casual or loose situations where someone just happens to have more influence. States are organized intentionally for the express purpose of governing. I don't know if this will sway you one bit (or if you can be swayed since you may just be playing around here) but this is so much the case that Wikipedia's page on this definition of a state has an entire section expressly confirming this. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)#Pre-historic_stateless_societies "For most of human history, people have lived in stateless societies, characterized by a lack of concentrated authority, and the absence of large inequalities in economic and political power." And... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)#History "The first known states were created in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, the Americas (e.g. Aztec civilization, Inca civilization) and others, but it is only in relatively modern times that states have almost completely displaced alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies all over the planet" This is such basic information that it's hard to imagine you don't know it. If not, then hopefully this clarifies for you. If you already know this and are continuing to argue then there is little left to say about it. And if you are going to try to claim Wikipedia is not a solid reference, just know that first of all some of these things have other references linked from wikipedia, but more importantly this is anthropology and political science 101 and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone of even the least credibility that would question it because these are definitional issues. Tribes are by definition NOT states. Clans are by definition NOT states. States are defined specifically to require formal, organized, centralized power precisely to distinguish them from these other models. It's truly hard to believe you're even arguing these points. For you to try and suggest that States only "could" be recognized as organized because of matching costumes, or metal badges, than you're WAY conditioned by The State. For all biologic, scientific, history that is documented BY scientists, there has never been a species that didn't act in accord with competition. The winners ALWAYS dominated/dominate, and who ELSE do you suggest becomes the STATE, but those most dominant. THIS IS SCIENCE. You can get rid of the white house, but you can not get rid of the winners, the most influencial, powerful, THEREFOR they will still be the STATE. Maybe not organized as you would deem appropriate, but they would still form and create the condition of all the people in it's reach. That is still, going to be the STATE. You'll still hate that element no matter what society happens. They will be the thorn in any proposed "moral" way that others want to live. There's complete evidence of that, and none of any period where people didn't win or lose, and didn't have the biggest winners create the biggest impact on the people. That is STILL the state. And those dicks will always be THE STATE, because their power comes from the ability to not bog themselves down with morals when gaining influence. Look at the government. It's funny because Stef and I agree that when you try and alter The State it doesn't work because the same dicks will find a way to rule in the new State. He fails to take the next appropriate step and observation. That is that you can remove the State all together, and those same dickheads will still find a way to rule in that environment as well. Why he can't accept this fact is beyyyyyyyond me.... So, Anarchy just isn't reality. Oh, how I wanted it to be, but facts are facts, and we grow and move on. The best we can be to ourselves is completely honest and ready to throw out failed concepts, and adopt more accurate philosophies. You seem to be under a couple illusions: 1) You seem to think that anarchists are not only saying we can live without a state, but that nobody will ever have more power than anyone else. This is false. Anarchists are defined as people who believe we can live without a state, period. There can be differences in power. That doesn't make it a state. Maybe some people have the idea that there can be total perfect equality, but they would be called something like Egalitarians. Anarchists do not have to believe any such thing. 2) You seem to think that because differences in power have, in recent years, sometimes eventually led to states that having differences in power is the same as having a state. It is not. Once again, stateless societies did not always have perfect equality. That did not make them states or equivalent to states. You can have differences of power within a state, as well as without a state. If you think that the existence of differences in power is the same as having a state then you have made up your own definition of what a state is and there is no basis for communication. No No No. Anarchy is a society without RULERS. Don't go changing the meaning of Anarchy. There have always been the most dominant, thus there have always been rulers. You're really going to have to crush anarchy down to such a narrow definition at this point to still accept it's principles, because you would have to decide just what constitutes an organized ruling class. As far as size, is that what matters to you? Can it be 2 dominant people in a 5 person society on an island, or does that somehow not reach the adequate value. 1000 people? 10000000 people? When? At the smallest and biggest corners of society there are "rulers" or those who "rule" So anarchy just doesn't exist. However if you cannot convince me that you have the moral, logical, and scientific capacity to somehow declare at what level somebody is to be called a ruler, than the STATE has always existed. Do the math. Anarchy is a faith based philosophy based on it's own contorted moral projections on how things should be. But like religions, the God of Anarcism, lol, is NO WHERE to be found, if there have always been rulers in every society. And there always have, since there have always been the dominant and more influencial, popular, members of that society. OF COURSE THEY RULE. By the very nature that they are more dominant, they rule. Otherwize you wouldn't be able to detect their dominance? To say that all people will be equal, which is EXACTLY what anarchy would require to not have ANY member rule over ANY other member, is quite insane, actually. It's a little like talking to Christians and being frustrated about their vail that prevents them past a certain obvious truth for whatever reason. It's understandable, but once they're exposed to the truth there is no excuse for them to keep believing in what is false. Most still hang on for dear life, but I think that's sad.

You're going to have to take a real and honest stand, because you're faultering on anarchy's concepts. Anarchy is society without rulers. There is no evidence in natural science of a time when humans were equal, and when there wasn't a dominant member of the tribe that set the conditions for the rest to follow. No evidence. So when has Anarchy existed? It's a faith based concept that requires a belief in "some" future ability to do what science itself has never shown to exist in nature of humans, or any other life form for that matter. Competition is the method of all evolution, and all biologic subjects. We can't escape that. Competition admits to winners and losers, OBVIOUSLY, so the more consistent, or dominantly the winner wins, the more he will become " The State ". It doesn't matter thay you want to now call it some kind of vaguely decided "organized" State. That's disingenous. I showed you the dictionary definition of a state. Simply having someone in a tribe who is more or less dominant does not constitute a state. You would not find anyone of any credibility who would claim humans had states before the rise of civilization 10,000 years ago. You are continuing to twist the definition of state that we are using here to try to make it far more broad than it is. Tribes are absolutely not considered states. You can have an extended family of 30 or 40 or 50 people that live in close vicinity (which is basically what a tribe is up to maybe 200 people). If they have one or two people who are dominant in the group, does that family become a state? If you say yes then you have lost all credibility on this issue. A state is more complex than just having some people naturally be dominant within a group of people. As the definitions I showed you make clear, states are "organized." They are not casual or loose situations where someone just happens to have more influence. States are organized intentionally for the express purpose of governing. I don't know if this will sway you one bit (or if you can be swayed since you may just be playing around here) but this is so much the case that Wikipedia's page on this definition of a state has an entire section expressly confirming this. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)#Pre-historic_stateless_societies "For most of human history, people have lived in stateless societies, characterized by a lack of concentrated authority, and the absence of large inequalities in economic and political power." And... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)#History "The first known states were created in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, the Americas (e.g. Aztec civilization, Inca civilization) and others, but it is only in relatively modern times that states have almost completely displaced alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies all over the planet" This is such basic information that it's hard to imagine you don't know it. If not, then hopefully this clarifies for you. If you already know this and are continuing to argue then there is little left to say about it. And if you are going to try to claim Wikipedia is not a solid reference, just know that first of all some of these things have other references linked from wikipedia, but more importantly this is anthropology and political science 101 and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone of even the least credibility that would question it because these are definitional issues. Tribes are by definition NOT states. Clans are by definition NOT states. States are defined specifically to require formal, organized, centralized power precisely to distinguish them from these other models. It's truly hard to believe you're even arguing these points. For you to try and suggest that States only "could" be recognized as organized because of matching costumes, or metal badges, than you're WAY conditioned by The State. For all biologic, scientific, history that is documented BY scientists, there has never been a species that didn't act in accord with competition. The winners ALWAYS dominated/dominate, and who ELSE do you suggest becomes the STATE, but those most dominant. THIS IS SCIENCE. You can get rid of the white house, but you can not get rid of the winners, the most influencial, powerful, THEREFOR they will still be the STATE. Maybe not organized as you would deem appropriate, but they would still form and create the condition of all the people in it's reach. That is still, going to be the STATE. You'll still hate that element no matter what society happens. They will be the thorn in any proposed "moral" way that others want to live. There's complete evidence of that, and none of any period where people didn't win or lose, and didn't have the biggest winners create the biggest impact on the people. That is STILL the state. And those dicks will always be THE STATE, because their power comes from the ability to not bog themselves down with morals when gaining influence. Look at the government. It's funny because Stef and I agree that when you try and alter The State it doesn't work because the same dicks will find a way to rule in the new State. He fails to take the next appropriate step and observation. That is that you can remove the State all together, and those same dickheads will still find a way to rule in that environment as well. Why he can't accept this fact is beyyyyyyyond me.... So, Anarchy just isn't reality. Oh, how I wanted it to be, but facts are facts, and we grow and move on. The best we can be to ourselves is completely honest and ready to throw out failed concepts, and adopt more accurate philosophies.

You're going to have to take a real and honest stand, because you're faultering on anarchy's concepts. Anarchy is society without rulers. There is no evidence in natural science of a time when humans were equal, and when there wasn't a dominant member of the tribe that set the conditions for the rest to follow. No evidence. So when has Anarchy existed? It's a faith based concept that requires a belief in "some" future ability to do what science itself has never shown to exist in nature of humans, or any other life form for that matter. Competition is the method of all evolution, and all biologic subjects. We can't escape that. Competition admits to winners and losers, OBVIOUSLY, so the more consistent, or dominantly the winner wins, the more he will become " The State ". It doesn't matter thay you want to now call it some kind of vaguely decided "organized" State. That's disingenous.

I didn't mince definitions. They were separated, but combined as a motif of commonality in principle. The state of human nature is no different than in all other life forms. Those with influece create the state we live under in cultures. They call that The State. You call that the State. Even using or interchanging all said definitions of State works well in any scenario of my argument, and that's the point. You can change the state, but you will have another state in it's place. Wheter or not you want to call that dominant principle that guides the people within it a State or not, it is STILL the group that creates the state you live in. The conditions. So the word State is definitely appropriate when describing a condition created by a force of nature. So since (like all lifeforms) there are dominant and submissive humans, the dominant will create the "state" that the rest live in. They are The State. It's eloquent that these conditioning bodies are calle States because it reflects the reality of nature, and the natural impact of all physical and conscious matter. I'm not fucking around with terms, here. You can choose any definition you want out of all of the ones you find for State, and I'll stand by what I say, at any point in what I've said, in any variation or combination you choose. It was a diligent excersise and I don't appreciate that you don't give me the credit to not only see the obvious rebuttal I expected, but to know me by now that my observations are deeper than shallow word games. Words are important to me. They have meanings. Why do you think they call the ruling powers of the world States?, come on.... What they state creates the State. The State is the condition that we live in/under. People with power are no different than any other natural force of nature. You can't weed them out. THAT requires evidence that you would have to provide. There have always been leaders, rulers, dominant subjects that create the conditions for those that live in their State. They create the State you live in. Like I said, I stand by any configuration you want to apply of the word State in my argument. I know better than to use parlor tricks. I don't fool myself. It's a solid observation, but YOU have to be rigorous and give it a tough look if you don't agree, or at least a solid retort. Not just that I'm conflating, which just insults my intelligence frankly. I mean, shit, Stef is the conflation master. Just look at how he redefines predefined words. I just don't do that, and I don't like it.

okay. Here is the tightened film on my current thoughts about Anarchy vs. The State as a concept within reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bgjA_-OXx0

very false. Predictibly false. But considering your lack of rigor, in at least trying to know what you are replying to, you probably run into the same issues all the time. Sorry, but it's dickish that you commented based on NOT watching the whole video, so you wont get any manners from me, lol. Sir, it was me who watched a few minutes of the video. I'm the 'dickish' one. I stopped when i heard the following Equivocation is all it is, and it ain't worth any more time than 1:49 to understand that. I am sorry you couldn't hold my attention, but that is because of the content you provided. It was illogcal. Call me Spock, but that's a deal breaker, presenting logical fallacies and expecting to be taken seriously. If you want to equivocate, do it in private, out of the view of the children. Oh, it doesn't matter to me if you cant digest it, but anyhow, I recut the video to get rid of a whole lot of redundancy. It's tighter now so maybe less of a struggle to follow. I'm taking the 17 minute version down because I say the word state about 150 times, lol. But you haven't even remotely rebutted my argument in the video. I'm using the word state for it's proper definitions at all times in my arguments and you can take that to the bank, refute it, etc... And remember, in case you don't know me as well as others round here, I don't mind people who disagree. I'm not like, trying to change the world. These are merely my observations, and I put my thoughts through quite a lot of testing before I announce them. There hasn't been a proper rebuttal yet, and I'm totally aware of it and satisfied so far.

very false. Predictibly false. But considering your lack of rigor, in at least trying to know what you are replying to, you probably run into the same issues all the time. Sorry, but it's dickish that you commented based on NOT watching the whole video, so you wont get any manners from me, lol.

I read the first 4 words of your reply. Will you not address the comment? It's hard to address the first 4 words of your comment. Then let me be so bold as to offer my conclusion to the sum of our interactions. Your objective is not the truth. Your objective is not precision in language or clarity in thought. Your objective is to equivocate, to obscure, and to dominate the conversation. This conversation is your will to power. Look, kid. I read the first 3 words of your reply this time. Next time I'm going to skip over you completely. Why the hell would I converse with a guy who is as insulting as you, that you comment based on 2 minutes of a 17 minute video?

I read the first 4 words of your reply. Will you not address the comment? It's hard to address the first 4 words of your comment.

But it shouldn't be Conan. He's fictional. Right now, maybe a picture of Ben B. That would be more realistic. Other than that, I think you have it right, although recognizing the State and what it is, is an important place to begin.

I read the first 4 words of your reply.

So your argument is that The State, i.e. government, is as permanent as physical laws, or that The State is a law of human nature? This video I made with Geared Movies explains my thoughts on "The State" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEJZrVcO_yg

Can you clarify your position?

Well put, and I notice it too.

You've made very astute and interesting points. If all that is "is" God, and has consciousness, and control, then all that is contains God's presense. I think there are a few passages in the Bible that even refer to your point, which even strengthens your perspective. I mean it's eloquent as an explanation and (I wish I could remember those passages. I'll try and find them) it is really powerful in what the meaning is. I'm not going to rebut it since I quite like where you've gone so far, so I'll just keep watching the thread unfold. However, if God is in everything I want to look at everything. The nature of God can be seen that way, at least on the scale we can possibly know him by. So my tentative conclusion would be that since we can see the nature of "God" by evaluating nature, we can tell that God is probably very into competition and not so into equality.

Interesting. But a fire does have a surface, although the surface is changing all the time. Or not. Good stuff. Thanks.