nickhk Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 If I'm understanding this correctly, you're describing the a state(s) that governs things like gravity, the speed of light, atomic interactions, erosion, bacteria, blood circulation, how fire burns, migratory patterns of geese, and everything, practically. If that is the case, then the state you're talking about isn't equivalent to the state as conventionally talked about at FDR. You're talking about every kind of state, and saying it's exactly the same as a bunch of humans pointing guns at other humans. Why use such a broad definition?
Rick Horton Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 If I'm understanding this correctly, you're describing the a state(s) that governs things like gravity, the speed of light, atomic interactions, erosion, bacteria, blood circulation, how fire burns, migratory patterns of geese, and everything, practically. If that is the case, then the state you're talking about isn't equivalent to the state as conventionally talked about at FDR. You're talking about every kind of state, and saying it's exactly the same as a bunch of humans pointing guns at other humans. Why use such a broad definition? The STATE is merely "one" state that exists regardless of what a person wishes. And that State that is caused by humans is the State I'm talking about. It's a reflection of reality. There are many states in reality, and we are ruled by them. There are many states in humanity caused by the influence of powerful men. That state is The State, as reflected by it's obvious influencial nature as with all other states in reality.
Guest NateC Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 The STATE is merely "one" state that exists regardless of what a person wishes. And that State that is caused by humans is the State I'm talking about. It's a reflection of reality. There are many states in reality, and we are ruled by them. There are many states in humanity caused by the influence of powerful men. That state is The State, as reflected by it's obvious influencial nature as with all other states in reality. 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?
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 The STATE is merely "one" state that exists regardless of what a person wishes. And that State that is caused by humans is the State I'm talking about. It's a reflection of reality. There are many states in reality, and we are ruled by them. There are many states in humanity caused by the influence of powerful men. That state is The State, as reflected by it's obvious influencial nature as with all other states in reality. 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
lyghtningrod Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I listened to the first couple minutes of the video. Your arguments rests on equivocation. You are conflating the meaning of state as "the condition of a thing at a given time" with the meaning of state as "a nation or territory considered as an organized polititical unit"
Arius Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I call it "Big Brother Conan". It's rare that I'm inspired, by an argument, to create art. Thank you for that. "Ethics ... is survival of the fittest." "There will always be a will to power" "every move you make happens in a society under the umbrella of the State" "There is always a State." - Moncaloono
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I listened to the first couple minutes of the video. Your arguments rests on equivocation. You are conflating the meaning of state as "the condition of a thing at a given time" with the meaning of state as "a nation or territory considered as an organized polititical unit" I read the first 4 words of your reply.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I call it "Big Brother Conan". It's rare that I'm inspired, by an argument, to create art. Thank you for that. "Ethics ... is survival of the fittest." "There will always be a will to power" "every move you make happens in a society under the umbrella of the State" "There is always a State." - Moncaloono 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.
Guest NateC Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I listened to the first couple minutes of the video. Your arguments rests on equivocation. You are conflating the meaning of state as "the condition of a thing at a given time" with the meaning of state as "a nation or territory considered as an organized polititical unit" I read the first 4 words of your reply. Will you not address the comment?
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I listened to the first couple minutes of the video. Your arguments rests on equivocation. You are conflating the meaning of state as "the condition of a thing at a given time" with the meaning of state as "a nation or territory considered as an organized polititical unit" 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.
Guest NateC Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I listened to the first couple minutes of the video. Your arguments rests on equivocation. You are conflating the meaning of state as "the condition of a thing at a given time" with the meaning of state as "a nation or territory considered as an organized polititical unit" 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.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I listened to the first couple minutes of the video. Your arguments rests on equivocation. You are conflating the meaning of state as "the condition of a thing at a given time" with the meaning of state as "a nation or territory considered as an organized polititical unit" 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?
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Is my conclusion true or false? 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.
lyghtningrod Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Cute. So, if you start with a logical fallacy, all that follows is illogical. Why should I address the arguments of a logical fallacy? They are by definition fallacious. It's a waste of time to address a fallacy as if it matters. Just point out the fallacy and let the chips fall where they may.
lyghtningrod Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Is my conclusion true or false? 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 The state is the body that conditions the behaviors of its people and I think, beyond people all things have states...even rocks have states." 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.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Is my conclusion true or false? 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 The state is the body that conditions the behaviors of its people and I think, beyond people all things have states...even rocks have states." 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.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 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
STer Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 It's hard to take this seriously when you've based an entire argument on simply purposely using a different definition of "the state" than everyone else is talking about, especially when I'm sure you realize you're doing that. As you surely realize, everyone else in this thread is discussing this state: "the body politic as organized for civil rule and government" and probably even more specifically this "the operations or activities of a central civil government" You seem to be talking about a number of other definitions of state. So the issue in this thread is whether humans can live without a centralized body politic organized for civil rule and government. It is a fact that for well over 99% of human existence, we did just that. If you want to discuss whether humans can live without states of matter or any other definitions of state, that is a completely other discussion. But again, I'm almost certain you know that and are just doing this anyway.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 It's hard to take this seriously when you've based an entire argument on simply purposely using a different definition of "the state" than everyone else is talking about, especially when I'm sure you realize you're doing that. As you surely realize, everyone else in this thread is discussing this state: "the body politic as organized for civil rule and government" and probably even more specifically this "the operations or activities of a central civil government" You seem to be talking about a number of other definitions of state. So the issue in this thread is whether humans can live without a centralized body politic organized for civil rule and government. It is a fact that for well over 99% of human existence, we did just that. If you want to discuss whether humans can live without states of matter or any other definitions of state, that is a completely other discussion. But again, I'm almost certain you know that and are just doing this anyway. 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.
STer Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with claiming humans can live without any forces of any kind having influence or control over their lives. It is only about claiming they can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way. Do you believe humans have lived without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? The fact is that was the case for most of human existence. Do you believe humans can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? That's a reasonable question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any other forces of nature that you're trying to bring up. Do you believe humans should attempt to live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? If so, you are an anarchist. If not, then you aren't.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with claiming humans can live without any forces of any kind having influence or control over their lives. It is only about claiming they can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way. Do you believe humans have lived without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? The fact is that was the case for most of human existence. Do you believe humans can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? That's a reasonable question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any other forces of nature that you're trying to bring up. Do you believe humans should attempt to live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? If so, you are an anarchist. If not, then you aren't. 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.
STer Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with claiming humans can live without any forces of any kind having influence or control over their lives. It is only about claiming they can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way. Do you believe humans have lived without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? The fact is that was the case for most of human existence. Do you believe humans can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? That's a reasonable question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any other forces of nature that you're trying to bring up. Do you believe humans should attempt to live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? If so, you are an anarchist. If not, then you aren't. 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.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with claiming humans can live without any forces of any kind having influence or control over their lives. It is only about claiming they can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way. Do you believe humans have lived without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? The fact is that was the case for most of human existence. Do you believe humans can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? That's a reasonable question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any other forces of nature that you're trying to bring up. Do you believe humans should attempt to live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? If so, you are an anarchist. If not, then you aren't. 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.
STer Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with claiming humans can live without any forces of any kind having influence or control over their lives. It is only about claiming they can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way. Do you believe humans have lived without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? The fact is that was the case for most of human existence. Do you believe humans can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? That's a reasonable question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any other forces of nature that you're trying to bring up. Do you believe humans should attempt to live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? If so, you are an anarchist. If not, then you aren't. 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.
Rick Horton Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with claiming humans can live without any forces of any kind having influence or control over their lives. It is only about claiming they can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way. Do you believe humans have lived without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? The fact is that was the case for most of human existence. Do you believe humans can live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? That's a reasonable question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any other forces of nature that you're trying to bring up. Do you believe humans should attempt to live without an organized group of their fellow humans asserting authority over them in a formal, centralized way? If so, you are an anarchist. If not, then you aren't. 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.
STer Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 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. 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?
STer Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 And if you look at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism the first sentence is: Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. And "the state" links to the page I was showing you before. So if you think I'm "changing the meaning of anarchy" then I would have to disagree and say you are the one changing the meaning of it. I think you're mixing up the etymology of the word from what it means. Lots of words, if you go back to the Greek or Latin roots, come from certain meanings but that's no longer their meaning now. It may be that anarchism comes from root words that in their original languages meant 'without rulers." But that is not what the word means in modern English. Anarchism now refers to the belief in not having a state. Perhaps you've been misunderstanding that and it explains the confusion.
lyghtningrod Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 He called me a 'dickie' and said "Oh, it doesn't matter to me if you cant digest it" I wonder if he thinks that's how you win friends and influence people. 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. 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.
Rick Horton Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 He called me a 'dickie' and said "Oh, it doesn't matter to me if you cant digest it" I wonder if he thinks that's how you win friends and influence people. 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. 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.
nickhk Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 I'm going back to the regularly scheduled topic, Income inequality vs Income Mobility. Join me if you like. After all, it's why I came here to begin with, maybe the same for you fine folks. Short story to get the ball rolling, if you'll indulge me. When I was a kid, I had this suspicion, or thought I guess, that I wanted to be rich, or have enough money. I figured money was good to the degree that I could get the stuff that I wanted with money. I would mow my grandmothers lawn for ten bucks every week or two in the summer, and buy legos and things with it. It was a big lawn around a farm house, and it would take me several hours to finish it, but ten bucks was pretty good I figured. A few kids I knew would sell gum at school, and they could make a few dollars a day doing it. I thought that was neat. I never bought any gum, because I didn't have money at school nor was I particularly interested in it. In retrospect, I might have been able to sell my lunch if I wanted money, but I wanted my lunch more and I'm not sure anyone wanted my lunch other than me. School wasn't particularly capitalistic, or I guess at all. You could buy lunch, but everyone got the same thing. Some didn't even buy it, because they had those subsidized lunch cards. I had one for a few years in elementary school. I didn't think much of it, or know why or how it worked, just that it got me lunch that other kids bought with cash. I didn't know if that was good or bad, that was just how it was. There was a vague sort of stratification in school. Some kids families had money, others didn't. That didn't change usually. It didn't change in my life. Somewhere between poor and lower middle class, which was probably prolonged by the years the mother kept dragging my father into court. From my experience, no kids had income mobility, my family certainly didn't. 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?
Rick Horton Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 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. 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.
Rick Horton Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 I'm going back to the regularly scheduled topic, Income inequality vs Income Mobility. Join me if you like. After all, it's why I came here to begin with, maybe the same for you fine folks. Short story to get the ball rolling, if you'll indulge me. When I was a kid, I had this suspicion, or thought I guess, that I wanted to be rich, or have enough money. I figured money was good to the degree that I could get the stuff that I wanted with money. I would mow my grandmothers lawn for ten bucks every week or two in the summer, and buy legos and things with it. It was a big lawn around a farm house, and it would take me several hours to finish it, but ten bucks was pretty good I figured. A few kids I knew would sell gum at school, and they could make a few dollars a day doing it. I thought that was neat. I never bought any gum, because I didn't have money at school nor was I particularly interested in it. In retrospect, I might have been able to sell my lunch if I wanted money, but I wanted my lunch more and I'm not sure anyone wanted my lunch other than me. School wasn't particularly capitalistic, or I guess at all. You could buy lunch, but everyone got the same thing. Some didn't even buy it, because they had those subsidized lunch cards. I had one for a few years in elementary school. I didn't think much of it, or know why or how it worked, just that it got me lunch that other kids bought with cash. I didn't know if that was good or bad, that was just how it was. There was a vague sort of stratification in school. Some kids families had money, others didn't. That didn't change usually. It didn't change in my life. Somewhere between poor and lower middle class, which was probably prolonged by the years the mother kept dragging my father into court. From my experience, no kids had income mobility, my family certainly didn't. 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.
STer Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 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. Obviously you're committed to stretching the definition of the state far beyond what you surely know people here are discussing regardless how much evidence is shown to you to the contrary. Even Stefan, when he says "rulers" I doubt means something as informal as "any guy in a group who happens to have a little more power or influence." He can clarify that if he wishes. There is really nothing more to be said. If you want to stretch the definition of the state that way, you can say whatever you wish. It will have little if any relevance to the discussions people here have an interest in. So I'm moving on now.
lyghtningrod Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 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. Well, what I said was your presentation was illogical, but I did care enough to watch 2 minutes of it. My question to you is "Why didn't you make a watchable video?" Isn't it sort of rude to throw out such an illogical piece of work and lure me into watchin it? Then you insult me after I've taken the time to explaiin what I felt was wrong. Pretty much everyone on this thread has said essentially the same thing, that you are equivocating, So, you ask for feedback, then insult the people who offer it I'd say you need to learn some manners. And you should learn to parse an English sentence. I never said I wanted to be your friend. As for income distribution, mine has certainly changed over the years, up one decade, down another. I prefered the 'up' times better than the down times.
Recommended Posts