HIya Brim.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:37 pm
You're actually arguing that it's better for a person to have
no regard for non-aggression, rather than to apply it in the "limited" capacity of the
totality of humanity!
Not what I said. Reread my post more carefully.
This is what you said:
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Trying to apply the NAP selectively can easily be worse than not applying it at all.
This is a concise description of the point you've been making; I don't see the misunderstanding.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Non-sentient beings have no interests against which you may aggress. Aggression against them doesn't mean anything even to them.
This is an unfounded assertion. We do not fully understand the life principle, or the fundamental nature of reality. A tree is obviously going to great lengths to grow and survive, so aggression against it can be said to be in defiance of some manner of will and interest. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt for your assertion, and one who claims to care so deeply about such matters should likely err on the side of caution.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:37 pmAnd anyone
already can arbitrarily exclude anyone they don't like -- there's nothing stopping them -- that's just the nature of reality;
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
If everybody truly accepted the NAP...
Utopian. Not all people will, and that's their choice. To establish a violent institution to impose one group's will upon another is a denial of man's inherent freedom. It's immoral and short-sighted to develop solutions based upon such a denial. All systems which attempt to homogenize human will are in direct violation of reality, and are doomed to be unsatisfying at best, and disastrous at worst.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Oh, so you were just being dishonest and making an argument you don't actually believe in for the purpose of deceiving people into accepting your political views.
No. It's been well-established that I personally hold to the NAP in regard to humanity (and in most other cases, except for food), and the majority of others would like to do so also (at least in some capacity). This provides common ground for initiating discussions about government. Also, anarchism is not a political position, just as atheism is not a religion. I am denying government's right to rule (as well as its practical value), not suggesting a new system to replace it. The position is anti-political by definition.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Human thought isn't wholly subjective, that's a ridiculous assertion... Human thought can be affected by some bias, which is subjective... What you are saying is a denial of the validity of logic and science, you may just be too ignorant of what these things actually mean to realize it...
Ok, so let's establish some definitions via the dictionary:
Subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.
Please explain how human thought is not wholly "existing in the mind" and "belonging to the thinking subject"? And yes, bias is subjective (because it is thought), but the term "subjectivity" is not limited to this characteristic, though many people use it synonymously.
Logic:
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference; the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
Please explain how inference, reasoning, knowledge and study are not functions of thought; and how principles regarding the function of a wholly subjective phenomenon can be anything but subjective? Again, this does not deny logic's validity as a means of governing the subjective phenomenon of thought. What's being challenged is the assertion that logic is objective, when 100% of its apprehension, expression and application is subjective.
Science:
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
And again, we have knowledge, observation and experimentation -- all subjective phenomena. The argument made for logic also applies here.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Who stops people from building those thrones, exactly?
Obviously no one. However, I am suggesting that people build them from a series of false premises. More importantly, they may choose to build whatever they want, but imposing their creation upon the unwilling is aggression.
I heard an interesting point made once: Why not have elected officials only apply their laws to the individuals who voted them into power? As rational as this seems, it's ridiculous due to its redundancy. People don't need violence-backed laws to make them do what they are already willing to do. Laws are only needed to impose the desires of the willing upon the
unwilling. Thus government is revealed to be either unnecessary (in the case of the willing), or immoral (in the case of the unwilling). There is no sound moral logic to it whatever, as its relationship with every citizen is inappropriate. How can this be justified?
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
It's harder for one group to take over, but much easier for many small groups (tribes) to gain power and return to a state of tribal or feudal war.
So be it. Anarchy does not solve the human tendency to commit violence, but neither does government, and the latter also exacerbates it to an astonishing degree. Tribes do not have the resources to drop a bomb on Hiroshima. Nor do they typically have the inclination, as their concerns are generally localized. And how many people in your town do you suppose have a viable war agenda? Even most extremists are only looking to dictate their own lives, not march off to war. What's more, such wars would expose the aggressor to direct violence and loss (a huge deterrent). The risk/reward of war is much different for government; politicians risk nothing and are always rewarded with greater riches and power, win or lose. They make war
for this very reason!
Whatever your opinion, everyone would benefit from reading "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, if you haven't already. It's short, interesting and entertaining, and he is a very credible speaker on the topic.
Audiobook is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI3lckqaSk0
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Of course you would ignore the root cause and assert your band-aid non-solution instead. You can't get rid of the government without getting rid of group thinking. Government will always form when people create in-groups and organize to protect themselves...
It's not a non-solution. The cause of a bee sting is the bee. The sting can only be expressed, however, if you go near the bee. Destroying all bees is a solution, but so is not going near bees. The former is nigh-onto impossible (like expecting the NAP to be accepted by everyone), the latter is practical, intuitive and effective (like letting natural human individuality to remain intact without the artificial implementation of a ruling class).
Plus, group thinking need not lead to government. A corporation is group thinking "personified", and is entirely voluntary. Organization and hierarchy are not synonymous with government. They are differentiated by the factor of consent. A voluntary society can organize, follow leaders, pool resources, have a defensive force, etc., but their leaders do not claim any rights that the people don't have themselves (namely to dictate laws under threat of violence); nor does their defensive force (making them more like paid Guardian Angels, rather than police). The only thing we loose with anarchy is an oppressive, immorally violent leech on top of our otherwise fruitful efforts. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
...we need government (the lesser evil) to prevent people like you from harming others, and prevent deterioration into tribal warfare. Sometimes government goes very wrong, but it's a side effect if we want to protect others overall. On average, violence is declining even despite the few mishaps.
What harm are you suggesting "people like me" create? The only harm I have been accurately accused of is carnism, and the government does not prevent this, in fact, it encourages it. You think government prevents crime better than an armed anarchist society? How's the war on drugs going? All crime associated with drugs is a direct
result of the laws that created a black market. Do you see liquor store owners shooting each other? Booze dealers trying to sell vodka to your kids at the park? People having their door smashed down and serving ten years in prison for having a lot of whiskey in their house? Of course not. Liquor is legal, and has a peaceful market (except for the few years directly corresponding to the prohibition era... how coincidental!)
Government does not
sometimes go very wrong -- it is inherently an institution of immoral violence. What else does it do, besides dictate commands and enforce them with theft, kidnapping, aggression, and murder? Does it pay for anything? Does it organize anything? Does it actually DO anything? No. It taxes, delegates to organizers in the respective fields, and employs workers to perform the labor. The people are
already doing everything themselves! All politicians do is skim off the top for their own lavish lifestyles, artificially direct business to cronies (complete with ridiculously jacked up prices), harass the citizens over victimless crimes, allow corporations to abuse people via legislation and loopholes (while tying the citizens' hands to do anything about it), and make wars which kill millions of citizens, but almost never harm the ruling class. These are
not "mishaps."
Ask peaceful middle-eastern citizens if violence is going down. Ask people getting beat up and shot by cops, or the millions who are locked up in prison for victimless crimes. Purse-snatchings are down in the suburbs, so we're doing great? Come on... talk about arbitrary in-groups. Government-related violence destroys more lives than anything else -- by an obscene margin -- and your willful ignorance of this fact is precisely the thing you slam meat-eaters for. Really think about it.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Most people don't care as long as it's not direct, or they don't care enough to do anything about it.
You're right. That's a much more concise way of saying it.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
That's what constitutions and civil rights are for. When they start prying, we need to push back.
But that door needs to stay cracked, or we'll all suffocate as the world deteriorates into tribal warfare because people like you refuse to respect the NAP...
Tribal warfare and chaos... like Mad Max or The Purge! The world isn't going to disappear and be replaced with patch-wearing anarchists hanging off the side of scrap-built pick-up trucks. Apple will still be making iphones, people will still be watching Game of Thrones, shopping at the mall, and going to the park with their kids.
We already live with de facto anarchy most of the time. If you think words on paper are what's keeping everyone from going crazy, you've lost it! And I don't think you've lost it. I think you, like myself for most of my life, have bought into government propaganda -- a lie, accepted and repeated everywhere you turn, in both subtle and overt ways. Like V for Vendetta -- "I want everyone to remember why they need
us!"
We
don't need them. The citizenry lives in harmony the overwhelming majority of the time, of their
own accord. Many of them will be free to carry firearms, and will help if there's trouble. Cops who got into the job to help people will be freed to actually do so as privately contracted defenders, and the free market system will handle the rest.
If the constitution and bill of rights is a valid protection, why has it failed so dismally? The constitution has a fundamental fatal flaw in its programming. If you reboot it, it will simply express the same malfunctions again and again. It establishes a ruling class. That will
always lead to slavery, just like it has every single time it's been tried, because it is the
very nature of the thing.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
The trick is having such an overwhelming majority who support the NAP that the one in a million who don't can't do more harm than government would. As it stands, most anarchists I've talked to eat meat and don't really care about the NAP.
Most people DO respect the NAP -- at least as applied to humans. And usually to animals too, just not in relation to their food. And to even suggest that the "one in a million" can do harm
anywhere near what government does on an hourly basis is enough to make one's brain short circuit.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Voting for the lesser of two evils is not a violation of the NAP, it does not fuel government or make it worse.
Paying your taxes could be argued to be a violation. Do you pay taxes, or... collect welfare...?
Yes, the tax issue is a prevalent example; I think many agree with us on this point, but they have been taught to believe that government has an exception from morality. I would not accept stolen money in the form of welfare, btw. Voting literally fuels government because it is an explicit acceptance of taxation, which is the lifeblood of the enterprise. Voting is an acknowledgment and advocacy of the ruling class' power. How could condoning and financially supporting something not exacerbate it?
Now, we return to the crux of the entire discussion...
I've explained how voting (or any support of government) is a direct violation of the NAP, and you have not specifically addressed it. I do not kill animals myself, but I support their murder by eating meat, right? So how is voting any different? You KNOW they will commit violence, and you are pushing a button that says "As
my representative, go do it on
my behalf."
You can ignore everything else I've said, but you
must satisfactorily address this question in order to maintain your status as both a supporter of government AND a supporter of the NAP.