a big hello


Russell

Recommended Posts

Anarchist always sounded dirty... I prefer Autokratōr (literally, self-ruler). An attempt to annex both autocrat and "autocracy" from the clutches of statists.

I dimly remember the term always referenced with Colorado Liberty (later Rampart) College and LeFevre. Someone help me out?

Anyhow, welcome to Objectivist Living. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to OL:

In what profession are you engaged in that supports the state?

Also, do you have any problem with anarcho-capitalist or ism?

Autokratōr (Greek: αὐτοκράτωρ, lit. "self-ruler", "one who rules by himself") is a Greek epithet applied to an individual who exercises absolute power, unrestrained by superiors. In a historical context, it has been applied to military commanders-in-chief, and to Roman and Byzantine emperors as the translation of the Latin title imperator. Its connotations with Byzantine-style absolutism gave rise to the modern terms autocrat and autocracy. In modern Greek, it means "emperor", and the female form of the title is autokrateira (αὐτοκράτειρα, "empress").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autokrator

Aereo, this what you were referring to?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Selene,

You ask me if I have any problem with the designation "anarcho-capitalist".

None whatsoever. I am an anarcho-capitalist. Or, if you wish, an advocate of free-market anarchism.

~Russell

Here is a better answer to you Adam.

Successful humans must guide their actions by independent, rational thinking, using it to produce the resources needed to survive. The basic social requirement for a human's survival is that other people not prevent him from acting in a rational, independent, and productive manner. Anarchism will not create or sustain a rational, viable society.

One source for my denial of Anarchy's validity is the presumption of many anarchists that their theories are exercises in rigorous, logical, almost scientific reasoning, whereas they are nothing of the sort. Anarchists tell us to read this person or that person, Rothbard or Smith, as if the magic formula can be found by reading, and then mumbling Harry Potter's words, Alohomora Cave Inimicum: "Open the strengthened door." Sorry, magic does not work in the real universe.

May I point to Atlantis, as proof that ancient civilizations once existed? Or may I claim Camelot as a wonderful Monarchy? Of course not. A basic problem with 'successful' anarchism as a valid political or scientific theory is that it has not fulfilled the requirement that you can point to it. To my knowledge you can't even point to a successful Anarchist commune.

Some Anarchist have said that Iceland was an example of a 300 year long Anarchistic society. Why is there only flimsy proof of this? They had a written history, The Sagas. Try and use that barbarian story as proof of Icelandic civilization.

So what was ancient Iceland? It was agrarian. If it had a civilization, we could plumb its depths like the ancient pyramids. The closest place and people that I can think of that has a stable society, separate from Government, is the Amish in America. Will you point to that as your realized ideal, Anarchists? You don't have anything better. I know this is psychologizing, but 'some of' the Anarchists that I have talked to are True Believers, beyond persuasion or a need for proof.

Anarchism lies within the domain of speculative philosophy. It typically presupposes the failure of all pretentious governments that claim they protect individual rights. Anarchism posits an inevitable decline from minimal government to totalitarian statism. They point at the decline of America, the best example of a Constitutional Government, as the proof. Still an anarchist can only speculate about their own success.

One more problem with Anarchy as a political theory or science is that it has not formulated any laws that are specific enough to be tested by empirical means. It can't be tested because of its lack of any universal enforcer of justice. In a random fashion, anyone is free to do whatever they want to do in an anarchy, until and unless, another anarchist persuades or forces them to stop doing it. Humans are not super rational Vulcans. Anarchy will evolve into a rights protecting Government or it will devolve into chaos, or totalitarianism.

Anarchists can no more predict human behavior in detail than can a constitutionalist, but a constitutionalist compensates for this lack. Until anarchists exhibit a superior predictive ability, one that derives from anarchistic laws of human behavior, then they are merely philosophers arguing with other philosophers. Anarchism in the realm of human action is philosophy, not science, or demonstrable fact.

It might last for a few years or for a generation, or longer like Iceland and the Amish, but no great civilization would come of Anarchy. Trading would occur but no Capitalism, nor would huge surpluses of food or materials be produced, because of the lack of lasting, legally binding contracts, that might extend across multiple generations of people.

Agrarian. Yes. Industrialized? No. Capitalism? No.

I will have not have an epiphany about the validity of Anarchy. Anarchy is not a political system; it is a psychological feeling of self-sovereignty, extending from the individual towards others. It is that feeling we have as babies and children that you may do or say whatever you want, but I will do what is right for me. Pushed into the political realm it is the overextended aspiration that the individual should determine what is right for the individual.

Would someone please point to the country of Anarchism's flag? Oh. Of course. They would not have a flag, not even a blank flag. No flag exists.

Would someone please point out Anarchism to me? Where is it? Oh. I see it! You're pointing at your head. It exists in the Anarchist's imagination.

Constitutionalism is a fact, and for all our sakes, let's fix it.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Russell:

I think we have a discussion group between the three of us. Wish Wolfe was around.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wish for the withering away of the state, just as dreamed of by Marx.

Until it does, and until humans reach the state of mind where it does not happen that they initiate force against each other, if ever, a powerful but limited government is proper for the protection of life liberty and property of individuals. If you deny this truth, you are faced with two scenarios you most likely would not like mentioned:

1) in a world where violation continues to take place, somehow wishing there were no protection for the violated is to promote atrocity;

2) if you oppose government (while awaiting your ideal human condition to arrive) then there is nothing to stop any number of groups from 'forming' their own violent enforcement units. This is also known as gang warfare.

The actual condition wished for by anarchists is void by self-definition. It is deliberately impossible, made so in the same way as 'The Big Lie' so no one will notice the bald reality: there is no human alive that can demonstrate a path, a real world practical path, from the current state of human condition to one in which no government is necessary. If there were, THAT would be the content of your philsophy -- how humanity can be transformed to that condition of mind and spirit -- not the constant harping about the evil of government.

So please lay out the new science of human transformation that will make initiation of force disappear from the face of the earth.

Edited by John Donohue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wish for the withering away of the state, just as dreamed of by Marx.

Until it does, and until humans reach the state of mind where it does not happen that they initiate force against each other, if ever, a powerful but limited government is proper for the protection of life liberty and property of individuals. If you deny this truth, you are faced with two scenarios you most likely would not like mentioned:

1) in a world where violation continues to take place, somehow wishing there were no protection for the violated is to promote atrocity;

2) if you oppose government (while awaiting your ideal human condition to arrive) then there is nothing to stop any number of groups from 'forming' their own violent enforcement units. This is also known as gang warfare.

The actual condition wished for by anarchists is void by self-definition. It is deliberately impossible, made so in the same way as 'The Big Lie' so no one will notice the bald reality: there is no human alive that can demonstrate a path, a real world practical path, from the current state of human condition to one in which no government is necessary. If there were, THAT would be the content of your philsophy -- how humanity can be transformed to that condition of mind and spirit -- not the constant harping about the evil of government.

So please lay out the new science of human transformation that will make initiation of force disappear from the face of the earth.

Welcome to OL John:

You are right. Now we have no gangs that are ravaging the communities. The government you adore has protected us so well.

"Phoenix Reels as Mexican Drug Kidnappings, Violence Grows

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:13 PM An unprecedented wave of Third World-style kidnappings by well-armed drug gangs in Phoenix has stymied city leaders and law enforcement while driving up the city’s crime rate dramatically.

Despite arrests and the dismantlement of at least 20 kidnapping “cells,” the crime wave has turned the city into the “kidnap for ransom capital” of the United States. Police say the crimes are linked to the local drug trade — the surrounding Valley of the Sun is a national distribution hub for the U.S. drug trade — but others suggest that Mexico’s narcotics war has now fully engulfed the city.

Police received 366 kidnapping-for-ransom reports last year and 359 in 2007, but authorities estimate that twice that number go unreported, according to the Los Angeles Times. In September, police spun off a separate detective unit to handle only these smuggling-related kidnappings and home-invasion robberies. Its detectives are now considered among the nation’s most expert in those crimes."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/phoenix-drug-kidnappings/2009/02/17/id/328325

Clearly, the government is the answer.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "the government's" fault, it's the silly drug laws that the governments enforce. But we have these drug laws because the average joe still believes in them, don't we? if 80% of the voters believed in legalization of drugs wouldn't the laws be rescinded eventually, for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t advocate "limited government" but rather its abolishment as it is an inherently evil institution. So

~Russell

Who would abolish government? The Government?

Who would prevent a group of people getting together and starting up a government? The Government?

Hello Mr. Donohue,

This is a peculiar question, but I’ll try my best to answer it to your satisfaction. Firstly, no one person, or even a group of people, would abolish the government. It is an intellectual battle.

The crucial issue is summarized very well by Lucy Parsons who wrote:

"Anarchists know that a long period of education must precede any great fundamental change in society, hence they do not believe in vote begging, nor political campaigns, but rather in the development of self-thinking individuals.”

Besides, governments, like gods and gremlins, don’t exist. There is no such thing as "the government" or a "country," or "society” as Ayn Rand herself would argue. “Society” and “governments” are merely conceptual labels for individuals.

I hardly believe that I am making a contentious statement by arguing that governments are not a collective entity separate from the individuals that comprise it.

I argue that there is an inherent contradiction within Objectivism, which is, of course, not confined within Objectivism alone. That contradiction is as follows: the attributing of a singular moral status to “the government” that opposes all other human beings.

One such example:

Man + gun = murderer

Man + gun + uniform = hero.

Once we begin to intellectually and morally apprehend the sheer brutal preposterousness of the very idea of “government", it will fade away – if we refuse to give it a moral and intellectual sanction. All that will be left is the naked fact that some group of men are assuming to rule other men by force. Thus the “government” will properly be tossed onto history's intellectual trash heap right next to “God.”

I think this is enough to “chew” on for a while.

~Russell

Get rid of the forest and get back to trees? Look, government is, deal with it. Pretending is doesn't exist but dealing with it by ignoring it is a contradiction in itself. All you are saying is we already have anarchy but are fucked up in our minds so we can't enjoy it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "the government's" fault, it's the silly drug laws that the governments enforce. But we have these drug laws because the average joe still believes in them, don't we? if 80% of the voters believed in legalization of drugs wouldn't the laws be rescinded eventually, for example?

It's not "the government's" fault, it's the silly drug laws that the governments enforce

Logic a priceless commodity which was not employed above!

Come on GS - look at what you wrote!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "the government's" fault, it's the silly drug laws that the governments enforce

Logic a priceless commodity which was not employed above!

Come on GS - look at what you wrote!

Adam

I'm a-looking, looks good to me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

russell you have not responded to my challenge to lay out the new science of human transformation that will make initiation of force disappear from the face of the earth.

Do you decline?

Without a answer to the above, the concept of "anarchism" is a fraud. With it, the need to assert that "no government is necessary" is trivial.

Meanwhile you restate your formulation:

"...I still argue that “governments” are not a collective entity separate from the individuals that comprise it. That point stands alone.'

"governments are not a collective entity."

what does that even mean?

Do you mean that a "government" is not a human being?

Do you mean that no nation has ever had a government?

Do you mean that a government has no rights?

I would be glad to cut through and stipulate that a government is an institution established by citizens of a nation imbued with a monopoly on the use of force and ultimate jursdiction over the rectification of rights violations. I would hope you would stipulate back that such things actually do exist.entity separate from the individuals that comprise it. That point stands alone.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selene:Adam

Politics is a normative science. Just because proper government is correct for man qua man does not mean that the current government is acting proper!

And...is that the best you can do? Some overkill on some border somewhere?

Also would you care to submit the balance of all the research you did on all the peace and security you have under even the current foul setup we have, as compared to the subsistence living, raging violence and gang warfare of anarchism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selene:Adam

Also would you care to submit the balance of all the research you did on all the peace and security you have under even the current foul setup we have, as compared to the subsistence living, raging violence and gang warfare of anarchism?

Ahh Johnny, we hardly knew ya!

I am sorry, was I given an assignment by some "teacherly" personality that you are seeking to impose?

academy_banner.jpg

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now