Originally Posted by Boredpayne
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
"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
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
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
