Ok, how about starting by explaining how all human interactions should not be voluntary, and how it is moral to deprive another of consent in any such interaction, by force coercion, or fraud.
Except from a very small set of physical interactions, human interactions are by definition voluntary .
In any human interaction provided sufficient consensus is reached, other people will be deprived of consent if it is in the interests of the former group that has achieved consensus.
Interactions that are skewed from the course one would naturally be inclined to take by coercion or threat of violence do not count as voluntary. Example paying taxes to fund programs and actions one does not condone. No one does this voluntarily, they do it to avoid a direct threat to their freedom and ultimately their life. In answer to the second paragraph... Any consensus short of voluntary unanimity is not valid as it deprives any who do not agree of their consent if it is enforced. The only morally acceptable instance of depriving another of their consent is in response to their attempt to deprive another of theirs.
People voluntarily elect for delegative government, delegates are expected to appointed to make best decisions, of course the electorate could be ideologically oppose to the decisions they make. Doesn't make it any less voluntary.
Unanimous consensus is simply impractical, and cost to time and general inefficiency, suffices that sufficient people would agree to a floor on acceptable consensus.
This statement is far from ripping apart any anarchist arguement.
In fact it is actually highlighting some the reasons no government can be based in any kind of morality.
This destroys the idea of any government having any right to rule over people, as it inherently violates the consent of the governed.
The same way you prevent free individuals from refusing to be governed..... You can't.
That said, the goal of most anarchism activists is to tear down the common acceptance of the idea that there can be any right to rule over another, as an individual or as a collective, until there are too many who have shaken off the myth of authority for any "voluntarily elected government" to ever enforce their will, on a large scale, on those who do not consent.
You could start by being clear about your OWN position, by answering these questions:
1 - Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2 - Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
3 - Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
4 - When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
5 - When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?
Beat me to it Larken.... That said, morality that does not take into account the natural individual right to free will and self ownership, is not morality, but a morally deficient opinion. The fact is you cannot destroy anarchist arguements, you can only deflect and talk circles around the actual points
"Is there any means?..." Well of course there is. I think you're asking if this is right? Which moral system do you prescribe to?
This depends on the moral system you subscribe to.
As above
Not necessarily, depends on the nature of their appointment, and the effect on the wider system of governance. Strictly speaking though, this depends on the nature of the governance system.
I live in a world of self interests, and making optimal decisions relative to these interests. I don't subscribe to a particular moral system.
If I were that individual I would let my actions be dictated by whether or not they were in my interests.
For the first three, you answered a question with a question. The fourth was meaningless politician evasion. The fifth was an excuse to not answer. I'm done.
I'm writing a post to explain my stance. Secondly, I'm not even convinced emphasis on morality is consistent with most anarchic schools of thought (see Marx Stirner).
Since there is a moral system that one can subscribe to that allows you to convert something immoral into something moral, please have a look at this: The Magic Threshold
Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that the average person believes taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").
First off, "Anarchic governance" is a contradiction in terms.
Second: "Anarchists, and exposing the reality of the systems they endorse."
What? There's just one system: systematic voluntary interactions and the recognition of the consistent application of rights in society.
Third, you did a terrible job answering Larken Rose's questions, and you admitted to moral relativism. If you do not subscribe to any sort of definite morality, you have no means of having an intelligent discussion regarding any sort or form of morality (way of living).
Your only strength, thus, is and will be clever word games and evasion. You will not be pleasant to talk with, and the only upvotes you will or can get will be those who just enjoy drama for the sake of drama.
I'll put some words in your mouth, which you'll hate and will entirely focus on, but your behavior is scum-ish, and I want people to see clearly what they're dealing with when they talk with you: by saying that you perscribe to "a world of self interests" your moral code is that of Self-Interest, which means that you live by that which is in your interest.
That means that other people, water, food, and so forth are in your interest, assuming that you want to live, which I think is a decent assumption. If you don't, then disregard this comment, as well as the entirety of the steemit website. You won't need it if you're dead.
The requirements for the satisfaction of your self-interest are the consistent application of rules in society because without that, your Self will be in poverty, as is currently the case, since a society based on inconsistently-applied rules where there are exceptions to the rules (rulers) is one where poverty is the constant and the norm, such as this one.
Therefore, you, while pandering to the notion that you do not subscribe to a moral code, subscribe to the moral code of self-interest, and this conflict and dissonance of thought is the core of your contention that anarchists advocate "systems" and types of "governance".
You are an extremely confused individual, which is why the likes of Larken Rose was like,
"Eh. Yuck."
As I expected, you're full of hot air. Fitting that you're on steemit.
And hey, if your name is what you're doing... somewhat decent job.
But you really need to take more of a position. You're boring as fuck.
I meant governance in the very general sense not as in a centralized government.
The nature of human interactions in the system.
I'll write a few posts, and be much clearer as to the exact Anarchist philosophies that I'll be attacking.
he was asking you to answer these questions within the moral system that you subscribe to. You probably want to retry this one. Sophistry isn't going to go anywhere.
I'm writing a post to explain my stance. Secondly, I'm not even convinced emphasis on morality is consistent with most anarchic schools of thought (see Marx Stirner).
'most anarchic schools of thought'. Like the ones that inspired the bomb throwers of the turn of the century? Kropotkin, etc. Stirner was not far away from Nietzche in his position also. Radical individualism. But does reality have a consequence-less sandbox for us to throw around our will?
There is a big difference between the 'morality' of the herd and the morality of you standing alone under the sky with your own judgement upon yourself, when you have nobody to fool anymore.
Moral means right even if the whole world disagrees. Right on principle, right without any need of any other measure. Of course real life is much fuzzier. Difficulties can push you to violate your own codes, and lures and hope can make you fabricate entirely nonsensical schemes of values. But despite this, I think that there is an objective measure for morality, and it is not something that others can entirely judge, and there is plenty of history to show that the opposite can occur, when people have become numb to the wrong they do every day and it becomes normalised.
From outside people can easily see it. We are tasked not to be perfect but to strive towards better responses to events in our lives. Dodging serious questions and pretending that 'normal' is also 'moral' leaves you with no standing amongst those who seek to walk their talk.
These are serious questions and not meant to be threatening in any way. Would you stop someone from raping you and murdering your family? Would you stop someone from entering your house and emptying it of all your possessions by force? It sounds like if it is in your interests, you will do these things to others, is that correct? What is it that would make you want to stop people from doing terrible things to you? Would that not be the same or a very similar reason someone would try to stop you from doing those terrible things to them? Is that not the very foundation of morality and natural law: don't do shit to people that you wouldn't want them to do to you? There is only one true moral system, the one we were born with, the one that is inherent to our nature.
If they're optimal decision relative to my interests, then as far as I'm concerned, I would.
Though in reality actions involving violence are generally not optimal.
I'm only concerned with protecting my interests, I don't care about reciprocity in general (i.e. do unto others...etc etc)
Yeah, @larkenrose is right. It'd be nice if you'd be clear about your OWN position. I thought you were going to tear me up/down but you're just making this tedious.
I get this error Transaction failed: abs_rshares > 30000000: voting weight is too small, please accumulate more voting power or steem power
I must be too new.
My satire is directed at forex charts and miscellaneous political figures. I really do believe most pro-Anarchists are victims of marketing by political-swindlers.
I didn't fully turn my stance until I read Ludwig von Mises 'Human Action'. Mises did absolute acrobatics in that book to not straight up say that government distorts markets and destroys wealth. His analysis of the omnipotent/omniscient God idea was delightfully cut short of drawing any conclusions as well.
If you by your use of the word 'anarchist' you mean the reds who walk around blissfully ignorant that their leveling of the economic playing field requires central authority and a ruling class to organise enforcers, then I agree. Anarchy in the sense of the natural state and even right now this voluntary exchange that you have started and I have chosen to enter into...
I love how this platform brings a sense of competition into discussions like I haven't experienced since I was striving to win karma points on The Hive.
BTW to respond to the "bomb thrower" I think you're referring to propaganda of the deed.
Which is just a political strategy, rather than any display of moral fervor.
Yes, 'propaganda of the deed' was devised by the anarcho-socialists of the turn of the century. These guys actions backfired really bad because technology to gather intelligence on them was available and their actions drove its adoption. It really wasn't anything new, the first, biggest and most successful terrorist organisation of history, still, was the Ku Klux Klan whose terrorism triggered the Civil War.
In what way can threatening the mass of people with incarceration unless they pay tithe (or tax if you prefer) be considered good for the utility of society?
But government systems emerge in the same way that crime emerges, one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others. In government systems, the hegemony is obscured and even encouraged by those under the rule of the criminal. Yet, in no way is social utility greater than it would be without this criminal hegemony, regardless of the err in acting by those who support the hegemony.
So I ask you again. In what way can hegemonical extortion of the masses be a positive force for social utility?
" one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others"
Several individuals through voluntary interactions amongst themselves and with a sufficient group of the populace arrive at a governance structure, driven by their individual interests.
In other words in the pursuit of utility from the selectorate if you will.
I think calling it a hegemony is inappropriate. It's a selectorate, which necessarily involves compliance from a sufficient group of individuals in society (which will tend to involved a significant bulk of society, given the physical constraints of humanity).
So what you asking is how can extortion from a significant group of society be a positive force for social utility?
It can be a positive force for social utility if the selectorate is vast enough.
So essentially, your saying the more people that are extorted to the direct benefit of a tiny minority of society, somehow that increases social utility as a whole?
@peterjhendrick Nope. I'm saying the more people in society voluntarily involved in maintaining a coercive governance structure that "extorts", the less people in society will be extorted, so the greater the wider social utility.
Your baseline for social utility is assuming a given that people should be extorted. You're saying if people just learned to enjoy the extortion, then there would be more social utility than if they didn't enjoy the extortion. I can't argue with you there, since utility is directly tied to human enjoyment.
But your baseline is absurd. If we look only at the utilitarian argument, it becomes obvious that social utility is much higher without mass extortion, than it possibly could be with mass extortion, regardless of how many people choose to enjoy their extortion.
This post was admittedly clickbait, but I'm actually serious, consider checking my new post.
My point is that Anarchism offers no escape from centralization of power, and restriction of freedom.
So, I'd consider myself to have somewhat escaped that centralization, and restriction of freedom.
^ Then again. The chance of me being shot by a cop, is still rather low in Denmark, compared to the US.
Also, anarchism doesn't promise a solution. The word itself, is derived from Greek, "an" - Which means without, and "archon", which means rulers. That's what anarchism is.
But sure, will check your new post, to see if it's better. ^_^
Didn't you already have this debate? Though that was Technocratic Democracy vs Anarchism...
You began with... this
To which I said that
and then you responded with this
Which received this response from me
And you followed up with
And my response was images broken steemit down... when came up wouldn't let me edit so see comments for image
Your final response to that was:
To be fair, you make good points. And I have a lot to take away from our brief but interesting exchange. I will reply only if I feel as though I can add some extra value. Thanks for this!
@larkenrose wasn't here for that one. You also sold your @positive account and I wondered where you'd hung your new hat.
Unless we put an end to all forms of government, government will end mankind.
Death by democide is the biggest killer on the earth bar none.
We all have a moral duty to wake up those who are in a trance and who blindly follow orders. There would be no tyrants if there were no order followers and the defence of following orders is no longer a defence in a court of Law, Nueremberg saw to that.
The same way you prevent free individuals from refusing to be governed..... You can't.
That said, the goal of most anarchism activists is to tear down the common acceptance of the idea that there can be any right to rule over another, as an individual or as a collective, until there are too many who have shaken off the myth of authority for any "voluntarily elected government" to ever enforce their will, on a large scale, on those who do not consent.
What you are defining is a refined representative government, which I'm all for.
You don't actually seem to be opposed in any sense to representative government, just a notion of entitled authority.
Edit: flag removed.
Flagged for tag spam.
This is not an #introduceyourself (sorry)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fair enough bro.
Keep up the good work :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Removed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you, flag removed.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok, how about starting by explaining how all human interactions should not be voluntary, and how it is moral to deprive another of consent in any such interaction, by force coercion, or fraud.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Except from a very small set of physical interactions, human interactions are by definition voluntary .
In any human interaction provided sufficient consensus is reached, other people will be deprived of consent if it is in the interests of the former group that has achieved consensus.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interactions that are skewed from the course one would naturally be inclined to take by coercion or threat of violence do not count as voluntary. Example paying taxes to fund programs and actions one does not condone. No one does this voluntarily, they do it to avoid a direct threat to their freedom and ultimately their life. In answer to the second paragraph... Any consensus short of voluntary unanimity is not valid as it deprives any who do not agree of their consent if it is enforced. The only morally acceptable instance of depriving another of their consent is in response to their attempt to deprive another of theirs.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is partly why I ignore moral arguments.
People voluntarily elect for delegative government, delegates are expected to appointed to make best decisions, of course the electorate could be ideologically oppose to the decisions they make. Doesn't make it any less voluntary.
Unanimous consensus is simply impractical, and cost to time and general inefficiency, suffices that sufficient people would agree to a floor on acceptable consensus.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This statement is far from ripping apart any anarchist arguement.
In fact it is actually highlighting some the reasons no government can be based in any kind of morality.
This destroys the idea of any government having any right to rule over people, as it inherently violates the consent of the governed.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How are you going to prevent from voluntarily electing for centralized government?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The same way you prevent free individuals from refusing to be governed..... You can't.
That said, the goal of most anarchism activists is to tear down the common acceptance of the idea that there can be any right to rule over another, as an individual or as a collective, until there are too many who have shaken off the myth of authority for any "voluntarily elected government" to ever enforce their will, on a large scale, on those who do not consent.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Which point confuses you?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You could start by being clear about your OWN position, by answering these questions:
1 - Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2 - Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
3 - Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
4 - When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
5 - When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Beat me to it Larken.... That said, morality that does not take into account the natural individual right to free will and self ownership, is not morality, but a morally deficient opinion. The fact is you cannot destroy anarchist arguements, you can only deflect and talk circles around the actual points
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We'll see.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If I were that individual I would let my actions be dictated by whether or not they were in my interests.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
For the first three, you answered a question with a question. The fourth was meaningless politician evasion. The fifth was an excuse to not answer. I'm done.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm writing a post to explain my stance. Secondly, I'm not even convinced emphasis on morality is consistent with most anarchic schools of thought (see Marx Stirner).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Since there is a moral system that one can subscribe to that allows you to convert something immoral into something moral, please have a look at this: The Magic Threshold
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
First off, "Anarchic governance" is a contradiction in terms.
Second: "Anarchists, and exposing the reality of the systems they endorse."
What? There's just one system: systematic voluntary interactions and the recognition of the consistent application of rights in society.
Third, you did a terrible job answering Larken Rose's questions, and you admitted to moral relativism. If you do not subscribe to any sort of definite morality, you have no means of having an intelligent discussion regarding any sort or form of morality (way of living).
Your only strength, thus, is and will be clever word games and evasion. You will not be pleasant to talk with, and the only upvotes you will or can get will be those who just enjoy drama for the sake of drama.
I'll put some words in your mouth, which you'll hate and will entirely focus on, but your behavior is scum-ish, and I want people to see clearly what they're dealing with when they talk with you: by saying that you perscribe to "a world of self interests" your moral code is that of Self-Interest, which means that you live by that which is in your interest.
That means that other people, water, food, and so forth are in your interest, assuming that you want to live, which I think is a decent assumption. If you don't, then disregard this comment, as well as the entirety of the steemit website. You won't need it if you're dead.
The requirements for the satisfaction of your self-interest are the consistent application of rules in society because without that, your Self will be in poverty, as is currently the case, since a society based on inconsistently-applied rules where there are exceptions to the rules (rulers) is one where poverty is the constant and the norm, such as this one.
Therefore, you, while pandering to the notion that you do not subscribe to a moral code, subscribe to the moral code of self-interest, and this conflict and dissonance of thought is the core of your contention that anarchists advocate "systems" and types of "governance".
You are an extremely confused individual, which is why the likes of Larken Rose was like,
"Eh. Yuck."
As I expected, you're full of hot air. Fitting that you're on steemit.
And hey, if your name is what you're doing... somewhat decent job.
But you really need to take more of a position. You're boring as fuck.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I meant governance in the very general sense not as in a centralized government.
The nature of human interactions in the system.
I'll write a few posts, and be much clearer as to the exact Anarchist philosophies that I'll be attacking.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
he was asking you to answer these questions within the moral system that you subscribe to. You probably want to retry this one. Sophistry isn't going to go anywhere.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm writing a post to explain my stance. Secondly, I'm not even convinced emphasis on morality is consistent with most anarchic schools of thought (see Marx Stirner).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
'most anarchic schools of thought'. Like the ones that inspired the bomb throwers of the turn of the century? Kropotkin, etc. Stirner was not far away from Nietzche in his position also. Radical individualism. But does reality have a consequence-less sandbox for us to throw around our will?
There is a big difference between the 'morality' of the herd and the morality of you standing alone under the sky with your own judgement upon yourself, when you have nobody to fool anymore.
Moral means right even if the whole world disagrees. Right on principle, right without any need of any other measure. Of course real life is much fuzzier. Difficulties can push you to violate your own codes, and lures and hope can make you fabricate entirely nonsensical schemes of values. But despite this, I think that there is an objective measure for morality, and it is not something that others can entirely judge, and there is plenty of history to show that the opposite can occur, when people have become numb to the wrong they do every day and it becomes normalised.
From outside people can easily see it. We are tasked not to be perfect but to strive towards better responses to events in our lives. Dodging serious questions and pretending that 'normal' is also 'moral' leaves you with no standing amongst those who seek to walk their talk.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@satire/anarchism-exposed-part-1-clarifying-my-stance-and-defining-anarchism
My stance
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just replied to your post.
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@satire/anarchy-exposed-response-to-larkenrose-s-political-mythology-101-part-one
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have zero faith in you "tearing down" any argument, based on what I've seen here so far.
Good luck with your upvotes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good thing you don't need to rely on faith to confirm things!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
These are serious questions and not meant to be threatening in any way. Would you stop someone from raping you and murdering your family? Would you stop someone from entering your house and emptying it of all your possessions by force? It sounds like if it is in your interests, you will do these things to others, is that correct? What is it that would make you want to stop people from doing terrible things to you? Would that not be the same or a very similar reason someone would try to stop you from doing those terrible things to them? Is that not the very foundation of morality and natural law: don't do shit to people that you wouldn't want them to do to you? There is only one true moral system, the one we were born with, the one that is inherent to our nature.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If they're optimal decision relative to my interests, then as far as I'm concerned, I would.
Though in reality actions involving violence are generally not optimal.
I'm only concerned with protecting my interests, I don't care about reciprocity in general (i.e. do unto others...etc etc)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Should goods and services be offered over the barrel of a gun? Yes or no.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So, Satire. Did you want to answer the question?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just woke up.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So...yes or no?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do I want someone to point a gun at me and steal my goods? no
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So you are against taxation, yes?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like your writing style.
Bold statements.
Line breaks.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@satire, what is your favorite government program?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Program as in Welfare?
If you mean system, then delegative technocracy.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
haha! I'll start the tearing after I've had some sleep
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@satire allow me to assist don't keep all the fun to yourself
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The part which is crowdfunded by a consenting demos.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, @larkenrose is right. It'd be nice if you'd be clear about your OWN position. I thought you were going to tear me up/down but you're just making this tedious.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I accidentally voted up for this post. Anyway to change that?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just click on the upvote again and it will ask if u want to remove it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I get this error
Transaction failed: abs_rshares > 30000000: voting weight is too small, please accumulate more voting power or steem powerI must be too new.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
His name is Satire. I think he's one of us.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My satire is directed at forex charts and miscellaneous political figures. I really do believe most pro-Anarchists are victims of marketing by political-swindlers.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't fully turn my stance until I read Ludwig von Mises 'Human Action'. Mises did absolute acrobatics in that book to not straight up say that government distorts markets and destroys wealth. His analysis of the omnipotent/omniscient God idea was delightfully cut short of drawing any conclusions as well.
If you by your use of the word 'anarchist' you mean the reds who walk around blissfully ignorant that their leveling of the economic playing field requires central authority and a ruling class to organise enforcers, then I agree. Anarchy in the sense of the natural state and even right now this voluntary exchange that you have started and I have chosen to enter into...
I love how this platform brings a sense of competition into discussions like I haven't experienced since I was striving to win karma points on The Hive.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wow. Your responses have really impressed me, and urged me to reconsider certain things.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
BTW to respond to the "bomb thrower" I think you're referring to propaganda of the deed.
Which is just a political strategy, rather than any display of moral fervor.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, 'propaganda of the deed' was devised by the anarcho-socialists of the turn of the century. These guys actions backfired really bad because technology to gather intelligence on them was available and their actions drove its adoption. It really wasn't anything new, the first, biggest and most successful terrorist organisation of history, still, was the Ku Klux Klan whose terrorism triggered the Civil War.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Is that a gif of Fred Savage?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, it's Fred Savage from his new show The Grinder.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No idea who that is tbh. Copied it from a site
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In what way can threatening the mass of people with incarceration unless they pay tithe (or tax if you prefer) be considered good for the utility of society?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How do governance systems emerge?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, you avoided my question completely.
But government systems emerge in the same way that crime emerges, one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others. In government systems, the hegemony is obscured and even encouraged by those under the rule of the criminal. Yet, in no way is social utility greater than it would be without this criminal hegemony, regardless of the err in acting by those who support the hegemony.
So I ask you again. In what way can hegemonical extortion of the masses be a positive force for social utility?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
" one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others"
Several individuals through voluntary interactions amongst themselves and with a sufficient group of the populace arrive at a governance structure, driven by their individual interests.
In other words in the pursuit of utility from the selectorate if you will.
I think calling it a hegemony is inappropriate. It's a selectorate, which necessarily involves compliance from a sufficient group of individuals in society (which will tend to involved a significant bulk of society, given the physical constraints of humanity).
So what you asking is how can extortion from a significant group of society be a positive force for social utility?
It can be a positive force for social utility if the selectorate is vast enough.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So essentially, your saying the more people that are extorted to the direct benefit of a tiny minority of society, somehow that increases social utility as a whole?
What??
That doesn't make any sense.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@peterjhendrick Nope. I'm saying the more people in society voluntarily involved in maintaining a coercive governance structure that "extorts", the less people in society will be extorted, so the greater the wider social utility.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Your baseline for social utility is assuming a given that people should be extorted. You're saying if people just learned to enjoy the extortion, then there would be more social utility than if they didn't enjoy the extortion. I can't argue with you there, since utility is directly tied to human enjoyment.
But your baseline is absurd. If we look only at the utilitarian argument, it becomes obvious that social utility is much higher without mass extortion, than it possibly could be with mass extortion, regardless of how many people choose to enjoy their extortion.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Supporting slavery isnt cool man. not cool at all. -D
Anarchy is a system - every blind statist ever
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Your opening sentence is a dichotomy as in 'Anarchic governance'
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I meant governance in the very general sense not as in a centralized government.
The nature of human interactions in the system.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
All I want to know, is, do you want to violently rule my life?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wait. Is "Satire" supposed to be taken as it implies?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post was admittedly clickbait, but I'm actually serious, consider checking my new post.
My point is that Anarchism offers no escape from centralization of power, and restriction of freedom.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, I don't follow laws, and don't pay taxes.
^ Then again. The chance of me being shot by a cop, is still rather low in Denmark, compared to the US.
Also, anarchism doesn't promise a solution. The word itself, is derived from Greek, "an" - Which means without, and "archon", which means rulers. That's what anarchism is.
But sure, will check your new post, to see if it's better. ^_^
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ahha - that's where you went an hid. :)
Didn't you already have this debate? Though that was Technocratic Democracy vs Anarchism...
You began with... this
To which I said that
and then you responded with this
Which received this response from me
And you followed up with
And my response was images broken steemit down... when came up wouldn't let me edit so see comments for image
Your final response to that was:
@larkenrose wasn't here for that one. You also sold your @positive account and I wondered where you'd hung your new hat.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
haha! I'll certainly respond to you now :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Staying within the character of your new name?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@satire/response-to-dwinblood-representative-governments-aren-t-so-susceptible-to-corruption
Meh occasionally
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's a waste of time to debate this topic with @satire.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In the words of Mick Jagger:
"Anarchy is the last glimmer of hope.
Unless we put an end to all forms of government, government will end mankind.
Death by democide is the biggest killer on the earth bar none.
We all have a moral duty to wake up those who are in a trance and who blindly follow orders. There would be no tyrants if there were no order followers and the defence of following orders is no longer a defence in a court of Law, Nueremberg saw to that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would converse with you but...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@christowner
What you are defining is a refined representative government, which I'm all for.
You don't actually seem to be opposed in any sense to representative government, just a notion of entitled authority.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit