Radical politics

[Vitriol]

The problem of consent is not erroneous. Where people are born is completely left to chance. They grow up and form bonds with friends, family, and the land itself. Then they become adults and are told that they must submit to the will of the King/President/Prime Minister or leave the place they inhabit at once. If they happen to disagree with the sovereign they must choose between submission or exile. There's nothing just about that. If the government starts a mandatory tax to pay for a new nuclear weapon, I either need to abandon my home or abandon my anti-nuclear principles. What kind of choice is that to force a free man to make? The problem of consent is the reason anarchist theory exists.

Is this not a strawman? if you benefit from the kings laws then you can be expected to pay for them, if you disagree with them you can either a) campaign for change, B) refuse to pay, receive the benefit anyway and be penalised or C) leave.

those all seem fair to me- if the people via the state decide something is in the national interest who are you to impose your will on the majority and stop the change? and if it is not the majorities will then why can't you force the king to change his mind?

edit to clarify: the problem of consent as a civic body is not erroneous, the problem of the consent of the individual is.

 

[DNJACK]

This is getting a lot more civilized so we will stick to that angle. Don't get any idea, we will never agree, but we might get some interesting ideas.

First, the point is not which side is more honorable. I don't play sides, not for long anyway.

We won't be able to avoid the central point: I see the limitations imposed by governments as harmful. The order I said was provided by government, it is a wrong order, and illegitimate. Better chaos than seeing your ennemy at the top. It is totally normal to find abherent the demand for payment of perceived harm. This is actually why consent for contracts is fundamental. What has a lot of value for one can have a negative value for another. Since the total value of it's rule is perceived as negative, I should be the one demanding compensation for it. This is the source of the problem, and I do not see any solution.

I think than the discussion of roman philosophy would be quite a drift from the subject at hand.

 

[MerriedManJr]

Is this not a strawman? if you benefit from the kings laws then you can be expected to pay for them, if you disagree with them you can either a) campaign for change, B) refuse to pay, receive the benefit anyway and be penalised or C) leave.

those all seem fair to me- if the people via the state decide something is in the national interest who are you to impose your will on the majority and stop the change? and if it is not the majorities will then why can't you force the king to change his mind?

edit to clarify: the problem of consent as a civic body is not erroneous, the problem of the consent of the individual is.

Because society is just a collection of individuals and all individuals are born free and nobody may exercise control over one without his express consent and approval. That's why slavery is illegitimate, the slaveowner has no right to trade somebody their life in exchange for their freedom.

And it's not about imposing your will on the majority, it's about imposing your will on yourself. Why should I care what the majority thinks? They can have their bomb if they want, but I refuse to pay for it. But the President says I must pay for it, or I must leave my home, or I must be sent to prison. He has no right to trade with my principles. They are mine and no matter how large and vocal the majority, I alone may make decisions regarding my principles. I don't want to go to prison, I don't want to leave my home, and I don't want to lose my principles. But I must do one of these things because I happen to have been born in a country that loves bombs. It's barely better than the slave's deal.

 

[Vitriol]

The order I said was provided by government, it is a wrong order, and illegitimate. Better chaos than seeing your ennemy at the top. It is totally normal to find abherent the demand for payment of perceived harm. This is actually why consent for contracts is fundamental. What has a lot of value for one can have a negative value for another. Since the total value of it's rule is perceived as negative, I should be the one demanding compensation for it. This is the source of the problem, and I do not see any solution.

well this is the heart of the theory of the rule of law isn't it? If everyone is free to follow their own personal opinions as to what is right and wrong/ honourable or dishonourable/ valuable/worthless then we arrive at a situation where the strong and young are right and the weak and old are wrong. Whereas if we take the view that what is right or wrong is decided decided by the people via the legislature and then enforced equally by the state we have a system where the voice of both the weak and strong in theory can be heard.

I consider (and so did the romans hence why i brought them up) that the government that has the support of the majority of the people has greater legitimacy than the government of the strongest - in a state of chaos the 'government' is the man with a crowbar and his friends who are emptying your house. I would rather a system where the government i disagree with has power over me because the rest of my peers agree with them than one where the 'government has power by virtue of its larger stick- which is the reality of living in chaos.

I do wonder (and this is in fairness a bit of a strawman) why you are in canada and not south sudan or syria? both these places are in a state of chaos - which apparently you would prefer to the illigitamate government you live under currently?

As i said earlier- people say they would rather live without government or in a state of chaos but in reality people flee these areas they do not move to them. Life in such a place is short and unpleasant.

so to tie back into our original discussion: if the body politic decide it is just that those who profit from society pay into its maintenance then as this is the will of the majority everyone is bound to pay regardless of whether they agree personally or not. If they can persuade enough of their fellows then they can change the majority opinion and change the law.

Because society is just a collection of individuals and all individuals are born free and nobody may exercise control over one without his express consent and approval

if you prevent said collection of individuals from exercising their will to own nuclear weapons then that is exactly what you are doing. society is more than a collection of individuals it is individuals inthe same environment connected together. the only way to settle disputes fairly is to use the definition of fairness that matches the opinion of the majority. If we took your definition as true then no crimes could ever be punished as the defendant would simply declare they did not consent and walk out which btw is exactly what OPLCA litigants try.

 

[MerriedManJr]

well this is the heart of the theory of the rule of law isn't it? If everyone is free to follow their own personal opinions as to what is right and wrong/ honourable or dishonourable/ valuable/worthless then we arrive at a situation where the strong and young are right and the weak and old are wrong. Whereas if we take the view that what is right or wrong is decided decided by the people via the legislature and then enforced equally by the state we have a system where the voice of both the weak and strong in theory can be heard.

I consider (and so did the romans hence why i brought them up) that the government that has the support of the majority of the people has greater legitimacy than the government of the strongest - in a state of chaos the 'government' is the man with a crowbar and his friends who are emptying your house. I would rather a system where the government i disagree with has power over me because the rest of my peers agree with them than one where the 'government has power by virtue of its larger stick- which is the reality of living in chaos.

I do wonder (and this is in fairness a bit of a strawman) why you are in canada and not south sudan or syria? both these places are in a state of chaos - which apparently you would prefer to the illigitamate government you live under currently?

As i said earlier- people say they would rather live without government or in a state of chaos but in reality people flee these areas they do not move to them. Life in such a place is short and unpleasant.

so to tie back into our original discussion: if the body politic decide it is just that those who profit from society pay into its maintenance then as this is the will of the majority everyone is bound to pay regardless of whether they agree personally or not. If they can persuade enough of their fellows then they can change the majority opinion and change the law.




if you prevent said collection of individuals from exercising their will to own nuclear weapons then that is exactly what you are doing. society is more than a collection of individuals it is individuals inthe same environment connected together. the only way to settle disputes fairly is to use the definition of fairness that matches the opinion of the majority. If we took your definition as true then no crimes could ever be punished as the defendant would simply declare they did not consent and walk out which btw is exactly what OPLCA litigants try.

Majority rule is rule of the strongest. So is government rule. Why is the majority will more important than my own? Because there are more of them? How is that morally superior to the man with the biggest crowbar? Why is Roman law the basis of our system and not Persian or Gaullic law? Because the Romans were strongest.

Edit: Also the whole "if you're an anarchist why not move to Somalia" is unfair. People can think whatever they like without preconditions. I don't need to be a soldier to be pro or anti war.

 

[DNJACK]

"If everyone is free to follow their own personal opinions as to what is right and wrong/ honourable or dishonourable/ valuable/worthless then we arrive at a situation where the strong and young are right and the weak and old are wrong."

Youre back at consequentialism. No hold on me. Especially when outcome is blinded with ideals such as in political discussion.

"I do wonder"

I'm in Canada because it's easier to ignore laws in Canada than to move out. Plus family, friends and job here.

Plus Africa hasn't been stable in centuries, thanks to their ridiculous obsolete technological when Europe decided to make collonies. Canada could never be South SOudan, with or without a collapsed government.

I do not care about the opinion of the majority. If you watched me from the moment I stepped here, you'd know. Plus winning you won't mean shit because, let's be honnest TPTB won't let it happen. We live in a democracy until the moment the people "choose wrong".

 

[Vitriol]

The romans were not the strongest: they were overrrun by the goths and franks, who ditched their own codes in favour of the roman laws because they were better thought out and actively designed to be just.

Why is rule by majority fairer? its not perfect but it is less arbitrary as more people have to approve it. Why is the majority given more weight than you, well as i've already said the alternative is you are given weight over the majority but more specifically it is because your opinion on any given issue will be clouded by personal bias, by using more people in deciding the law we can remove outlier opinions and come closer to a logical and fair solution.

You haven't answered my question as to how a society in which one must consent to laws on an individual basis could deal with crimes.
I suspect because there isn't an answer-credit to @DNJACK where its due, he awknowledges that his path might lead to chaos.

"If everyone is free to follow their own personal opinions as to what is right and wrong/ honourable or dishonourable/ valuable/worthless then we arrive at a situation where the strong and young are right and the weak and old are wrong."

Youre back at consequentialism. No hold on me. Especially when outcome is blinded with ideals such as in political discussion.

"I do wonder"

I'm in Canada because it's easier to ignore laws in Canada than to move out. Plus family, friends and job here.

Plus Africa hasn't been stable in centuries, thanks to their ridiculous obsolete technological when Europe decided to make collonies. Canada could never be South SOudan, with or without a collapsed government.

Our discussion isn't going to go any further I'm afraid- I could point out that syria was stable, africa was comparatively stable so long as it was under colonial rule- take away the rule of law from canada and I expect you would end up in a similar state with warlords fighting over natural resources or like in russia with oligarchs simply dividing it between themselves. But like many anarchists your not truly motivated by ideology but selfishness- you're happy to leach off the benefits taxpayers provide while avoiding the system yourself rather than actually move somewhere where there is not state.

Youre back at consequentialism. No hold on me. Especially when outcome is blinded with ideals such as in political discussion

I'm at a loss- if you can't see why it has a hold on you i'm never going to be able to show you.

I do not care about the opinion of the majority. If you watched me from the moment I stepped here, you'd know. Plus winning you won't mean shit because, let's be honest TPTB won't let it happen. We live in a democracy until the moment the people "choose wrong".

I have been watching you- not caring about the majority and only caring about oneself is exactly why anarchist arguments fail. an anarchy is not a fair place, it is not an honourable place rather it is an exceedingly selfish place inhabited by the deluded, the tyrannous and, on the internet, by edgelords. And what better descriptor for someone from ED than an edgelord?

TPTB regularly fail and have had changed forced upon them and if they are truly beyond changing then as i said- i fully support revolution in those circumstances.

 

[MerriedManJr]

The romans were not the strongest: they were overrrun by the goths and franks, who ditched their own codes in favour of the roman laws because they were better thought out and actively designed to be just.

Why is rule by majority fairer? its not perfect but it is less arbitrary as more people have to approve it. Why is the majority given more weight than you, well as i've already said the alternative is you are given weight over the majority but more specifically it is because your opinion on any given issue will be clouded by personal bias, by using more people in deciding the law we can remove outlier opinions and come closer to a logical and fair solution.

You haven't answered my question as to how a society in which one must consent to laws on an individual basis could deal with crimes.
I suspect because there isn't an answer-credit to @DNJACK where its due, she awknowledges that her path might lead to chaos.

I don't know or care where anarchy leads. I simply posit that authority is illegitimate. Nobody may ask me to compromise my principles or surrender my life and freedom. It doesn't matter if they're a King or an electorate. The most benevolent dictator and the most rabid, crazy mob have the same amount of rights over me: none.

Laws, nations, religions, morals, etc. Are fairy tales designed to keep men from realizing that Caesar has no more right to rule over him than any gangster. Simply rejecting the idea that authority is legitimate is enough to make somebody an anarchist, you don't actually have to smash the state.

 

[DuskEngine]

Radical politics doesn't work.

This is just not true, though. Unless you're going to argue that the suffrage, civil rights and colonial independence movements didn't work.

 

[Vitriol]

This is just not true, though. Unless you're going to argue that the suffrage, civil rights and colonial independence movements didn't work.

Yes sorry radical politics as in politics at the extreme ends of the collectivist-individualist spectrum don't work.

Radical as in new ideas can of course. I should have been more clear there

 

[DNJACK]

Our discussion isn't going to go any further I'm afraid.

If you had some decency you would have ended your post there and avoided accusing me of bad intention. It's a wrong way to close a discussion. In anyway, it's useless to argue about other's motivations. It's over.

One last thing: libertarians and anarchist are often low class, and pay generally very few taxes. Might want to think about that.

 

[Vitriol]

If you had some decency you would have ended your post there and avoided accusing me of bad intention. It's a wrong way to close a discussion. In anyway, it's useless to argue about other's motivations. It's over.

One last thing: libertarians and anarchist are often low class, and pay generally very few taxes. Might want to think about that.

If I've offended you i'll apologise but i read

I do not care about the opinion of the majority. If you watched me from the moment I stepped here, you'd know.

and presumed you wouldn't care about a little personal critism. I'm being sincere if it bothers you i'll remove it.

One last thing: libertarians and anarchist are often low class, and pay generally very few taxes. Might want to think about that.

They do, they also tend to have personal grudges against people in government and are often looking for someone to blame for their own lack of success. Most if not all of the anarchists i've met in the real world were clinging to it as the last thing that made them special or powerful as without it they would have to admit to themselves they had failed in one of the easiest contries in the world to live a successful life. No doubt there are some genuine ones but i imagine living off the grid without any support from society also removes them from being easily or often encountered.

Its perhaps significant that often only those with little to lose become anarchists but that is a discussion for another thread and another day.

I don't know or care where anarchy leads. I simply posit that authority is illegitimate. Nobody may ask me to compromise my principles or surrender my life and freedom. It doesn't matter if they're a King or an electorate. The most benevolent dictator and the most rabid, crazy mob have the same amount of rights over me: none.

Laws, nations, religions, morals, etc. Are fairy tales designed to keep men from realizing that Caesar has no more right to rule over him than any gangster. Simply rejecting the idea that authority is legitimate is enough to make somebody an anarchist, you don't actually have to smash the state.

Im not sure what response to give you here: yes it makes you an anarchist but for all the reasons i've already explained i think it also makes you wrong.

I think our discussion has similarly run its course.

 

[DNJACK]

You can keep it there, I'm not the thought police. No need to apologize.

 

[DuskEngine]

Yes sorry radical politics as in politics at the extreme ends of the collectivist-individualist spectrum don't work.

Radical as in new ideas can of course. I should have been more clear there

It sounds like what you're saying is that radical ideas regarding political economy (state ownership, taxation, etc.) can't work, but cultural/social issues (women's rights, slavery and so forth) can. (correct me if I'm wrong). I would argue that these two areas are inextricable.

Slavery is an economic issue as much as it is a social one, maybe more so. Ditto women's suffrage, national self-determination, and a lot more. The only major social issue I can think of that doesn't have significant economic implications is gay marriage.

 

[The Dude]

I think owning firearms of all kinds with high capacity magazines, cannabis, and my gay friends being able to get married are all pretty rad and anyone who shares those views with me is pretty rad as well. Also, having a candidate who shares those views and will go to bat politically for me and people like me would be pretty rad.

 

[Vitriol]

It sounds like what you're saying is that radical ideas regarding political economy (state ownership, taxation, etc.) can't work, but cultural/social issues (women's rights, slavery and so forth) can. (correct me if I'm wrong). I would argue that these two areas are inextricable.

Slavery is an economic issue as much as it is a social one, maybe more so. Ditto women's suffrage, national self-determination, and a lot more. The only major social issue I can think of that doesn't have significant economic implications is gay marriage.

I'm talking specifically about the absolute extremes of the scale- anarchists and communists.

I was thinking more that states need flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances- when in all out war a heavily centralised state heavy system tends to be favoured but during peace a smaller gov and a freer market tends to make the country richer. Societies which go fully collectivist like the soviet union or north korea tend to fail and those that dissolve into anarchy inevitably form tribal structures and struggle to hold off more centralised neighbours.

Im not saying that fairly lassiez fare states or fairly socialist states cannot function- they clearly can but they are still on the scale rather than at the end of it with varying sizes of governments and free markets. just that the extreme of no government or full government advocated by the anarchist or communist respectively does not work.

 

[Flowers For Sonichu]

I used to be an anarchist until I met other anarchists and saw how fckin horrible they were so now I'm a nihilist

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Yes sorry radical politics as in politics at the extreme ends of the collectivist-individualist spectrum don't work.

The spectrum is relative, though, not absolute. And anti-colonialism and emancipation were once firmly at the extreme end of that spectrum.

 

[Holdek]

The simple reply is that someone is not being forced to buy but billed for something they have used.

This. I know you want to avoid "contract" but the social contract is an implied one. If the waitress brings you food at a restaurant and you eat it, you still have to pay the bill, even if you never said you would.

This is a good FAQ for people who don't think they should have to pay taxes: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

 

[Vitriol]

The spectrum is relative, though, not absolute. And anti-colonialism and emancipation were once firmly at the extreme end of that spectrum.

which end would you place them at? Im not sure i'm following your reasoning here i think we can find slavery in societies across the spectrum.