Secret Santa 2024
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
You meant to say none of which are exclusive from statism, and all of which are not inherent to anarchy.

No, actually that's pretty close to the opposite of what I said.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Which is equally ridiculous. The point is that those are all issues that anarchy needs to address and generally fails to do. "There is no downside to anarchy" is a wildly radical and fringe position that not even its leading theorists would attempt to argue. You will need a great deal more than an empty non sequitur and handwaving to justify it.

Afaik no country implements anarchy, so your imagined grievances are just that, imagined.

Don't let this be another thread where you make wild claims without any logic, let alone evidence, to back them up. Your logic isn't even non-sequitur, it's non-existent.

How about trying to prove that statism prevents all of "Invasions. Weak or nonexistent social programs. Economic monopolization and exploitation. Child labor. Unsanitary food. Absence of coordinated emergency response. No public education." and that anarchism guarantees them.

Hint: you can't because it's provably false. But I'd like to see you try none the less.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Then actually research the topic and develop a bit of nuance about it. Do you really believe that anarchism is some magical, flawless political philosophy - that it has no downsides? No, of course not, that's just ridiculous. Since you recognise that, I think you should also recognise that it might be a good idea to research it a bit more before engaging in a debate about it.

Dat strawman.

What is particular mean hurr hurr I don't know so I'll just ignore it and claim other people are so dumb hurr hurr.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Did I say you have to agree with something to argue for it? No. I asked if there's anyone that agreed with it, because I'm interested in their opinion.

Ok mate, let's go with that :^)
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
No, actually that's pretty close to the opposite of what I said.

Yes, because you said the opposite of what you meant, unless you meant to totally disagree with yourself.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
hurr hurr

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
How about trying to prove that statism prevents all of "Invasions. Weak or nonexistent social programs. Economic monopolization and exploitation. Child labor. Unsanitary food. Absence of coordinated emergency response. No public education." and that anarchism guarantees them.

Hint: you can't because it's provably false. But I'd like to see you try none the less.

The argument being made, which you still haven't so much as touched, is that these are issues that anarchy in particular has fewer means to resolve. You keep reducing it to a question of association, because that's simpler for your purposes, when it's not such.

So we'll try this a different way: what are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of a non-state fielding a military as compared to a state in the event of a conflict? A thorough answer to this question alone should suffice.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Yes, because you said the opposite of what you meant, unless you meant to totally disagree with yourself.

No, I meant what I said and I said what I meant.

There is no need to strawman, just argue against what I post.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
The argument being made, which you still haven't so much as touched, is that these are issues that anarchy in particular has fewer means to resolve. You keep reducing it to a question of association, because that's simpler for your purposes, when it's not such.

Because if you can't at the very least prove that changing from state to statelessness affects the things you claim, then there's no point in discussing the impact. As I pointed out, your argument is provably false and you can observe everything you attributed to anarchism happening right now in state systems.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
So we'll try this a different way: what are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of a non-state fielding a military as compared to a state in the event of a conflict? A thorough answer to this question alone should suffice.

Sure.

The only real difference would be that in a non-state you can't use conscription. Well, unless we let our imagination run a little wild then sure you can imagine people being bred as soldiers or whatever. Then again even states nowadays struggle to make conscription work, only a few countries that have mandatory service have working systems, and a company in a non-state could certainly implement a similar system.

In modern conflicts private armies are already considered to be the driving force, though there it's often a state which initiates the conflict. Under UN law I don't think a private army can initiate a conflict, so perhaps simply through that much war would be removed.

If there was a conflict, a private army could work for either side with similar effects to a nation allying to either side. It's not really that different.

I don't know what difference you are trying to bait me into, but there's not much difference. Throughout the ages there have been mercenary armies fighting, and it's proved quite successful. Moving from state to stateless really doesn't change much in a practical sense.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Because if you can't at the very least prove that changing from state to statelessness affects the things you claim, then there's no point in discussing the impact.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The only real difference would be that in a non-state you can't use conscription.

"You can't prove there are differences!
...Here's a difference."

By the way, THAT's the most nuanced response you can come up with? Literally the only thing you can point to is conscription? Not going to touch on taxpayer funding, a centralized power structure, national intelligence agencies, military academies...? How about other various related facets? Diplomacy? Establishment of a military hierarchy? Division and specialization of labor? How dedicated personnel and state apparatus handle these as opposed to a non-expert populace?

Your musings on bred soldiers or workers conscripted by Exxon or something are fascinating, and I'm sure there are many prospective novelists looking to incorporate them into a new dystopian work, but much like your more topical claims they suffer from the same problem of crippling lunacy.
Last edited by Boredpayne; Jan 4, 2015 at 01:36 PM. Reason: tippo
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
"You can't prove there are differences!
...Here's a difference."

"I can't think of an argument to support my wild assertions, better quote some stuff out of context!"

You used to be better at discussion mate...
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Not going to touch on taxpayer funding, a centralized power structure, national intelligence agencies, military academies...? How about other various related facets? Diplomacy? Establishment of a military hierarchy? Division and specialization of labor? How dedicated personnel and state apparatus handle these as opposed to a non-expert populace?

Well since none of these are inherent in states nor are impossible in statelessness. Once again you simply make wild assertions without any kind of logic backing them up...

>taxpayer funding
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? How does private health care work again?

>centralized power structure
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? What is a board of directors again?

>national intelligence agencies
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? What are PIs?

>military academies
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? What is Academi?

You see a bit of a pattern forming?

>diplomacy
Ok I'm sure diplomacy doesn't exist outside the government, I mean how can two people talk to each other and make deals between companies and countries etc. Oh wait that happens all the fucking time.

>hierarchy
Ignoring that almost every company in existence has hierarchies, you have a good point. You know, if we ignore every company in existence... (I said it twice just to help you get the message, you're welcome)

>division and specialization of labor
Again, this happens in every company in existence... Or do you think the kids at McDonalds also handle the accounts?

>experts
Seriously, your argument is that experts can only exist in the government? BP your arguments are getting more and more divorced from reality by the second, I hope you don't say anything more that's absolutely insane...

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Your musings on bred soldiers or workers conscripted by Exxon or something are fascinating, and I'm sure there are many prospective novelists looking to incorporate them into a new dystopian work, but much like your more topical claims they suffer from the same problem of crippling lunacy.

Ok but maybe you should understand that in the past it was fairly common for people to follow the careers of their parents, and being a professional soldier and coming from a line of professional soldiers is not unheard of. You can make whatever random claims you want, but since it has happened I think it's safe to assume it can happen...


Welp, you have successfully slashed my hopes that your arguments will stay within the realms of reality and sanity. I hope you are happy, we are now in a surreal world of non-reality where insanity and complete blindness to the world around us is the norm.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
"I can't think of an argument to support my wild assertions, better quote some stuff out of context!"

You used to be better at discussion mate...

The onus is now on you to explain how I have distorted your meaning by removing it of context. Given that the entire context of the discussion is available to anyone with a mouse wheel, this feels very disingenuous.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Well since none of these are inherent in states nor are impossible in statelessness. Once again you simply make wild assertions without any kind of logic backing them up...

>taxpayer funding
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? How does private health care work again?

>centralized power structure
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? What is a board of directors again?

>national intelligence agencies
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? What are PIs?

>military academies
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right? What is Academi?

You see a bit of a pattern forming?

>diplomacy
Ok I'm sure diplomacy doesn't exist outside the government, I mean how can two people talk to each other and make deals between companies and countries etc. Oh wait that happens all the fucking time.

>hierarchy
Ignoring that almost every company in existence has hierarchies, you have a good point. You know, if we ignore every company in existence... (I said it twice just to help you get the message, you're welcome)

>division and specialization of labor
Again, this happens in every company in existence... Or do you think the kids at McDonalds also handle the accounts?

>experts
Seriously, your argument is that experts can only exist in the government? BP your arguments are getting more and more divorced from reality by the second, I hope you don't say anything more that's absolutely insane...

Continuously falling back on the (weak) argument that "analogous systems CAN exist!" (which raises the question of why simulating a state via corporate interests is better than a state in the first place, but I digress) without acknowledging their differences and advantages or disadvantages with regards to the topics mentioned is not "nuanced." It's really trite, actually.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
>centralized power structure
Because a similar system can't exist in statelessness right?

The absence of a centralized power structure is the literal definition of anarchy.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
I'd just like to butt in here. (from a psychological perspective)

Essentially, the human race is just a very large community of animals (unless you're a creationist). Our whole culture is possible purely because we can a) speak (relay information) and b) use tools. Other than that there is not much difference between us and any other animal.

We share the same base instincts with them. These include the egocentric outlook on life that is hardwired into the core psyche of all humans. This basically means that we think of ourselves first*. You can demonstrate this concept by asking a toddler (whose psychological structure is closer to the core than ours), who knows their left from their right hand, to point to the left hand of another person facing towards the toddler. They will invariably point to the right hand of the stranger, because it is to the left of the toddler.

What this core outlook does is protect us, and our evolutionary line, from extinction.

In Individuals, it also creates the need not to be ruled. This means that deep within everyone, we have an anarchic streak.

Of course, as we have the ability to reason, we can usually see that the benefits a ruling organisational structure imposes far outweigh the drawbacks (in most cases).

In conclusion, I think that the anarchy/order argument invariably ends in a catch-22:
While we crave freedom from any and all restrictions on our lives, our culture, and the lives we are accustomed to, would fall apart without them.

You may point out the fact that people being oppressed would live better if they were free. This is true. But if the whole of human civilization was reduced to anarchy, many more people would die than would be saved.

*This outlook can of course be over-ruled by certain situations, such as that of a mother and child, for obvious evolutionary reasons

Of course, this is purely my opinion, and I claim no superiority or any of that sort of thing.

Now flame me :3
How about a new fucking rule? Nobody's allowed to just disregard someones points by just shouting 'logical fallacy'. It just ends the discussion because one side doesn't want to give an answer.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Dat strawman.

What is particular mean hurr hurr I don't know so I'll just ignore it and claim other people are so dumb hurr hurr.

You're the worst.

You said there are no downsides to anarchy. I said "of course there are, every political system has tradeoffs, no political system is perfect and without flaws".

Then you say the stupid fallacy shit that just evades my point.

As well as developing nuance, how about you also stop trying to 'win' an argument by any means necessary.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
The onus is now on you to explain how I have distorted your meaning by removing it of context. Given that the entire context of the discussion is available to anyone with a mouse wheel, this feels very disingenuous.

Sure, the context of quote one was anarchism, the context of the second quote was conflict.

Since those are 2 different words, no doubt I do not have to explain that they are 2 different things.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Continuously falling back on the (weak) argument that "analogous systems CAN exist!" (which raises the question of why simulating a state via corporate interests is better than a state in the first place, but I digress) without acknowledging their differences and advantages or disadvantages with regards to the topics mentioned is not "nuanced." It's really trite, actually.

Your argument was that they can't exist, so the argument that they DO exist is what I would refer to as a 'hard counter'.

And now your counter argument is "your argument is not nuanced enough, it's trite" - as usual an argument without any substance. Very meta of you!

If you want to argue some specific advantage or disadvantage, then do so. No one is stopping you. Maybe you should try actually making a legitimate argument.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
The absence of a centralized power structure is the literal definition of anarchy.

No it isn't and again you don't understand context. A private company can well have a centralized power structure in anarchy. I hope I don't have to explain to you that Walmart is not a state.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
You're the worst.

You said there are no downsides to anarchy. I said "of course there are, every political system has tradeoffs, no political system is perfect and without flaws".

Then you say the stupid fallacy shit that just evades my point.

As well as developing nuance, how about you also stop trying to 'win' an argument by any means necessary.

Maybe we should make it a rule that you have to understand basic English to post here then.

In response to me saying there was no "particular downside to anarchism" you responded by saying "Do you really believe that anarchism is some magical, flawless political philosophy".

This is a textbook strawman. You even said "do you really believe". This is a strawman 100% through and through. No I don't believe that, if I believed that I would have said it, wouldn't I. Since instead I said "I don't see any particular downside to anarchism." isn't it logical to conclude that I didn't say "I believe that anarchism is some magical, flawless political philosophy".

I don't know why you are so concerned that I pointed out your strawman instead of countering your point. Are you really that desperate to have me respond to your personal attack that I haven't researched enough? Your argument is essentially "if you learn more you will agree with me" which is absurd. I could just as easily say "no you need to learn more, and you will agree with me". Wow what a great point you were making behind that fallacy, how amazing that your great point is actually ANOTHER fallacy.

If you don't want to get called out on your bullshit maybe you shouldn't post strawmen. I know you aren't so oblivious that you do this by accident. I shouldn't have to call you out on basically every thread, but since you keep doing it I keep calling you out.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Maybe we should make it a rule that you have to understand basic English to post here then.

In response to me saying there was no "particular downside to anarchism" you responded by saying "Do you really believe that anarchism is some magical, flawless political philosophy".

This is a textbook strawman. You even said "do you really believe". This is a strawman 100% through and through. No I don't believe that, if I believed that I would have said it, wouldn't I. Since instead I said "I don't see any particular downside to anarchism." isn't it logical to conclude that I didn't say "I believe that anarchism is some magical, flawless political philosophy".

I don't know why you are so concerned that I pointed out your strawman instead of countering your point. Are you really that desperate to have me respond to your personal attack that I haven't researched enough? Your argument is essentially "if you learn more you will agree with me" which is absurd. I could just as easily say "no you need to learn more, and you will agree with me". Wow what a great point you were making behind that fallacy, how amazing that your great point is actually ANOTHER fallacy.

If you don't want to get called out on your bullshit maybe you shouldn't post strawmen. I know you aren't so oblivious that you do this by accident. I shouldn't have to call you out on basically every thread, but since you keep doing it I keep calling you out.

Despite all that, again, you've evaded my point. I'm trying to get you to confirm your position that there are no downsides to anarchy. We both know why you're refusing to address it - it's clearly ridiculous, and obviously a position taken by someone who hasn't done their research.

My argument isn't that if you disagree with me then you're wrong, it's that even a halfwit can recognise that no political system is without its share of downsides. Surely, you're smart enough to account for the fact that there's shit you don't know, and that it might be a good idea to take that into consideration when making bold statements like 'there's no downside to anarchy'.