Anyone read the caption? "Can Afghan War be won in 18 months if it hasn't been won in 8 years?" remember the days (Bush admin) when if you suggested that we weren't winning in Iraq or Afghanistan the right wing and Fox News both labeled you as "un-American" or aiding the terrorist by not having faith in the Presidents powers? It's funny now someone else is in power suggesting that the Iraq war and Afghan is a loss cause is okay and Obama is worse for it. How do people not remember this?
@bananabrule Actually the god of the bible has commanded mass infanticide at least one time. But I admit, I'm not sure if it was the 25th of december yet.
Dresden Syndrome!! Cunt! I hope these people suffer the same as the inflict. Well they dont, they get others to inflict it on them. Theres a few seats in hell for cunts like that.
Yes! Let's go after the women and children! If the ruling class, the oppressors harbor bad guys kill the opressed. That's how the best country in the world does it nowadays? So the afghan civilians will have to choose between : Being on the US's side and getting bombed by talibans. Or being on the taliban's side and get killed by the united states. Does this man have any morals?
Wow that Simmons sounds like the Taliban. Isn't it the Taliban who threaten the villagers that if they talk or assist the US forces, they will come back in the middle of the night and kill everyone?
Sounds like this whack-job is suggesting the US should act like the Taliban.
haven't they been that for several years now but only afghans seem to get leveled the warlords always seem to get out of the village just before the bombs drop. usa did the same thing in cambodia and laos before if you cant beat the bad guys kill innocent civilians.
Umm, yeah many Afghan villages Do have that mind set. Its not a racist thing, its history.
Looks like that guess still has a 20th century view though, thinking that we still fight wars with organized armies, and that countries we are in have unified governments with the capacity to call truce.
What fox news doesn't realize is that America isn't a superpower anymore...it's a highschool student with credicard dept up over it's ears that will take his whole life to pay back......and soon the credit card company is coming!
@JBeatty17 Nah, evangelicalism has its flaws but its not that ancient. 19th maybe if were using centuries as some sort of modernism meter, but there isn't a full blown christian terrorist group today. There were cases in Ireland, and a couple of murders and abortion bombings in the states, but not "50 people killed by car bomb" every Tuesday in a major state over here.
lol un fucking believable, why dresden, make it hiroshima!
dresden is commonly considered one of the most hideous and unnecessary attacks of the war, that you would allow someone to invoke it, just beyond words..
this is just rampant demonic evil, and u tolerate it
Ya crazy like not murdering people that don't pose a real threat... people in villages don't pose real threats to our national security. The only thing that currently does is our spending policy.
And then in retaliation those "the 12th century" people knowledgeable in many fields including internet will buy one nuke on international weapens black market and will detonate it 300 km above the ground somewhere in USA or EU resulting in six months EMP shock-wave that levels our civilizations to 10th century standards of living! They win, because they would be now two centuries ahead of us!
All forms of government are transitional, and all forms of government have varying levels of stability. In this - all governments will eventually fail and become something else - and in this, anarchy is no different than the rest of the models of rule which have been tried throughout human existence.
At that - I will simply say that it is my opinion that Anarchy is the least stable of these and the briefest of states (statuses).
Well, anarchy is not a 'rule', There is no 'governement', meaning a political class... How can it be if its defined by the absence of a central power?
But anarchy is not a type of governemnt, it is not a type of rule, it is a lack of it. The state is useless, so it is as stable as it possibly can be. People can govern themselves as they chose fit, but from this what will develop is something of anarchocapitalist libertarian principles as that deliver us the best results.
Interesting debate although I believe that there is a confusion on the terme 'anarchy'. I believe that 'Visfen' refers to anarchy as we undertstand since the 19th centure (bakounine, Kropotkin).
There where some pretty solid arnarchist expericences in history. In spain during the civil, Hungary in 56, more recently, Argentina after the crisis of 2000. Anarchy would be defined than as the democratic control of the means of production.
No no, Anarchy doesn't mean democratic control of the means of production. That is what socialist anarchism is. Anarchy is more simplistic, it is simply the lack of a state, and that's it. And the term is as old as philosophy, it stems back all the way to Aristoteles.
To simply redfine it as Qes has as a tranisition phase, or a lack of rules, is agitating and dishonest, not to speak of stupid, as it is not what it is about at all.
Visfen you are trying to apply the term Anarchy holistically both to the individual and to the collective.
I call it a transitional phase, because collectives aggregate, Is Europe an archy? In Europe there is no monopoly of rules - so indeed as a collective, they are an anarchy, no? There is no superstate, not even the EU, truly, which is anything but agreed upon law.
But if you spoke of just Sweden - it is not an anarchical state.
This conversation rotates around three principle parts - Scope, Definition, and Human nature. What you're constantly trying to discuss is human nature, which I know we disagree on - but had no intention of discussing for the zealotry you've shown. That being said - I'll say that I find Human Motivation being the key integral flaw in most of the modern political philosophies. Communism fails this test as does your anarchy, which I lament, truly. That being said, my bed ordains me to sleep. -Qes
Scope is irrelevant, your defintions are entirely personal and have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the words and human nature is what it is. I have no great faith in humanity, I have a generally grim outlook on the stupid masses and their bickering, but I understand that in any circumstances volountary interaction is always better because it produce better results - the same goes for rules. While democracy benefits the majority, free market benefits all.
well I can understand why Qes said that. Anarachy is a lack of state, although it doesnt mean lack of rules, the confusion is understandable. The point is simply that 'rules' need to be apply, so a monopole of power is required. If we talk about tribal societies, thats not a concern, but if a 'polis' falls into anarchy, we generally mean by that an absence of rule, chaos... Anyway the word itself just means no state...
But you don't need a monopoly. There is no need for a monopoly on anything.
You can have rules without monopolies, just as we can have food without a monopoly on agriculture. Rules, just as anything, is something that can be traded and bartered for. International corporations understand this very well.
I agree that many Afghanis' world view may be more inline with someone from the 12th century than those living in a highly industrialized country in the 21th century.
Sun Tzu teaches us that the pinnacle of deployment approaches the formless, where no spy may infiltrate it, nor enemy make designs against it. Wars are not won by destroying the enemy, they are won by removing the cause for conflict. If killing the enemy spawns 5 more, you are not winning the war. Killing is a byproduct of war, not the goal.
The weapons "despair" and "hope" can conquer the minds of enemies, making them allies - wherein the war is won.
I gotta agree. We're wasting money and lives defending people that want nothing to do with us. They don't want us improving their infrastructure, liberating their women, or bring their government out of the dark ages. It's time to quit worrying about collateral damage over there and wipe out the hotspots completely. They'll get the message that having the Taliban and Al Qaeda around is bad for everyone and start taking care of themselves.
I agree they don't want us over there. But I do feel like since we did bomb their shit we have to rebuild it. I mean if we leave there without building what we destroyed then it will truly be a waste of time
They had nothing before we were there and they'll go back to having nothing soon after we leave. A lot of the areas we bombed didn't have schools, electricity, running water, or even roads. Afghanistan is a wasteland and we can't afford to change that.
Yes but what we did destroy needs to be repaired. Don't use the excuse of they had nothing...Sounds like Bushs mother after Katrina. These people didn't have much before..they should love living in the Superdome
I'm sorry, I have to agree. I fucking HATE FOX news and never agree with anything but saying that a theocracy has a 12th century mentality isn't offensive, it's the truth.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans that still live with the blinders of religion as well so really what makes us any "better"?
Wow. So now this idiot wants to utilize terrorism (directed strikes against civilian targets to induce fear) as a tactic in a military campaign? Hmm. FOX supports terrorism. There you have it.
As to the 12th century remark, he's right to an extent, but then, if you talk to some radical Christians, they're stuck back there, too, and this is a holy crusade - George W. Bush told them so!
Why is this supposed to be offensive?? Afghanistan is backwards!!! Sorry, but that is not up for discussion. I don't agree with those Fox shithead on pretty much anything, but please let's cut the PC bullshit. We need to leave that place and let them take care of themselves.
Many afghans ARE living in the 12th century---that's undeniable---but they also use 21st century weapons. But what this guy is suggesting is a war crime no better than anything a terrorist has ever done.
They will get the message that the U.S. ACTS like it's the 12th century... before republics, rational law, rights, international treaties, etc. These two sound like they're in Hitler's Germany. They should renounce their U.S. citizenship and leave this country immediately.
They will get the message and they will then continue their 12th century illiterate peasants and continue suicide bombs and other terrorist acts.... it's a vicious circle.
This puke thinks leveling villages consisting MOSTLY of innocents just dandy! The firebombing of Dresden is one of the most morally reprehensible things US has ever done. Right up there with the two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs and the near genocide of the native Americans. This made me think of the scene from Full Metal Jacket. "How can you shoot women and children?" "Its easy! Ya just don't lead em so much! hahaha!" Who cares? they're just gooks, rag-heads, (insert dehumanizing label)
Quit overhyping this shit, you neocon fuckwads! Afghanistan is NOT a threat! So what if they train a few terrorists. We can PREVENT terrorist attacks much more easily and at less cost. We don't need to invade other countries and occupy the Middle East even MORE! We're just screwing ourselves. You're making a problem worse that YOU created by inviting the terrorists through an overly interventionist foreign policy.
Just bring the troops home already. Cut this world police bullshit.
Yeah, but then how would the military industrial complex make their money and the neocons get their screaming orgasms when they see brown people getting bombed?
Wow, Fox actually said something rational... they think like it's the 12th century. LOL@ stupid islam. If it weren't for the damn gas pipeline I'd say get us outta there... too bad we're repeating the same mistakes we've made half a dozen times before.
in the 60s and 70s before the USSR invasion, Afghanistan was closer to the 20th century, but the US funded billions of dollars to the bumpkin warlords in the countryside to fight off the Russians which gave us those great crusaders of democracy human rights and liberty like Osama bin Laden and the Taliban..
How many terrorists from AFGHANISTAN have attacked us in recent years? Name one Afghani! I bet you can hardly do it, and neither can I. Osama bin Laden is SAUDI. The hijackers didn't come from there. Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi, if I recall. Bin Al Shibh, KSM, all those bastards came from NON-Afghan nations, usually Arabia or somewhere close by.
Why are we WASTING TIME with Afghanistan? The "training camps" are hardly a concern. Let's stop terrorists who actually know their stuff.
The case for war in Afghanistan was NEVER very strong. I'm still amazed that the neocons can muster an argument after 8 years of abject failure. Did they not hear about the man who was recently sentenced to death for standing up for equality and women's rights, in "democratic" AFGHANISTAN these days?
It'll take a lot more than mere elections to secure democracy. Only one major scholar (Preworski) designates democracy by merely elections. Most others use rights and liberty as well.
This is what's wrong with Fox! They let people come onto their network and say the most despicable things. No other network does this. If their network isn't taken off the air, it at least has to bring in new management.
Wayne on Fox 11-17-2005 just before the 2006 election.
SIMMONS: Well, listen, the American people better wake up, Bill, because I can tell you unequivocally -- and this is not -- this is not an opinion. This will absolutely be proven to be fact.
If the Democrats come into power in the United States and re-employ their vision of defense for this country, we will have 9-1-1s unabated.
I believe he already knows there will be another 911. Cheney Jr.
The American people are, just perhaps, fed up enough to be ready for ANARCHISM.
Anarchism is not "chaos" - it is the logical end of democratic political philosophy. "Democracy" means "rule of the common people" - "anarchism" means "without ruler."
It is time for the people of the world to assert themselves. They only became a political constituency of any kind in the 19th century - it's time to stop giving away your power to blood thirsty parasites. YOU CAN DO BETTER!
Anarchism cannot last, the peaceful anarchism you imagine is as idealistic and fantastic as communism and benevolent dictatorships.
If even if existed for a short time, someone would seize power through violence or coercion. To prevent this, rules must be made, to enforce these, some power structure must be made - and no longer is there anarchy anyway.
Anarchy is a temporary state - not a real societal system.
Why do you say anarchism can not last? If anything, the states that move towards liberty and anarchism are those that hold the longest. So we got a proxy in the epistemolgy that supports it.
Further on Iceland had three hundred years of peace while the rest of Europe was at war ALL THE TIME, they had anarchy.
And finally, if the problem with anarchism is that a state is created, then how does a state solve that? What magic way can stop that state from being a tyrannical state?
And don't forget about anarchist Ireland. It took Britain so long to take it over because the Irish did not view the concept of a state and its rulers (the monarch) as an authority.
I'm sure you're also aware of how the origin of the state is within religion. Many atheists are religious: they worship the arbitrary (and immoral) state laws or at least some doctrine like the Constitution (the more sane ones at least); although there are a few atheist anti-statists and I love them dearly.
The state not only originates from religion, IT IS religion. The idea that someone takes the position of atheism as the rational absolute, but then goes around and bow to the state, are anything but irrational religious zealots is absurd. They are probably the worst kind of religious people there is, because they are not even consistent.
As with the consitution, the experiment of the US shows that even a small and harmless state will grow to an empire. A paper doesn't protect against tyranny.
Anarchy is a tricky term, because it completely depends upon the scope in which it is overlaid. The Iceland you refer to was not "anarchical", there were systems of rule and laws, but there was no "state" to speak of. A lack of a "nation state" is not anarchy, merely the lack of a modern form of political cohesion.
Anarchy, while it has tried to shed it's image, is largely about the transitions, or segmentations of power structures, rather than a possible structure itself.
But then you do not know what anarchy is. Rule of law is essential to anarchy theory! Again, anarchy doesn't mean that there aren't any rules, but simply that rules work in a volountary marketplace.
You do not need a state to have rules. For instance, if you want to be my neighbour, you have to agree to our housing organizations rules.
If you want to buy insurnace, write a contract or work for a wage, you have to write a contract.
But all these rules are volountary, and subject to comepition
You're essentially correct here. It's the VOLUNTARY nature of all of this which is crucial. Whatever the "hyphenation", all anarchists agree on this point. I think the arguments beyond this reflect different understandings of the implications of being a free society.
That said, I believe that a people must possess a basic cultural character in order for them to become and remain free. Hence, why my own views fall within the Left/Individualist spectra.
Iceland is the probably the best example in history of how this worked, there were several court systems with different laws and law enforcers, that had to develop laws that were mutually benenfical and efficient. Instead of saying that the fee for littering should be X there will instead be a process for it.
A lack of state is the definition of Anarchy, so while I have no problem explaining it to you, it would be nice if you looked it up in a dictionairy instead of trying to debate semantics.
Further on, if you want an example of how anarchy work, you need only look at the internet. But look soon, beacuse in due time it will not be a volountary marketplace for ideas and human interaction, it will be regulated by men who think they are our betters because 51% of the morons voted for them.
In the end political philosophy is quite useless knowledge, but economic theory is not, in understanding free market pricinples you can do like me, be financially independent without even graduating
Anarchism doesn't mean that there wont be any rules, but that the rules will have to compete in the market place so that ineffecient and stupid rules are discarded.
Anarchism is simply the natural state of man trough peaceful interactions. The state negates that by it's very existence as it is a monopoly on violoence and coercion. The state, by the very definition of its' existence is the very thing you fear the most in your criticsm of anarchy
Anarchism means there are no enforcers of rules, and specifically requires a scope to be considered accurate. If the U.S. separated into tribes, one could say the former US was in a state of anarchy - but each individual tribe would not be, because of whatever local power structure emerged in the vacuum.
In the end, the manner by which any power structure is created, is only strong enough as it's consistency, which entropy always degrades, and time belies.
No, anarchism doesn't mena that there are no enforcers of rules, it simply means there is no monopoly on enforcers of rules. If the US seperated into tribes, every tribe for its' own survival would have to accept with other tribes certain rules, those that have proven to work the best are those of private ownership and homesteading. In fact, those are the rules indians when in conflict chose.
There is no power vacuum, we don't need rulers, we can rule ourselves. The state is useless.
It is an issue of scope. Anarchy always applies in situations wherein no single form of rule exists, or as you put it "a lack of monopoly." As such, the Earth technically is in a state of anarchy, since there is no governing body or system, however, each sovereignty is not in a state of anarchy where the power structures still can enforce law. In this, at the most local level, anarchy will never exist for long, as individualism is always replaced with collectivism and then aggregates.
No it's not. The earth is definetly not in anarchy as there are several states in different areas with a monopoly on violence.
Several local monopolies are still monopolies, that doesn't change one bit within the scope.
You problem is that you do not know/understand what anarchy is. It is simply a lack of state, which is probably defined as a monopoly of violence. In Iceland, wherever you lived, you could go to whatever court.
No - you're lack of understanding of Anarchy is that the term predates the existence of the "state" as an intellectual concept. Anarchy has existed in philosophical and political terms since long before any form of modern political system could be recognized, and as such, it's definitive terms and conditions predate this "new anarchy" to which you now attempt to evangelize is an attempt at redefining somethings for spurious reasoning.
The term? Again you're arguing semantics. Religion predates statism, does that make religion more viable than the state as a means of governance?What the hell is your argument here
We didn't have the term in tribal times, for most part we didn't even need a system of rules because everything was in abundance, but when barbarians discovered they could earn more money owning slaves than stealing, that is when the state was created. When we developed to the point where we produced more than we ate
You and I are arguing different things - you want to argue the superiority or inferiority of modes and ethics of varying governmental organizational sovereignties - I am talking about what they are, and how they function, not their superiorities or inferiorities.
I am not suggesting religion, nor statehood, nor tribalism, nor kingdoms, nor any form of government is superior - only that there always IS a government, except in times of transition. Those times of transition - are anarchy.
Anarchy isn't a governmental organisational system, it is basically political atheism.
There is not always a government, this is what you do not seem to understand. Somalia is anarchy now for instance, they have no monopoly on rules or enforcement. Iceland didn't have a government. Ireland didn't. It's not about transition.
So your problem here is that you fail to recognize what a government is, and what a lack of it is. It is not a matter of republicanism, it is a matter of volountary or not.
You are trying to mesh plutocracy (plutoarchy) with anarchy, when they are distinctive things. A "lack of monopoly" on rules means that each individual subset of mini-rules are themselves ruling bodies. In a federated or confederated system, such bodies might have agreed to facets - but then this is not anarchy either, but instead some kind of federated or confederated consensus of ruling bodies into a larger one - collectivism aggregating.
No, again, for the last time. Anarchy is not a lack of rules, it is a lack of state.
The subsequent result of a lack of a monopoly on these rules are a competing courtsystems, named dispure resolution organizations.
It doesn't need to be federated, it doesn't need to be confederated, again, this is not an issue of republicanism. You can go to a court in Alaska and live on the North Pole in such a system. It has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with volountarism.
The problem is that your understanding of government is so broad it involves anyone anywhere making any rules. By that ridiculous definition McDonalds, a cardealership, a family, yes even yourself, is a government.
Frankly such a definition is simply wrong, you need only read the dictionairy to understand that a governemnt is a monopoly on violence is a said geographical area.
Volountary agreed on rules is not a government. So a family is not a government.
We perhaps disagree on human nature - where as you believe humanities best nature - volunteer-ism, might be utilized to the best possible ends in order to achieve a Eudiamonia of sorts - I believe that volunteer-ism is insufficient to create a stable society. The free market is not volunteer-ist, but that is an entirely different argument.
I see the accumulation and centralization of power as a cardinal influence on human behavior, which I lament, but do not deny. Collectives aggregate.
Of course voluntarism is better, or are you suggesting there is some great benefit in forcing people? Then the question is, who should force whom what and why? Of course that question can not be answered without creating a foundation for society on an non-universal prinicple, that is to say, something that benefits one group over another. And that is not a foundation for a great society, that is a foundation for tyranny.
And yes, the free market is volountarist, if you don't understand that....
It's like you get your understanding of political philosophy from Sid Meier's Civilization. Not only do you fail to recognize the definition of a state and the defintion of Anarchy, you fail to even comprehend how anything in the broad spectrum of things could be done with volountary rules
Basically in this you are suggesting that there is no form of volountarism in anything, you negate all contract theory and trade as always being coercive. The implications of what you are saying are staggering
I have not insulted you, I ask you do not insult me by presuming to grasp where I have acquired my understanding - the fact that you are failing or refusing to acknowledge the simple applications of this word "anarchy" as used for thousands of years prior to the concept of the "nation state" indicates an unwillingness to reach understanding between yourself and I.
You are again attempting to argue the merits of a political philosophy rather than existence thereof - we talk past one another.-Qes
Simply put - there will never be a time in which any individual finds themselves never under the laws or imposed rulings of people other than his or her own designs. There will never be "individual freedom" of a kind that eliminates all non-contractual obligations. There will always be a power that can coerce it's rules upon an individual willing or no, through force, guile, or induction. Never will there be a time where individuals might choose their own rules per person.
Well of course there wont be such a system, where we will live without rules, because we will because we want to survive make up certain rules. But it will be entirely voluntary, it wont be forced on us. If you don't want to be part of the volountary society, you want to robb and steal, then fine, you do so - and starve. Anarchy is not a lack of rules, it is a lack of monopoly of rules.
So far all you've done is debated the anarchy boogey-monster. You've made no actual criticism of anarchy.
I have no need, nor desire, to criticize anarchy - it's transitional status is a fact of rule, rather than something to fight against as an encroaching threat.
No thief in such a society would stave. No system can be entirely voluntary - this is fantasy. Hobbes taught us that, sadly.
So you have no need, desire to criticize anarchy, because you have redefined it to be something else. How convenient for you. Please read the dictioniary, it's tireing lecturing Americans on language.
Anarchy is the height of human interaction, it is the most efficient and the only moraly just.
Of course a system can be entirely volountary, but because we are rational we will subdue to certain rules to take part in human interaction.
Hobbes is wrong, which Hayek proved without a doubt.
You have chosen to redefine Anarchy for reasons you've yet to mention, and I am beginning to doubt you'll ever reveal them. Hobbes was wrong on his conclusions, but not on the problems he raised - the issue of will and force and positivism raised has yet to be countered, save perhaps by Realism which is only a few hundred years old. Jefferson did a decent job, but concedes that coercion is still necessary.
Your definitions are what fail you here, and their limitations handicap you.
I have not redefined anarchy at all. For fucks sake, just read the dictionairy.
From websters:
1 a : absence of government
Try to listen to the actual anarchist what anarchism is about, not some ridiculous home-made strawman.
Hoppes understanding of individualism is so limited it becomes irrelevant. A thief is not an individualist, he is a collectivst, that apply different rules to himself and others.
Jefferson was wrong, a piece of paper doesn't protect against tyranny.
I cited the philosophers to cite their questions - not to agree with their conclusions. It is their questions wherein the truth lay.
If you want to use your Websters source - you must then define "government" and perhaps you will see why this conversation has turned to the surreal. I have used "government" and "ruling body" and "sovereignty" interchangeably in order to illustrate the concepts of rule are always present - which is something, in scope, anarchy appends.
No, I don't have to redefine it, it is simply a more sofisticated understanding of the definition. Would you suggest you can have a government without an area to govern? Would you suggest you can have a government with competiting set of rules on said area? So a government is about a monopoly of rules on a said area.
In anarchy scope is irrelvant. I could go to any court anywhere and make any deals with anyone. It's not a matter of federalism/republicanism. It's a matter of free market.
While I hope you take that olive branch - yes, you can have government without area. Governments usually have internally competing rules, so yes.
And scope is not irrelevant - because what you describe is a form of collective plutocratic corporatism (though I'm not suggesting you strictly mean fiscal corporations).
Put bluntly - the individuals who decide they wish to rule and do so with weapons, will end an "peaceful anarchy" that you have defined.
No, you can not have a government without an area to govern. What would be the point? Taking taxes from people that leave nowhere to enforce rules on people that live nowhere with laws that noone is forced to follow?
No government has internally competing rules... or are you suggesting federalism creates this? No it doesn't. Different areas.
The individuals who devide they wish to rule with force they do so today as well, thieves and morons, that fills the halls of congress.
At least if we're free we can protect ourselves against their incompetence. But you seem to be perfectly comfortable following the rules of other, lesser, dumber and weaker men. I am not, I know for a fact that people like Obama and McCain are made from the same cloth, the cloth of thieves and murderers, and whatever their intentions might be, their own human incompetence will result in disasters.
What I propose is a free market, which if you understand it, will lead to the benefit of all.
You seem to be stuck in the statist mind. You think that the only way to have rules in an area is to have a monopoly on them. But think about it, the rules on your wage contract differ from inidividual to individual. We do fine with a free market on wage rules.
Anarchy doesn't mean republicanism, which you seem to think, it doesn't mean that the govenrment is local, it means that there is no government! So again, the problem here is that you don't know/understand the definition.
I have no attachment to the concept of the nation state - only that "government" if and only if defined as any body so able to impose it's edicts, agreed to upon or not, upon any other individual through the use of coercion or force - will always exist in some form or another. It could be as simple as the local bully with a club, a corporation with wages, a king with an army, or a republic with representatives.
Anarchy is a transitional phase between governments.
Government is not defined as anybody who enforces rules, it is strictly a monopoly on these rules. DRO, dispute resolution organization, are the anarchy alternative to the state.
Anarchy doesn't mean lack of rule of law, it means lack of state. A lack of a monopoly of rules. You get to chose who will enforce the wage contract with your employeer.
Anarchy is not a transitional phase between government, what kind of ridiculous understanding of political philosophy is that...
The redefining of a philosophical term to reach political ends, while unoriginal, is not particularly effective. Suggesting that anarchy is defined as the lack of a modern conception, is to deny the definition that predated that conception by several thousand years.
This requires the suspension of disbelief in the history of the term, and philosophies on anarchy that precludes "statehood" as an object of the mind.
The realities of life will not disappear for the absence of a state. That includes the need for cooperation, and the consequences for poisoning one's relations with others.
That said, unlike my "anarcho-capitalist" friends, I envision anarchism as less a statement against only the state, but as a GENERAL rejection of authoritarianism. And I would submit, without a culture of implicit anti-authoritarianism, people will not remain free.
Authoritarianism comes from the collective, not from volountary cooperation in a free market place, with the only rational organization of property rights there is - self ownership and the ownership of what you mix your labour with.
Culture is not even part of the equation, people don't have to change, they can stay just as they are, the market place will deal with everything. That is what it is for, to solve problems with peaceful human interaction
It could be said that advocating a "cultural change" is "utopian." I think such a view is ahistorical. Changes in general opinion, through to outright "shifts in consciousness" certainly can and do occur.
I'm assuming by "peaceful" you mean "pacifistic." I advocate the preconditions of peace, while recognizing the need of people to cast off their oppressors, whether that be an individual or a systematic.
I also think you misunderstand the essential character of anarchism. It is not a call to disorder, any more than what you now call the "private sphere" of your life need be chaotic and without organization.
The infantilizing quality of the state leads to degeneracy.
In all honesty, I think the psychopath calling for a Dresden styling bombing of Afghanistan is a far more egregious comment than the 12th century quote. One is calling the nation a little backwards and the other is calling for the widespread execution of its citizens.
And this is what's wrong with "liberal"/Democrat-leaning media: TPM thinks it's worse to say something culturally insensitive than to threaten mass murder.
Afghanistan and the middle east is the same. They publicly torture, stone and hang homosexuals, feminists and other "evil doers" for shnicks and giggles while a woman can't even show her ankle.
As fucked up as the US is, its general culture is not nearly as bad as that of Afghanistan.
Well yeah.. kinda - Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for Afghanistan, any more than the US can for itself. The relative scales are different, but the source of the problem is much the same. I'm pretty sure they don't do it for 'shnicks and giggles' though. It's still reprehensible.
Anyone read the caption? "Can Afghan War be won in 18 months if it hasn't been won in 8 years?" remember the days (Bush admin) when if you suggested that we weren't winning in Iraq or Afghanistan the right wing and Fox News both labeled you as "un-American" or aiding the terrorist by not having faith in the Presidents powers? It's funny now someone else is in power suggesting that the Iraq war and Afghan is a loss cause is okay and Obama is worse for it. How do people not remember this?
ERAUPRCWA 1 year ago
@bananabrule Actually the god of the bible has commanded mass infanticide at least one time. But I admit, I'm not sure if it was the 25th of december yet.
AEgamesFtw 1 year ago
Dresden Syndrome!! Cunt! I hope these people suffer the same as the inflict. Well they dont, they get others to inflict it on them. Theres a few seats in hell for cunts like that.
Peace
antoconno 1 year ago
war mongers
marniespeaks 2 years ago
Yes! Let's go after the women and children! If the ruling class, the oppressors harbor bad guys kill the opressed. That's how the best country in the world does it nowadays? So the afghan civilians will have to choose between : Being on the US's side and getting bombed by talibans. Or being on the taliban's side and get killed by the united states. Does this man have any morals?
TheProgressistViewer 2 years ago
If Afghanistan is composed of 12th century thinkers, the US military is the Mongol horde.... just sayin'
tonycapricorny 2 years ago
.. sounds a whole lot like Viet Nam ..
milkgodnl 2 years ago
Wow that Simmons sounds like the Taliban. Isn't it the Taliban who threaten the villagers that if they talk or assist the US forces, they will come back in the middle of the night and kill everyone?
Sounds like this whack-job is suggesting the US should act like the Taliban.
GretchenDawntreader 2 years ago
haven't they been that for several years now but only afghans seem to get leveled the warlords always seem to get out of the village just before the bombs drop. usa did the same thing in cambodia and laos before if you cant beat the bad guys kill innocent civilians.
rostant999 2 years ago 2
TPM, what's with the title?
ctw005 2 years ago
In other words," lets terrorise innocent civilians to get what we want."
No wonder America is slowly going down the tubes.
xeroone1 2 years ago 3
Those poor civilians, all they're doing is harboring terrorists.
TheMoaBird 2 years ago
The ruling class does. The villagers and civilians are helpless..
TheProgressistViewer 2 years ago
Umm, yeah many Afghan villages Do have that mind set. Its not a racist thing, its history.
Looks like that guess still has a 20th century view though, thinking that we still fight wars with organized armies, and that countries we are in have unified governments with the capacity to call truce.
MachShot1337 2 years ago
Well said
TheProgressistViewer 2 years ago
Jeebus, the guest's comments about levelling villages were far more shocking than Napolitano's 12th c. remark.
What's with the title of this clip?
ZejithThemis 2 years ago 2
What fox news doesn't realize is that America isn't a superpower anymore...it's a highschool student with credicard dept up over it's ears that will take his whole life to pay back......and soon the credit card company is coming!
Salladsdressing 2 years ago 9
Fox News Think Like It's "The 11th Century"
Listen to this fool telling the world how tough Americans are.
MendingMedia 2 years ago 3
The Judge is absolutely correct. They DO have a 12th century mindset and, regrettably, many of them only understand force.
That's the way they have ruled their lands for thousands of years.
We need to stop nation-building and LEAVE.
robert7232 2 years ago
Come on, america has bigger problems than pollical correctness. Fact is most afganis are illiterate and living in tribes.
martinaoe2 2 years ago
Evangelical conservatives think like it's the 11th Century. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
JBeatty17 2 years ago 7
Exactly what I was thinking.
That guy just used a threat of violent retribution against civilian targets to effect political change... Isn't that the definition of terrorism?
bkarwin 2 years ago 2
@JBeatty17 Nah, evangelicalism has its flaws but its not that ancient. 19th maybe if were using centuries as some sort of modernism meter, but there isn't a full blown christian terrorist group today. There were cases in Ireland, and a couple of murders and abortion bombings in the states, but not "50 people killed by car bomb" every Tuesday in a major state over here.
MachShot1337 2 years ago
lol un fucking believable, why dresden, make it hiroshima!
dresden is commonly considered one of the most hideous and unnecessary attacks of the war, that you would allow someone to invoke it, just beyond words..
this is just rampant demonic evil, and u tolerate it
random0815 2 years ago 2
Ron Paul said:
Quote: No Afghani has ever attacked America
minteko 2 years ago
yeah but Ron Paul is just as crazy as these guys.
truthteller75 2 years ago
Ya crazy like not murdering people that don't pose a real threat... people in villages don't pose real threats to our national security. The only thing that currently does is our spending policy.
dylbro 2 years ago
What Afghani has?
MendingMedia 2 years ago
pussies playing hawk again
Somai82 2 years ago
"Obama's World Wide Apology Tour"? -- for comments like these!
TheJaguarTracks 2 years ago
This vid to me is just a reminder as to why i hate fox...yea thats right ...hate!
milkmantx 2 years ago
i cant believe how wrong this video is...
reeft 2 years ago
Mr. Simmons' suit looks like it's taped on .
k166a 2 years ago
And then in retaliation those "the 12th century" people knowledgeable in many fields including internet will buy one nuke on international weapens black market and will detonate it 300 km above the ground somewhere in USA or EU resulting in six months EMP shock-wave that levels our civilizations to 10th century standards of living! They win, because they would be now two centuries ahead of us!
RemiG2006 2 years ago
Let me put forth this olive branch:
All forms of government are transitional, and all forms of government have varying levels of stability. In this - all governments will eventually fail and become something else - and in this, anarchy is no different than the rest of the models of rule which have been tried throughout human existence.
At that - I will simply say that it is my opinion that Anarchy is the least stable of these and the briefest of states (statuses).
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Well, anarchy is not a 'rule', There is no 'governement', meaning a political class... How can it be if its defined by the absence of a central power?
frogbuster20 2 years ago
But anarchy is not a type of governemnt, it is not a type of rule, it is a lack of it. The state is useless, so it is as stable as it possibly can be. People can govern themselves as they chose fit, but from this what will develop is something of anarchocapitalist libertarian principles as that deliver us the best results.
Visfen 2 years ago
Most of the middle east thinks it's the 12th century.
IntroToYourPsych 2 years ago
Its scary listening to people talk about peoples lives like they're nothing.
tankwfw 2 years ago
...
frogbuster20 2 years ago
Interesting debate although I believe that there is a confusion on the terme 'anarchy'. I believe that 'Visfen' refers to anarchy as we undertstand since the 19th centure (bakounine, Kropotkin).
There where some pretty solid arnarchist expericences in history. In spain during the civil, Hungary in 56, more recently, Argentina after the crisis of 2000. Anarchy would be defined than as the democratic control of the means of production.
frogbuster20 2 years ago
No no, Anarchy doesn't mean democratic control of the means of production. That is what socialist anarchism is. Anarchy is more simplistic, it is simply the lack of a state, and that's it. And the term is as old as philosophy, it stems back all the way to Aristoteles.
To simply redfine it as Qes has as a tranisition phase, or a lack of rules, is agitating and dishonest, not to speak of stupid, as it is not what it is about at all.
Visfen 2 years ago
Visfen you are trying to apply the term Anarchy holistically both to the individual and to the collective.
I call it a transitional phase, because collectives aggregate, Is Europe an archy? In Europe there is no monopoly of rules - so indeed as a collective, they are an anarchy, no? There is no superstate, not even the EU, truly, which is anything but agreed upon law.
But if you spoke of just Sweden - it is not an anarchical state.
Scope is what is being ignored, my friend.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
But there are several monopolies on rules in Europe... so scope is irrelevant unless you have some ridiculous understanding of monopoly.
And no, in anarchy you would not have several small states, you would have no states, that means no monopoly on rules anywhere in any area.
Visfen 2 years ago
This conversation rotates around three principle parts - Scope, Definition, and Human nature. What you're constantly trying to discuss is human nature, which I know we disagree on - but had no intention of discussing for the zealotry you've shown. That being said - I'll say that I find Human Motivation being the key integral flaw in most of the modern political philosophies. Communism fails this test as does your anarchy, which I lament, truly. That being said, my bed ordains me to sleep. -Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Scope is irrelevant, your defintions are entirely personal and have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the words and human nature is what it is. I have no great faith in humanity, I have a generally grim outlook on the stupid masses and their bickering, but I understand that in any circumstances volountary interaction is always better because it produce better results - the same goes for rules. While democracy benefits the majority, free market benefits all.
Visfen 2 years ago
well I can understand why Qes said that. Anarachy is a lack of state, although it doesnt mean lack of rules, the confusion is understandable. The point is simply that 'rules' need to be apply, so a monopole of power is required. If we talk about tribal societies, thats not a concern, but if a 'polis' falls into anarchy, we generally mean by that an absence of rule, chaos... Anyway the word itself just means no state...
ps: not english, spelling bad
frogbuster20 2 years ago
But you don't need a monopoly. There is no need for a monopoly on anything.
You can have rules without monopolies, just as we can have food without a monopoly on agriculture. Rules, just as anything, is something that can be traded and bartered for. International corporations understand this very well.
Visfen 2 years ago
He wants to level every village that is to be seen to harbor militants. I think the lead is buried in this clip.
SaintJust101 2 years ago
My God, how can they let such people even talk on tv !?!?! Such bloodthristness
Morningstar91 2 years ago
I think it might have been a complement, because faux noise hosts think like it's the 9th century. to faux, afghanistan is the future.
KataVideo 2 years ago
I agree that many Afghanis' world view may be more inline with someone from the 12th century than those living in a highly industrialized country in the 21th century.
OzStone 2 years ago
"Level that village." 0:51
It would seem Wayne Simmons supports the slaughter of innocent civilians. As he sees the people of Afghanistan as expendable.
OzStone 2 years ago
As always the Judge is right.
Visfen 2 years ago
Sun Tzu teaches us that the pinnacle of deployment approaches the formless, where no spy may infiltrate it, nor enemy make designs against it. Wars are not won by destroying the enemy, they are won by removing the cause for conflict. If killing the enemy spawns 5 more, you are not winning the war. Killing is a byproduct of war, not the goal.
The weapons "despair" and "hope" can conquer the minds of enemies, making them allies - wherein the war is won.
They'll like us when we win.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
we're not going to level afghanistan, we're going to locate and identify all villages and level those
carrierexchange 2 years ago
yeah. "flattening" an entire village of civilians is definitely thinking which belongs in the 21st century.
There won't be any repurcussions or revenge killings. Nope. None. Keep up the Bush war Obama.
PotheadPundit 2 years ago
wow first time i heard something true on fox
MimosaVendetta 2 years ago
New day, same shit.
fishhead06 2 years ago
Try 15th... Europeans were doing the drug trade from then on
PersonalJesus348 2 years ago
LOL BOMB EVERYTHING! BEST SOLUTION!!
10thAngel 2 years ago 2
now THAT is scary.
anearforbaby 2 years ago
I gotta agree. We're wasting money and lives defending people that want nothing to do with us. They don't want us improving their infrastructure, liberating their women, or bring their government out of the dark ages. It's time to quit worrying about collateral damage over there and wipe out the hotspots completely. They'll get the message that having the Taliban and Al Qaeda around is bad for everyone and start taking care of themselves.
mikebee02 2 years ago
I agree they don't want us over there. But I do feel like since we did bomb their shit we have to rebuild it. I mean if we leave there without building what we destroyed then it will truly be a waste of time
crtnyevans 2 years ago
They had nothing before we were there and they'll go back to having nothing soon after we leave. A lot of the areas we bombed didn't have schools, electricity, running water, or even roads. Afghanistan is a wasteland and we can't afford to change that.
mikebee02 2 years ago
Yes but what we did destroy needs to be repaired. Don't use the excuse of they had nothing...Sounds like Bushs mother after Katrina. These people didn't have much before..they should love living in the Superdome
crtnyevans 2 years ago
Real talk shun....
JesusPriceSuperstar 2 years ago
why are ppl always angry on fox?
ernieelchico 2 years ago
Wow. First time I've agreed with Andrew Napolitano.
The other guy was a douchbag though.
PVTSolis 2 years ago
All the while we are being destroyed from within by Liberals and non-Christians.
FarRight77 2 years ago
Nice profile, troll.
PVTSolis 2 years ago
"It's a mountainous region with illiterate people who still think like it's the 12th century!"
Oh...for a second there I thought he was talking about Appalachia.
IAMtheNewWorldOrder 2 years ago 6
I thought he was talking about Texas.
p00lman 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I have to agree. I fucking HATE FOX news and never agree with anything but saying that a theocracy has a 12th century mentality isn't offensive, it's the truth.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans that still live with the blinders of religion as well so really what makes us any "better"?
CynicalSavior 2 years ago 2
@CynicalSavior
I happen to agree.
PTurchan1 2 years ago
Wow. So now this idiot wants to utilize terrorism (directed strikes against civilian targets to induce fear) as a tactic in a military campaign? Hmm. FOX supports terrorism. There you have it.
As to the 12th century remark, he's right to an extent, but then, if you talk to some radical Christians, they're stuck back there, too, and this is a holy crusade - George W. Bush told them so!
mexcurmudgeon 2 years ago
Comment removed
shoogie06 2 years ago
Why is this supposed to be offensive?? Afghanistan is backwards!!! Sorry, but that is not up for discussion. I don't agree with those Fox shithead on pretty much anything, but please let's cut the PC bullshit. We need to leave that place and let them take care of themselves.
lamouchemorte 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
shoogie06 2 years ago
watch george carlins "we like war" it will all make sense
Planatomy 2 years ago
Many afghans ARE living in the 12th century---that's undeniable---but they also use 21st century weapons. But what this guy is suggesting is a war crime no better than anything a terrorist has ever done.
dafttool 2 years ago
Fox fools.
DixieDale 2 years ago
FUCK THESE GUYS
heavenundertheearth 2 years ago
They will get the message that the U.S. ACTS like it's the 12th century... before republics, rational law, rights, international treaties, etc. These two sound like they're in Hitler's Germany. They should renounce their U.S. citizenship and leave this country immediately.
diffidatio 2 years ago
Since when has fleas started to bark.
nekedemus 2 years ago
They will get the message and they will then continue their 12th century illiterate peasants and continue suicide bombs and other terrorist acts.... it's a vicious circle.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
Holy Jeezus! Who is that guy! "We'll level the whole village". No conscience at all.
kelseywall 2 years ago
This puke thinks leveling villages consisting MOSTLY of innocents just dandy! The firebombing of Dresden is one of the most morally reprehensible things US has ever done. Right up there with the two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs and the near genocide of the native Americans. This made me think of the scene from Full Metal Jacket. "How can you shoot women and children?" "Its easy! Ya just don't lead em so much! hahaha!" Who cares? they're just gooks, rag-heads, (insert dehumanizing label)
Ansonidak 2 years ago
Wow, they will murder civilians? Or just destroy their homes?
bleunt 2 years ago
Yeah!, let's kill us some innocents!
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago 2
what an evil man..
gan0nsl4y3r 2 years ago
Who is this fuckhead he's interviewing, and why hasn't God given him cancer yet?
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago 3
in time in time
JKTProductionzIncNCo 2 years ago
Another great post!
Thanks TPM!
Napolitano is the man!
joshpnw 2 years ago
lmfao
mistarcraw 2 years ago
Quit overhyping this shit, you neocon fuckwads! Afghanistan is NOT a threat! So what if they train a few terrorists. We can PREVENT terrorist attacks much more easily and at less cost. We don't need to invade other countries and occupy the Middle East even MORE! We're just screwing ourselves. You're making a problem worse that YOU created by inviting the terrorists through an overly interventionist foreign policy.
Just bring the troops home already. Cut this world police bullshit.
whoo689 2 years ago 3
Yeah, but then how would the military industrial complex make their money and the neocons get their screaming orgasms when they see brown people getting bombed?
PVTSolis 2 years ago
Uhh, I gotta say, the Fox News host isnt the most offensive guy in this clip.
Also, Afghans do live in the 12th century, just like half of America lives in the 18th century before science discovered evolution.
Username2322 2 years ago
Wow, Fox actually said something rational... they think like it's the 12th century. LOL@ stupid islam. If it weren't for the damn gas pipeline I'd say get us outta there... too bad we're repeating the same mistakes we've made half a dozen times before.
spikesmth 2 years ago
in the 60s and 70s before the USSR invasion, Afghanistan was closer to the 20th century, but the US funded billions of dollars to the bumpkin warlords in the countryside to fight off the Russians which gave us those great crusaders of democracy human rights and liberty like Osama bin Laden and the Taliban..
aesthector 2 years ago 2
Sounds like John Bolton when he talks about the "imminent threat" from Iran for the 10,000th time on Fox.
whoo689 2 years ago
How many terrorists from AFGHANISTAN have attacked us in recent years? Name one Afghani! I bet you can hardly do it, and neither can I. Osama bin Laden is SAUDI. The hijackers didn't come from there. Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi, if I recall. Bin Al Shibh, KSM, all those bastards came from NON-Afghan nations, usually Arabia or somewhere close by.
Why are we WASTING TIME with Afghanistan? The "training camps" are hardly a concern. Let's stop terrorists who actually know their stuff.
whoo689 2 years ago
The case for war in Afghanistan was NEVER very strong. I'm still amazed that the neocons can muster an argument after 8 years of abject failure. Did they not hear about the man who was recently sentenced to death for standing up for equality and women's rights, in "democratic" AFGHANISTAN these days?
It'll take a lot more than mere elections to secure democracy. Only one major scholar (Preworski) designates democracy by merely elections. Most others use rights and liberty as well.
whoo689 2 years ago
This is what's wrong with Fox! They let people come onto their network and say the most despicable things. No other network does this. If their network isn't taken off the air, it at least has to bring in new management.
yotafro 2 years ago
Wayne on Fox 11-17-2005 just before the 2006 election.
SIMMONS: Well, listen, the American people better wake up, Bill, because I can tell you unequivocally -- and this is not -- this is not an opinion. This will absolutely be proven to be fact.
If the Democrats come into power in the United States and re-employ their vision of defense for this country, we will have 9-1-1s unabated.
I believe he already knows there will be another 911. Cheney Jr.
CosmosPrivateer 2 years ago
My God Wayne are you bloodthirsty?
There is going to be all out war over there yet.
Were screwed, pack our young sons and daughters bags were going all in.
CosmosPrivateer 2 years ago
Im a Democrat and I agree.
Afghani people make american rednecks look like Bohemians Metrosexuals.
They are stuck in the stone age and are comfortable there.
EmpathyWorks 2 years ago
"level that village"
im from Germany, Würzburg, and im shocked! by this words.
What a faggot!
Brak82 2 years ago 2
Killing children and women, what a nice guy! (Sarcasm)
sevadaj 2 years ago
And Christians think the world is only 6000 years old....
greyflcn 2 years ago 4
let china deal with this shit
LorenzKamo 2 years ago
LOL, I love it. Spoken like my 14-year old brother.
mavaddat 2 years ago 3
Slaughterhouse 6.
Nothing like a 15th century Republican to put those backwards foreigners in their place!
It's a historical cavalcade!
"theyve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or were going to bomb them back into the Stone Age."
Curtis LeMay
facelesshorseman 2 years ago 2
Killing villagers your strategy? How lovely.
humder 2 years ago 2
The American people are, just perhaps, fed up enough to be ready for ANARCHISM.
Anarchism is not "chaos" - it is the logical end of democratic political philosophy. "Democracy" means "rule of the common people" - "anarchism" means "without ruler."
It is time for the people of the world to assert themselves. They only became a political constituency of any kind in the 19th century - it's time to stop giving away your power to blood thirsty parasites. YOU CAN DO BETTER!
Power to the people!
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
@KosmicCitizen
Anarchism cannot last, the peaceful anarchism you imagine is as idealistic and fantastic as communism and benevolent dictatorships.
If even if existed for a short time, someone would seize power through violence or coercion. To prevent this, rules must be made, to enforce these, some power structure must be made - and no longer is there anarchy anyway.
Anarchy is a temporary state - not a real societal system.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Why do you say anarchism can not last? If anything, the states that move towards liberty and anarchism are those that hold the longest. So we got a proxy in the epistemolgy that supports it.
Further on Iceland had three hundred years of peace while the rest of Europe was at war ALL THE TIME, they had anarchy.
And finally, if the problem with anarchism is that a state is created, then how does a state solve that? What magic way can stop that state from being a tyrannical state?
Visfen 2 years ago
And don't forget about anarchist Ireland. It took Britain so long to take it over because the Irish did not view the concept of a state and its rulers (the monarch) as an authority.
I'm sure you're also aware of how the origin of the state is within religion. Many atheists are religious: they worship the arbitrary (and immoral) state laws or at least some doctrine like the Constitution (the more sane ones at least); although there are a few atheist anti-statists and I love them dearly.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago
The state not only originates from religion, IT IS religion. The idea that someone takes the position of atheism as the rational absolute, but then goes around and bow to the state, are anything but irrational religious zealots is absurd. They are probably the worst kind of religious people there is, because they are not even consistent.
As with the consitution, the experiment of the US shows that even a small and harmless state will grow to an empire. A paper doesn't protect against tyranny.
Visfen 2 years ago
@Visfen
Anarchy is a tricky term, because it completely depends upon the scope in which it is overlaid. The Iceland you refer to was not "anarchical", there were systems of rule and laws, but there was no "state" to speak of. A lack of a "nation state" is not anarchy, merely the lack of a modern form of political cohesion.
Anarchy, while it has tried to shed it's image, is largely about the transitions, or segmentations of power structures, rather than a possible structure itself.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
But then you do not know what anarchy is. Rule of law is essential to anarchy theory! Again, anarchy doesn't mean that there aren't any rules, but simply that rules work in a volountary marketplace.
You do not need a state to have rules. For instance, if you want to be my neighbour, you have to agree to our housing organizations rules.
If you want to buy insurnace, write a contract or work for a wage, you have to write a contract.
But all these rules are volountary, and subject to comepition
Visfen 2 years ago
You're essentially correct here. It's the VOLUNTARY nature of all of this which is crucial. Whatever the "hyphenation", all anarchists agree on this point. I think the arguments beyond this reflect different understandings of the implications of being a free society.
That said, I believe that a people must possess a basic cultural character in order for them to become and remain free. Hence, why my own views fall within the Left/Individualist spectra.
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
Iceland is the probably the best example in history of how this worked, there were several court systems with different laws and law enforcers, that had to develop laws that were mutually benenfical and efficient. Instead of saying that the fee for littering should be X there will instead be a process for it.
A lack of state is the definition of Anarchy, so while I have no problem explaining it to you, it would be nice if you looked it up in a dictionairy instead of trying to debate semantics.
Visfen 2 years ago
Further on, if you want an example of how anarchy work, you need only look at the internet. But look soon, beacuse in due time it will not be a volountary marketplace for ideas and human interaction, it will be regulated by men who think they are our betters because 51% of the morons voted for them.
In the end political philosophy is quite useless knowledge, but economic theory is not, in understanding free market pricinples you can do like me, be financially independent without even graduating
Visfen 2 years ago
Anarchism doesn't mean that there wont be any rules, but that the rules will have to compete in the market place so that ineffecient and stupid rules are discarded.
Anarchism is simply the natural state of man trough peaceful interactions. The state negates that by it's very existence as it is a monopoly on violoence and coercion. The state, by the very definition of its' existence is the very thing you fear the most in your criticsm of anarchy
The health of the state is war, anarchy is peace
Visfen 2 years ago
@Visfen & AshillaBeige
Anarchism means there are no enforcers of rules, and specifically requires a scope to be considered accurate. If the U.S. separated into tribes, one could say the former US was in a state of anarchy - but each individual tribe would not be, because of whatever local power structure emerged in the vacuum.
In the end, the manner by which any power structure is created, is only strong enough as it's consistency, which entropy always degrades, and time belies.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
No, anarchism doesn't mena that there are no enforcers of rules, it simply means there is no monopoly on enforcers of rules. If the US seperated into tribes, every tribe for its' own survival would have to accept with other tribes certain rules, those that have proven to work the best are those of private ownership and homesteading. In fact, those are the rules indians when in conflict chose.
There is no power vacuum, we don't need rulers, we can rule ourselves. The state is useless.
Visfen 2 years ago
It is an issue of scope. Anarchy always applies in situations wherein no single form of rule exists, or as you put it "a lack of monopoly." As such, the Earth technically is in a state of anarchy, since there is no governing body or system, however, each sovereignty is not in a state of anarchy where the power structures still can enforce law. In this, at the most local level, anarchy will never exist for long, as individualism is always replaced with collectivism and then aggregates.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
No it's not. The earth is definetly not in anarchy as there are several states in different areas with a monopoly on violence.
Several local monopolies are still monopolies, that doesn't change one bit within the scope.
You problem is that you do not know/understand what anarchy is. It is simply a lack of state, which is probably defined as a monopoly of violence. In Iceland, wherever you lived, you could go to whatever court.
Visfen 2 years ago
No - you're lack of understanding of Anarchy is that the term predates the existence of the "state" as an intellectual concept. Anarchy has existed in philosophical and political terms since long before any form of modern political system could be recognized, and as such, it's definitive terms and conditions predate this "new anarchy" to which you now attempt to evangelize is an attempt at redefining somethings for spurious reasoning.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
The term? Again you're arguing semantics. Religion predates statism, does that make religion more viable than the state as a means of governance?What the hell is your argument here
We didn't have the term in tribal times, for most part we didn't even need a system of rules because everything was in abundance, but when barbarians discovered they could earn more money owning slaves than stealing, that is when the state was created. When we developed to the point where we produced more than we ate
Visfen 2 years ago
You and I are arguing different things - you want to argue the superiority or inferiority of modes and ethics of varying governmental organizational sovereignties - I am talking about what they are, and how they function, not their superiorities or inferiorities.
I am not suggesting religion, nor statehood, nor tribalism, nor kingdoms, nor any form of government is superior - only that there always IS a government, except in times of transition. Those times of transition - are anarchy.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Anarchy isn't a governmental organisational system, it is basically political atheism.
There is not always a government, this is what you do not seem to understand. Somalia is anarchy now for instance, they have no monopoly on rules or enforcement. Iceland didn't have a government. Ireland didn't. It's not about transition.
So your problem here is that you fail to recognize what a government is, and what a lack of it is. It is not a matter of republicanism, it is a matter of volountary or not.
Visfen 2 years ago
You are trying to mesh plutocracy (plutoarchy) with anarchy, when they are distinctive things. A "lack of monopoly" on rules means that each individual subset of mini-rules are themselves ruling bodies. In a federated or confederated system, such bodies might have agreed to facets - but then this is not anarchy either, but instead some kind of federated or confederated consensus of ruling bodies into a larger one - collectivism aggregating.
Your agitation is troubling.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
No, again, for the last time. Anarchy is not a lack of rules, it is a lack of state.
The subsequent result of a lack of a monopoly on these rules are a competing courtsystems, named dispure resolution organizations.
It doesn't need to be federated, it doesn't need to be confederated, again, this is not an issue of republicanism. You can go to a court in Alaska and live on the North Pole in such a system. It has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with volountarism.
Visfen 2 years ago
No - you said it is the lack of a government, which requires scope.
Any body or entity governing the actions or punishments for any other body or entity, even if only two people, is a government.
A master - slave relationship is a government of the master.
A father in a patriarchal family, is a government over his family. He governs actions or punishments.
This is why scope matters - there is never an absence of government per individual, but per collective - there can be.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Scope is irrelevant.
The problem is that your understanding of government is so broad it involves anyone anywhere making any rules. By that ridiculous definition McDonalds, a cardealership, a family, yes even yourself, is a government.
Frankly such a definition is simply wrong, you need only read the dictionairy to understand that a governemnt is a monopoly on violence is a said geographical area.
Volountary agreed on rules is not a government. So a family is not a government.
Visfen 2 years ago
We perhaps disagree on human nature - where as you believe humanities best nature - volunteer-ism, might be utilized to the best possible ends in order to achieve a Eudiamonia of sorts - I believe that volunteer-ism is insufficient to create a stable society. The free market is not volunteer-ist, but that is an entirely different argument.
I see the accumulation and centralization of power as a cardinal influence on human behavior, which I lament, but do not deny. Collectives aggregate.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Of course voluntarism is better, or are you suggesting there is some great benefit in forcing people? Then the question is, who should force whom what and why? Of course that question can not be answered without creating a foundation for society on an non-universal prinicple, that is to say, something that benefits one group over another. And that is not a foundation for a great society, that is a foundation for tyranny.
And yes, the free market is volountarist, if you don't understand that....
Visfen 2 years ago
It's like you get your understanding of political philosophy from Sid Meier's Civilization. Not only do you fail to recognize the definition of a state and the defintion of Anarchy, you fail to even comprehend how anything in the broad spectrum of things could be done with volountary rules
Basically in this you are suggesting that there is no form of volountarism in anything, you negate all contract theory and trade as always being coercive. The implications of what you are saying are staggering
Visfen 2 years ago
I have not insulted you, I ask you do not insult me by presuming to grasp where I have acquired my understanding - the fact that you are failing or refusing to acknowledge the simple applications of this word "anarchy" as used for thousands of years prior to the concept of the "nation state" indicates an unwillingness to reach understanding between yourself and I.
You are again attempting to argue the merits of a political philosophy rather than existence thereof - we talk past one another.-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
(addendum)
Simply put - there will never be a time in which any individual finds themselves never under the laws or imposed rulings of people other than his or her own designs. There will never be "individual freedom" of a kind that eliminates all non-contractual obligations. There will always be a power that can coerce it's rules upon an individual willing or no, through force, guile, or induction. Never will there be a time where individuals might choose their own rules per person.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Well of course there wont be such a system, where we will live without rules, because we will because we want to survive make up certain rules. But it will be entirely voluntary, it wont be forced on us. If you don't want to be part of the volountary society, you want to robb and steal, then fine, you do so - and starve. Anarchy is not a lack of rules, it is a lack of monopoly of rules.
So far all you've done is debated the anarchy boogey-monster. You've made no actual criticism of anarchy.
Visfen 2 years ago
I have no need, nor desire, to criticize anarchy - it's transitional status is a fact of rule, rather than something to fight against as an encroaching threat.
No thief in such a society would stave. No system can be entirely voluntary - this is fantasy. Hobbes taught us that, sadly.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
So you have no need, desire to criticize anarchy, because you have redefined it to be something else. How convenient for you. Please read the dictioniary, it's tireing lecturing Americans on language.
Anarchy is the height of human interaction, it is the most efficient and the only moraly just.
Of course a system can be entirely volountary, but because we are rational we will subdue to certain rules to take part in human interaction.
Hobbes is wrong, which Hayek proved without a doubt.
Visfen 2 years ago
You have chosen to redefine Anarchy for reasons you've yet to mention, and I am beginning to doubt you'll ever reveal them. Hobbes was wrong on his conclusions, but not on the problems he raised - the issue of will and force and positivism raised has yet to be countered, save perhaps by Realism which is only a few hundred years old. Jefferson did a decent job, but concedes that coercion is still necessary.
Your definitions are what fail you here, and their limitations handicap you.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
I have not redefined anarchy at all. For fucks sake, just read the dictionairy.
From websters:
1 a : absence of government
Try to listen to the actual anarchist what anarchism is about, not some ridiculous home-made strawman.
Hoppes understanding of individualism is so limited it becomes irrelevant. A thief is not an individualist, he is a collectivst, that apply different rules to himself and others.
Jefferson was wrong, a piece of paper doesn't protect against tyranny.
Visfen 2 years ago
I cited the philosophers to cite their questions - not to agree with their conclusions. It is their questions wherein the truth lay.
If you want to use your Websters source - you must then define "government" and perhaps you will see why this conversation has turned to the surreal. I have used "government" and "ruling body" and "sovereignty" interchangeably in order to illustrate the concepts of rule are always present - which is something, in scope, anarchy appends.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
No, I don't have to redefine it, it is simply a more sofisticated understanding of the definition. Would you suggest you can have a government without an area to govern? Would you suggest you can have a government with competiting set of rules on said area? So a government is about a monopoly of rules on a said area.
In anarchy scope is irrelvant. I could go to any court anywhere and make any deals with anyone. It's not a matter of federalism/republicanism. It's a matter of free market.
Visfen 2 years ago
While I hope you take that olive branch - yes, you can have government without area. Governments usually have internally competing rules, so yes.
And scope is not irrelevant - because what you describe is a form of collective plutocratic corporatism (though I'm not suggesting you strictly mean fiscal corporations).
Put bluntly - the individuals who decide they wish to rule and do so with weapons, will end an "peaceful anarchy" that you have defined.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
No, you can not have a government without an area to govern. What would be the point? Taking taxes from people that leave nowhere to enforce rules on people that live nowhere with laws that noone is forced to follow?
No government has internally competing rules... or are you suggesting federalism creates this? No it doesn't. Different areas.
The individuals who devide they wish to rule with force they do so today as well, thieves and morons, that fills the halls of congress.
Visfen 2 years ago
At least if we're free we can protect ourselves against their incompetence. But you seem to be perfectly comfortable following the rules of other, lesser, dumber and weaker men. I am not, I know for a fact that people like Obama and McCain are made from the same cloth, the cloth of thieves and murderers, and whatever their intentions might be, their own human incompetence will result in disasters.
What I propose is a free market, which if you understand it, will lead to the benefit of all.
Visfen 2 years ago
You seem to be stuck in the statist mind. You think that the only way to have rules in an area is to have a monopoly on them. But think about it, the rules on your wage contract differ from inidividual to individual. We do fine with a free market on wage rules.
Anarchy doesn't mean republicanism, which you seem to think, it doesn't mean that the govenrment is local, it means that there is no government! So again, the problem here is that you don't know/understand the definition.
Visfen 2 years ago
I have no attachment to the concept of the nation state - only that "government" if and only if defined as any body so able to impose it's edicts, agreed to upon or not, upon any other individual through the use of coercion or force - will always exist in some form or another. It could be as simple as the local bully with a club, a corporation with wages, a king with an army, or a republic with representatives.
Anarchy is a transitional phase between governments.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
Government is not defined as anybody who enforces rules, it is strictly a monopoly on these rules. DRO, dispute resolution organization, are the anarchy alternative to the state.
Anarchy doesn't mean lack of rule of law, it means lack of state. A lack of a monopoly of rules. You get to chose who will enforce the wage contract with your employeer.
Anarchy is not a transitional phase between government, what kind of ridiculous understanding of political philosophy is that...
Use a dicionairy.
Visfen 2 years ago
The redefining of a philosophical term to reach political ends, while unoriginal, is not particularly effective. Suggesting that anarchy is defined as the lack of a modern conception, is to deny the definition that predated that conception by several thousand years.
This requires the suspension of disbelief in the history of the term, and philosophies on anarchy that precludes "statehood" as an object of the mind.
Also "Rule of law" is a very modern concept.
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 2 years ago
@QuasiEvilScott
The realities of life will not disappear for the absence of a state. That includes the need for cooperation, and the consequences for poisoning one's relations with others.
That said, unlike my "anarcho-capitalist" friends, I envision anarchism as less a statement against only the state, but as a GENERAL rejection of authoritarianism. And I would submit, without a culture of implicit anti-authoritarianism, people will not remain free.
This means all the "spooks" must go.
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
Authoritarianism comes from the collective, not from volountary cooperation in a free market place, with the only rational organization of property rights there is - self ownership and the ownership of what you mix your labour with.
Culture is not even part of the equation, people don't have to change, they can stay just as they are, the market place will deal with everything. That is what it is for, to solve problems with peaceful human interaction
Visfen 2 years ago
@QuasiEvilScott
The 500 character limit can be frustrating. :-)
It could be said that advocating a "cultural change" is "utopian." I think such a view is ahistorical. Changes in general opinion, through to outright "shifts in consciousness" certainly can and do occur.
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
Comment removed
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
@QuasiEvilScott
I'm assuming by "peaceful" you mean "pacifistic." I advocate the preconditions of peace, while recognizing the need of people to cast off their oppressors, whether that be an individual or a systematic.
I also think you misunderstand the essential character of anarchism. It is not a call to disorder, any more than what you now call the "private sphere" of your life need be chaotic and without organization.
The infantilizing quality of the state leads to degeneracy.
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
As a vampire, I liked the 12th century. Just saying.
FoShizzle951 2 years ago 2
In all honesty, I think the psychopath calling for a Dresden styling bombing of Afghanistan is a far more egregious comment than the 12th century quote. One is calling the nation a little backwards and the other is calling for the widespread execution of its citizens.
kevmo99 2 years ago 12
And this is what's wrong with "liberal"/Democrat-leaning media: TPM thinks it's worse to say something culturally insensitive than to threaten mass murder.
SubmarinerAndroid 2 years ago 4
What did you expect?
USA is the country for whom violence is an entertainment export while a nipple-slip on TV is the motherfucking apocalypse.
fl00ders 2 years ago 2
Afghanistan and the middle east is the same. They publicly torture, stone and hang homosexuals, feminists and other "evil doers" for shnicks and giggles while a woman can't even show her ankle.
As fucked up as the US is, its general culture is not nearly as bad as that of Afghanistan.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago
Well yeah.. kinda - Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for Afghanistan, any more than the US can for itself. The relative scales are different, but the source of the problem is much the same. I'm pretty sure they don't do it for 'shnicks and giggles' though. It's still reprehensible.
fl00ders 2 years ago
wow. I thought what ended the vietnam war was that people for the first time saw the gritty stuff like burning villages.
Now we have people lobbied to defend the pillagers.
Intranet Times
henchman58 2 years ago
I think the title should have been something more like "what would we gain by leveling Afghanistan".
bradthompson86 2 years ago
They should mix all those comments with the praiseduring Soviet War in Afghanistan. Fun for everybody.
wimscheers 2 years ago 2
This coming from a media outlet that defends Texas's right to teach intelligent design.
Pleblian 2 years ago 7
So Fox News thinks like it is the 18th century, when William Paley was writing.
gamoonbat 2 years ago