@NocheezRecords - Ugh, the Nocheez dude again, Mr Ron Neuhauser A.k.A "Ron NeuBrowser" You really dont have no life or friends, stop crying about a system that will never change and get a job. You havent worked in over 10 years. Your a 50 year old loser thats sits home at 3:00 in the morning browsing the net while my sister works her ass off taking care of you and her house. Im posting this on my facebook so my family could see your scams
I think the fact is wealth equals power in a capitalist system and since it will be unequal business will be the tyrannical institution. And they most certainly will hire militant thugs to do their bidding. You may be correct that they may not get as large without state protection but they will be tyrannical. Wealth influences markets, The whole idea of capitalism is greed, dog eat dog. I really can't abide by thinking that will lead to good.
The question of practicality is irrelevant. We have a higher calling to what is right, rather than what we think is more practical. The state is irrefutably immoral, a voluntary society is the only moral choice.
What you said there is a red herring. You could say the same thing about slavery. You could say that proponents of slavery were more tolerant, since they were okay with people *not* owning slaves if they chose not to, whereas anti-slavery proponents were *not* okay with people owning slaves, and wanted to *force* slave owners to free their slaves.
Anarchists think that capitalism is immoral, like slavery, hence their intolerance for it.
@Thesterness My argument is not based on morality. It is based on the idea that anti-statism is more efficient than other forms of governance. Of course, anarchists could still appeal to my preferences (such as the fact that I do, in fact, not like slavery).
Propaganda, so what? Hmm... Why dismiss it so easily? Propaganda is an immense obstacle. If you have no systematic way to counter propaganda, statism will continue. No one has yet invented anything that would counter the success of propaganda besides other propaganda. Also, maybe there is something about statism that is inseparable from capitalism (along w/ industrialization & its large concentrated populations). Maybe any possible anarchism will inevitably be socialist (or even tribal).
@MarmaladeINFP I do not presuppose a fiat land claim, meaning that I am simply anti-state, no details or other labels. I believe that both individualistic and communal institutions will likely emerge, but they will emerge on a free market. As for propaganda, that can be used by ANY institution to try to sway peoples' minds. There is really no point in me sitting here dwelling on it. "Oh, freedom won't work because of propaganda!". Fuck that, I'm going to try anyways.
@Dabba23 I heard you say in the video you don't presuppose a fiat land claim, but I still think propaganda is the key issue. The trouble with anarchism is if asked most people want a centralized govt. How are you going to convince most people that they don't really want a state? Unless you're rich and powerful, you won't be able to create successful counter-propaganda. Of course, you're free to try. More power to you. But trying would be less futile if you worked out the practical details first.
@MarmaladeINFP Only big businesses would likely have any serious interest in reestablishing a state. I believe, for long and complicated reasons, that businesses will tend to be smaller and that there will be more horizontal firms that will emerge. What all this means is that all of these non-big businesses would have it in their interest to OPPOSE the reestablishment of a state. Of course, most people believe in a state right now, and a libertarian society wouldn't work right now...
...because most people have a statist ideology. I think that competition and the lack of legal protections for big business would be enough to stop them from engaging in mass propaganda without having to face competitive propaganda. But, beyond all this, propaganda can't force you to act, it can only impel you. If libertarian anti-statist institutions come about, then it will likely be because the inter-subjective consensus of that society dictates that. This makes mass prop. unlikely to work.
@Dabba23 I don't fully agree with any ideology or world view, but I have some anarchist leanings. My usual criticism of anarchism is that most anarchists are impractical in their idealism or else the only way their ideology could manifest is if all civilization as we know it collapsed. I'm sympathetic with the latter because I'm not all that sure civilization was ever that great of an idea, but still I'm not looking forward to its collapse.
@MarmaladeINFP Umm...I do not believe that civilization arises from the state, so your point is moot with me. Subjectively, I DO believe that "civilization" is a good thing (along with law and order) and believe that "emergent" institutions will tend to bring about the fulfillment of civilization and order, rather than the negation.
@Dabba23 My argument is that, based on history, it seems clear that statism has arisen simultaneously with civilization & capitalism. By civilization, I mean any society that begins to organize itself into forms larger & more complex than hunter-gatherer tribes. I point this out because the only social system that has proven itself to be sustainalbe in the long term is the hunter-gatherer tribe. The first states were the city-states which were the first beginnings of civilization as we know it.
@MarmaladeINFP My theory is that the state has attached itself to the emerging civilization and squandered its resources for its own use. Civilization and capitalism have arisen precisely as state controls were being loosened and people were being allowed more and more to interact with anyone they wanted to. Those early city-states were largely religious superstition that didn't serve much functional purpose, besides robbery. Civilization has thrived in spite of the state, not because of it.
@Dabba23 First, those early theocratic city-states were so successful for the very reason they were superior in their function (also superior in their ability to destroy the environment & other social competitors) even if not morally superior. Second, it's difficult to argue that state controls have loosened considering that state power has grown steadily throughout history. You can theorize a state-free civilization, but it doesn't change the fact that such a thing doesn't presently exist.
@MarmaladeINFP Can you substantiate their success? How could they get the resources to be successful unless there was some civilization for them to tax and conquer first? The point is, that those states were bought into by ignorant people who were convinced through religion (ie IDEOLOGY) that they were "necessary". Force was used at the margins to restrain resistors.
@MarmaladeINFP State power has not grown steadily throughout history. It has been a roller coaster ride, with states being extremely dominant and totalitarian theocratic monarchies to constitutional republics, to totalitarian fascism and state socialism. Do not take a particularized view of history as it will lead you astray. It's not been a steady line, but rather one with huge twists, drops, and rises. I theorize in order to convince people that it SHOULD exist.
@Dabba23 Just want to clarify that last sentence. I theorize about anti-statism in order to convince people that it should exist, so its present existence (or lackthereof) is irrelevant. Although, of course there is the quasi-anarchic Somalia, but that's a different discussion.
@Dabba23 Propaganda works because most people don't realize it's propaganda. It creates the framework for all discussion and creates a reality tunnel that disallows certain choices from being perceived. Even the rich & powerful aren't immune from propaganda. The best propagandist is the one who comes to believe his own propaganda. The fact that most people (including non-big businesses) don't oppose the state demonstrates how difficult it would be to create libertarian anti-statist insitutions.
@MarmaladeINFP Well in that case, anyone can use propaganda and so fighting it is pointless! Look, people may use propaganda to try to bring back a state. That is why it is all the more important that we have people with an anti-statist mindset in order to at least try to repel this. Your last sentence is puzzling. We have an institution with a monopoly on certain services, and hence, in some ways, a monopoly on propaganda. At least in a stateless society there would be "competitive" propaganda.
@Dabba23 Your argument seems to be that a propaganda monopoly wouldn't be possible if a propaganda monopoly didn't exist. Yes. That is true, but it's a bit circular and I doubt such logic will be helpful in attaining the anarchist ideal. I'm arguing from the reality of our present society and of the history of civilization. You are arguing for an ideal. I love ideals. I genuinely hope one day anarchism may be possible, but most anti-statist arguments don't seem compelling to me.
@MarmaladeINFP No, statelessness is not an "ideal". It has historical precedence and most of our interactions in daily life are based on spontaneous ordering and voluntary agreements, despite the presence of the state. Using your logic, every "new" form of government or social organization that has ever arisen was simply an "ideal" before its implementation. It's a really bad argument and it often appears to be a cop-out for real intellectual honesty.
@Dabba23 Yes, any theoretical ideology that is put forth as desirable is an ideal. Such ideals are neither inherently good or bad. Sometimes ideals are eventually implemented, but most aren't. Even those that are implemented, tend to incur problems as bad or worse than the ones it was intended to solve. Most ideals end up being used as propaganda to support systems seemingly opposed to the ideal itself. Still, ideals are worth striving for.
@MarmaladeINFP Again, it is not only theoretical, although you are correct that theory is neither good nor bad for simply being theory. Ok, so some ideals are bad. Some are good. This doesn't change the fact that all significant human change in the world were at some point an ideal.
@Dabba23 Idealistically, I'd prefer an anarchist society (assuming that such a society would operate according to my idealistic vision of anarchism). My resistance is that, even though I'm an idealist, I'm not an optimist who tends toward moderation. Most anti-statist sentiments are to virulent for my taste. If an anarchistic society evolves naturally, then that is good and was meant to be. But unless the govt becomes as bad as Nazi Germany, I won't be joining the revolution to smash the state.
@MarmaladeINFP Strawmen, red herring...ok I think I'm done with you. No one is abandoning moderation and I would say that anti-statism is the fulfillment of pessimism and realism rather than what you are saying. But, again, you are just resorting to nonsense now, so unless you have a good argument I am done for now.
@Dabba23 Slave master? Talk about rhetoric. Modern states in the West, even with all their problems, provide more civil rights and protections than any other form of society in all of history. I don't see the govt as evil. It does some things well & other things badly. Only an ideologue would dismiss all that is good by pointing out the failings as if they represent the whole. We should seek to maintain the positive accomplishments of civilization while also seeking to improve upon them.
@MarmaladeINFP It was an analogy. I guess you are a utilitarian. I'm not dismissing the fact that government has, consequentially, produced some favorable outcomes. What I am arguing, is that it is an unnecessary and aggressive entity that deserves to be abolished. I agree with seeking to maintain positive accomplishments of civilization. This is why I want to abolish the leech on civilization, the lumbering overlord which slows it down.
@Dabba23 It was probably my utilitarian propensity that you perceived as my being conservative. I'm both an idealist and a cynic which balances out to somewhere in the middle. I believe every system will have problems, but some systems will have less problems and that is key. The main problem of industrialized statism as it presently functions is that it's simply not sustainable. Industrialization will have to transform immensely in order to deal w/ growing populations & decreasing resources.
@MarmaladeINFP I don't see why industrialization has anything to do with proving why we need a state. Industrialization is a result of ideology and certain property norms. Both of these can still be protected in a stateless society.
@Dabba23 The reason you "don't see why industrialization has anything to do with proving why we need a state" is probably because I wasn't saying it did other than the natural alliance of the state and capitalism in general (or rather capitalism beyond the level of mere bartering). By industrialization, I wasn't meaning to speak of ideology or certain property norms. I was talking about industrialization as a physical system of resource procurement, factories, & pollution: 'empirical evidence'.
@MarmaladeINFP You were heavily implying that a stateless society couldn't deal with industrialization. You have mentioned it several times, yet failed to give any logical reasoning as to what it has to do with a stateless society; thus my guess.
@Dabba23 Well, I can't speak for what you perceive me implying. I don't recall this being on my mind while writing any of my comments. Two things were on my mind. 1) Non-state run towns during early industrialization (mining towns owned by mining companies). 2) Environmental destruction & overpopulation related to industrialization. It's possible an an-cap society could avoid some of the problems with industrialization I have in mind, but I honestly couldn't say going by the arguments I've seen.
@MarmaladeINFP Oh. Well now you've explained why you were talking about industrialization. You kept mentioning it before without saying why the hell you were talking about.
@Dabba23 In my other comments, I mentioned the problems of population and resources use. I even mentioned mining towns in a comment 13 hours ago. I thought all of my comments were creating a context for understanding what I meant by industrialization, but apparently I wasn't being clear enough.
@Dabba23 The problem is, as I pointed out, that I'm coming from a broad context and you are coming from a narrow context. It's impossible to communicate a broad context into a narrow context and so communication failure is inevitable. I've made a case for why all the issues I've brought up are related, but it simply doesn't interest you as your interest (at least in this discussion) is apparently limited to anarchist theory. Empirical data is simply irrelevant to your focus here.
@MarmaladeINFP Btw, why do you, "genuinely hope one day anarchism may be possible", but then say that most anti-statist arguments don't seem compelling to you? Why would you hope for it if you don't agree with the system? It is this attitude that is the problem. The state relies on ideology, and you are providing it.
@Dabba23 My views are complex on the issue. At present, the only kind of anarchism I think is possible would require the collapse of civilization. But I think less drastic form of anarchism may be possible in the future, meaning not in our lifetime. A state is required in the modern civilization because hierarchical organization has been the most effective in dealing with the complexities of large populations, but it's possible future technology might allow for non-hierarchical organization.
@MarmaladeINFP Well, I don't prefer anarchy anyways. I prefer the removal of the state. I'm not sure why you think "hierarchical" organizations cannot exist without the state (or why you are judging two peoples' voluntary agreements, but I digress...). Anti-statism will not be some corporate power fest. It will end up in societies which differ with regard to hierarchical organization and property. Only a certain inter-subjective consensus is required to sustain "hiearchical" institutions.
@Dabba23 There are two issues related to anarchism which I see as separate but anarchists see as directly related. The first issue is about whether anarchism can exist as a central organizing principle of a large industrialized society with concentrated populations. The second issue is about whether anarchism exists in everyday relationships. As I see it, the latter doesn't prove the former. The latter proves anarchism exists on the small scale but doesn't prove it can exist on the large scale.
@MarmaladeINFP I did not say that the fact that society operates voluntarily 99% of the time proves that it can 100% of the time. It does, however, present a strong case that society is spontaneously ordered, not top down ordered. I believe that this spontaneous ordering of society, of which our every day relationships are a part of, present a strong case that THIS is the order of society, and not the decrees of the state.
@Dabba23 It seemed you were arguing for anarchism. I might agree with removal of state depending on what you mean. Even a local govt such as a city can be a state. So, are you against all govt? I can go as far as minarchism, but I have severe doubts about getting rid of all govt. Anti-statism won't be a corporate power fest just as long as it includes anti-corporatism as well. As long as any concentrated power exists, oppression will exist with or without a state.
@MarmaladeINFP I am for, what you could describe as, "Emergent anarchism". IE I am fine with socialistic or capitalistic entities arising in the absence of a state, although I prefer and think the latter would arise more frequently. I do not say that, X economic order shall preside in Y land. Most anarchists do this, and thus they presuppose a certain economic order. This is still a form of statism. Thus, I prefer the term "anti-statism" to "anarchism".
@MarmaladeINFP Corporations are largely an entity that are propped up by the state. The original corporation (IE the non-legal entity of people joining together to make a profit) was a good thing and one that raised many people out of poverty. These vast machines of power that we now call corporations would likely be scaled down to a significant degree in an anti-statist society.
@Dabba23 I'm resistant to ideals because I know how easily utopias turn into dystopias. I'm not a person who favors change merely for the sake of change. I tend toward the precautionary principle. I want to know a new system won't be worse before it's implemented. Ideals make for inspiring rhetoric and for that reason they can be dangerous. But that isn't to say I doubt the ideal of anarchism per se, but I'd be suspicious of the motives of any group that gains enough power to implement it.
@MarmaladeINFP Red herring, "Utopia" is merely a distraction with no logical basis and you are pissing away credibility by referring to it. When people resort to this argument, it generally means they lack the logic to combat your argument and thus must try to denigrate your position. I do not favor change simply for sake of change. I favor change if I believe it will lead to efficiency and more liberty and justice (subjectively decided of course).
@Dabba23 The modern ideal of anarchism is a utopia in that the original meaning meant 'no place'. An anarchism has never existed as the central organizing principle of any modern industrialized society (which is the world we live in). I use 'utopia' to refer to ideals that haven't yet existed & are improbable, but future circumstances may change. The only types of anarchism that have proven sustainable (hunter-gatherer tribes) don't represent the ideal society most anarchists are putting forth.
@MarmaladeINFP Those are not the only types of anarchism that have proved sustainable. You really should read up more on market anarchism before engaging debates like this. You are still evading the point. Utopia is a red herring most of the time. And you are using it as such. You are simply avoiding the debate because it "isn't so", rather than engaging in the possibility of it.
@Dabba23 I'm fine with speaking in terms of possibilities. Theoretically, anything is possible. OTOH arguing for the superiority of a specific ideology is a whole other matter requiring overwhelming evidence and irrefutable logic. The main issue I still see is propaganda. A free market of propaganda might keep a propaganda monopoly from forming (& thus allowing a new state to form), but that doesn't explain how the present propaganda system will end since most of the population believes in it.
@MarmaladeINFP You cannot know for sure that a new system won't be worse before implementing it. But, again, if people had taken your view throughout history nothing would have ever gotten done. You do realizing that you're just spouting conservative "propaganda" right now, right? You are committing red herrings and distracting from the real conversation by referring to such buzzwords as "utopia" and "rhetoric" and "ideals". Stop. If you don't have an argument, just say it and we'll end this.
@Dabba23 The only way I'm conservative is in not wanting radical change, but I'm liberal in that I'm always in favor of improvement. I'm way left of the Democratic party. I'm uber liberal on every issue, but I have a strong distaste for radicalism (partly b/c of what often goes along w/ it). Of the anarchists I'm familiar with, the only two I respect are Noam Chomsky and Derrick Jensen. The latter is a bit radical to say the least, but I respect him because he has great insight about society.
@Dabba23 I've made my case rationally and explained what I mean by my terms. I'm not forcing you to discuss this topic. I'm merely presenting genuine criticisms. Please don't throw around things like 'red herrings' and making insults that have nothing to do with my comments. It doesn't help to further discussion. Stop. If you don't want to discuss this rationally and respectfully, just say it and we'll end this.
@MarmaladeINFP LOL. No, you have thrown around useless labels in an attempt to distract the issue. I have engaged every argument head on. Your criticisms, at first real and substantive, have devolved into red herrings and baseless attacks because of a lack of logical ground to stand on.
@Dabba23 Why are you stepping away from the discussion? I haven't personally attacked you and I have indeed made rational criticisms of your position. Is your ideology so precious that it must be defended at all costs? Modern ideals of anarchism aren't a utopia? Okay. Then show me a large industrialized society with concentrated populations that operates according to the principle of anarchism. Oh wait. There are no such examples. Interesting.
@MarmaladeINFP You didn't personally attack me, but you made baseless criticisms using buzzwords. I don't want to engage in such a discussion. Again, you must logically show why anti-statism couldn't work in large industrialized societies. You are also committing the argumentumum ad populum fallacy by appealing to the lack of ideological support for anti-statism as evidence that it can't exist. It is a matter of ideology that states exist today.
@Dabba23 I don't need to show why anti-statism won't work any more than I have to prove God doesn't exist. I don't even have a desire to argue anti-statism can't work, but I see no evidence it will work w/ the social & technological development existing in the world at present. But I can't speak for the future which is filled w/ endless possibilities, none of which are predictable to any degree of accuracy. All I can say is I hope society continues to improve as it has been doing for centuries.
@MarmaladeINFP But I feel no need to describe in detail the way society will improve or even that it will necessarily improve. I suspect that we are coming to a point where society won't be able to continue along the same trajectory of recent centuries. I see problems in both capitalism and statism, but I don't know if those problems are inherent to those systems or not. If a free market meritocracy were possible, it would by definition be egalitarian in offering equal opportunity of success.
@Dabba23 I agree, though, that anarchism might be possible in the future. My only point is that I haven't seen a good case made for it that deals with criticisms such as the problems of propaganda. I'm not just attacking you. I have no ideology I'm trying to defend. I honestly would like to know how a society could go from a state with propaganda and corporate media to a society with a free market of ideas and egalitarianism for all. I honestly would like to know.
@MarmaladeINFP I am not an anarcho-syndicalist/communist so I do not care much for terms like "egalitarianism", so you may want to talk to them about that. You do have an ideology. Everyone does. Yours just happens to be not subscribing to one particular ideology. But that, in and of itself, is an ideology. If you haven't seen the case for anti-statism/market anarchism than you haven't looked hard enough.
@Dabba23 Yes, everyone has an ideology. However, there is a difference between open-ended and self-enclosed ideologies. My ideology is more of an attitude of looking at data and viewpoints. I'm inherently liberal, but that isn't per se my ideology because it's a very general perspective. What could be an ideology is egalitarianism. I have a tendency to suspect egalitarianism is better and the data I've seen supports this. Societies with high wealth disparity have high rates of social problems.
@Dabba23 But even with egalitarianism my 'ideology' is very loose and open to new data. If I saw data that shows equality leads to problems, then I'd reassess. I don't have any specific ideology I'm defending at all cost. The only ideology I believe in with some conviction is my valuing critical thinking. If I don't see data & real world examples or if I don't have personal experience, I don't accept it as anything more than a possibility. But being open to possibilities is part of my ideology.
@Dabba23 If we dismissed all empirical evidence, our entire society could no longer function. Even basic utilities and services are based on empirical evidence. Cities use empirical evidence to measure traffic flows in order to determine where to build roads and how to time stoplights. Companies use empirical evidence in order to better target advertising to customers and to improve products. All of this is about using empirical data to judge individual and collective human behavior.
@MarmaladeINFP Eh? When did I say to dismiss all empirical evidence? Come on dude...read more closely. I said it wasn't the greatest idea and has some serious problems.
@Dabba23 Yes. And dismissing empirical evidence out of hand without doing thorough research or cherrypicking data has some serious problems. Come on dude... read more closely the blog posts I linked. I mention that the type of person who mistrusts empirical evidence doesn't necessarily dismiss all empirical evidence.
@Dabba23 My reaction to you here is based on interactions I've had with other an-caps & libertarians. For some reason, many of these people are extremely distrustful of empirical evidence (especially from social sciences) & place logical axioms above scientific research. However, maybe you're different than many of the other an-caps & libertarians I've come across on youtube. I don't overrate it, but I do realize without it all opinions are subjective. Even a verified observation is empirical.
@MarmaladeINFP On the contrary, that is the problem with extreme empiricism. It is mostly subjective. People can prove almost anything empirically. It is very hard to disprove axioms. But, like I said I don't totally discount empiricism at all (mostly because other people don't, and it is the only way they will be persuaded). Both approaches, however, require logical backing to be taken seriously.
@Dabba23 What do you mean by "extreme empiricism"? I consider the scientific process (double-blind research, peer review, etc) to be the complete opposite of extreme. It takes a lot of research over a long period of time for a theory to form and become widely accepted. For example, it took decades of research from hundreds of scientists in institutions all around the world to go from doubt to consensus about anthropogenic global warming.
@MarmaladeINFP Any given scientific study may prove wrong or incomplete, but the scientific method isn't dependent on single studies. There is a danger in forming opinions on limited info. The data on wealth disparity and social problems comes from multiple sources from many different countries. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it's highly significant that a correlation exists. In the US, wealth disparity & social problems both increased simultaneously over the past several decades.
@MarmaladeINFP Well I'm not getting into the whole wealth disparity thing, but the problem is that studying human society is not a controlled experiment. There are too many factors involved and thus studying the motives of the individual is probably best for social research.
@Dabba23 Studying human society isn't a completely controlled experiment, but it's more controlled than speaking in mere hypotheticals. Science is about probability & not complete control. The correlation between wealth disparity & social problems is found in diverse societies & the correlation is shown over time. This doesn't prove causation, but it proves wealth disparity is consistently correlated w/ undesirable social conditions. This strongly supports the argument for egalitarianism.
@MarmaladeINFP Not sure why you are so interested in going for the wealth disparity argument. I never claimed that a stateless society would have a huge wealth disparity or that I am against egalitarianism. I just don't care for using the rhetoric that comes along with it right now.
@Dabba23 I wasn't using rhetoric. I was speaking of data and you were treating the data as if it weren't rhetoric. I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between data and rhetoric.
@MarmaladeINFP Ha, there is hardly a consensus, but I'm not opening THAT can of worms. My point is that the scientific method is an inferior tool of deciding things for the social sciences and for the study of human society.
@Dabba23 The only way you can deny a consensus is by denying the opinions of experts. Studies have shown that 97% of active climatology researchers support the theory of AGW. Also, around 80% of all scientists in a variety of fields working in institutions around the world support the theory of AGW. It's only a can of worms for someone who denies the science and denies consensus scientific opinion. Yes, there are dissenting voices, but that doesn't disprove 97% of expert consensus.
@MarmaladeINFP This is why I'm probably going to stop talking with you soon here. You keep latching onto unimportant topics trying to sway the discussion. It's getting kind of annoying.
@Dabba23 This is a difference of mindsets & world views. I see issues in a larger context that includes all issues. You seem to prefer to look at issues in isolation using a narrow framework. If you're familiar with personality research, you'd have noted my username includes INFP. The way an INFP thinks is to expand discussion in all directions. Any connection providing context & possible insight is important. One personality type will find the thinking tyle of another personality type annoying.
@MarmaladeINFP No, what I find annoying is you constantly shifting the debate to things like, "global warming!", or "wealth disparity". Those are all real debates to be had in their own right, but in this case they are distractions. You keep going off on tangents so its impossible to actually know what you're saying.
@Dabba23 What I find annoying is you seem to lack knowledge about basic science such as AGW & psychological research. Global warming & wealth disparity are the type of problems that can't easily be dealt with locally & so that is why states create laws & regulation. Big businesses could theoretically deal with these problems, but they don't have much incentive to do so in a quick manner since most CEOs aren't concerned about social & environmental costs that don't directly effect their profit.
@MarmaladeINFP Alright these will be my last comments to you since you keep creating red herrings and trying to change the discussion. No, what you are doing is bringing up irrelevant issues to the discussion at hand and then strawmanning me and saying that I'm somehow "annoying" for not engaging in these completely unrelated topics.
@Dabba23 That is fine. I only said I was annoyed because you were saying you were annoyed. I brought in many issues because single issues considered in isolation are rarely understood with much insight. Context is everything. If you define a debate narrow enough according to your own preferred world view, it's easy to feel like you won the debate. But it's all those pesky details that don't fit into one's preferred framework that are always causing problems. Questions lead to further questions.
@Dabba23 I'm genuinely trying to have a dicsussion. What I bring up aren't red herrings nor am I changing the discussion. If you knew about personality research (especially MBTI), you would understand that many if not most disagreements come down to different personality tendencies. I can't see how statism could ever be considered in the abstract without considering fundamental issues of how statism operates in the real world (AGW, wealth disparity, etc). Obviously you see the world differently.
@MarmaladeINFP To me, this is all part of the same discussion. The connections seem obvious to me. I know from experience that other INFPs would see these types of connections as obvious as well, but I also know from experience that other types would see no connection at all. To understand this psychological component, read this post from another blogger:
@MarmaladeINFP This is very significant. If you can dismiss 97% of expert consensus, it's very hard to have a discussion. This is a precise example of the conservative mistrust of all scientific research and empirical data. How can we have a rational discussion, if any time data is brought up that you disagree with, you can merely dismiss it out of hand?
@Dabba23 My point is you dismissed scientific consensus on AGW which is a strongly supported theory. It's no longer even a question that global warming is happening and that humans contribute to it (although there is disagreement about the extent of contribution). My point is that, if you dismiss such a theory with so much research and consensus backing it, there is no empirical data you potentially couldn't dismiss, but of course that doesn't mean you necessarily dismiss all data.
@Dabba23 I've noticed this odd view of empirical evidence among many different right-wing types (an-caps, objectivists, libertarians, & yes even fundamentalists). Sometimes logical arguments (what some of these types call axioms) are treated as more factual than facts.
@Dabba23 I've seen many arguments for anti-statism/ market anarchism. I simply haven't found one that is compelling in terms of objective data and moral consequence. For example, I've looked into the Stefan Molyneux's DROs. It's an interesting possibility, but going by historical examples of mining towns it could lead to potentially horrible results. I haven't seen any compelling defense of DROs against this criticism. So, I don't presently find the theory compelling enough to embrace as worthy.
Thanks for the response. I will make a reply but it will be in a couple of days because I'm training some bitch at my work. I look forward to crushing your head with my pussy... haha.. only kidding. Thanks for the very kind response. I look forward to our future conversation.
@NocheezRecords - Ugh, the Nocheez dude again, Mr Ron Neuhauser A.k.A "Ron NeuBrowser" You really dont have no life or friends, stop crying about a system that will never change and get a job. You havent worked in over 10 years. Your a 50 year old loser thats sits home at 3:00 in the morning browsing the net while my sister works her ass off taking care of you and her house. Im posting this on my facebook so my family could see your scams
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
I think the fact is wealth equals power in a capitalist system and since it will be unequal business will be the tyrannical institution. And they most certainly will hire militant thugs to do their bidding. You may be correct that they may not get as large without state protection but they will be tyrannical. Wealth influences markets, The whole idea of capitalism is greed, dog eat dog. I really can't abide by thinking that will lead to good.
NocheezRecords 2 months ago
Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is the Only economic system in which True Anarchy could ever take place "Free market"
Leftovervictim1991 2 months ago
@Leftovervictim1991 That's incorrect because traditional anarchism is not capitalist.
NocheezRecords 2 months ago
anarchy is clsoer to communism rather than capitalism. both oppose the state-ism
communism=anarchy
XxPhoenixHarpyexX2 3 months ago
The question of practicality is irrelevant. We have a higher calling to what is right, rather than what we think is more practical. The state is irrefutably immoral, a voluntary society is the only moral choice.
andrewimeson 4 months ago 3
What a great voice!
IndividualAutonomy 11 months ago
@IndividualAutonomy What a sweet gentleman you are! Bless you, sir.
Dabba23 11 months ago
@Dabba23 Yeah, you do have a pretty good voice!
MCP2012 4 months ago
I guess you proved your point well. nomoresunsets closed their account.
Hogbeast6 1 year ago
@Hogbeast6 Ha, yeah I still have no clue why she did that. She was in the middle of a video series I think, and then all of a sudden, POOF! Gone.
Dabba23 1 year ago
6:04-6:28
What you said there is a red herring. You could say the same thing about slavery. You could say that proponents of slavery were more tolerant, since they were okay with people *not* owning slaves if they chose not to, whereas anti-slavery proponents were *not* okay with people owning slaves, and wanted to *force* slave owners to free their slaves.
Anarchists think that capitalism is immoral, like slavery, hence their intolerance for it.
Thesterness 1 year ago
@Thesterness My argument is not based on morality. It is based on the idea that anti-statism is more efficient than other forms of governance. Of course, anarchists could still appeal to my preferences (such as the fact that I do, in fact, not like slavery).
Dabba23 1 year ago
Great video.
LeftistPilot 1 year ago
Good video
justino81 1 year ago
Great video.
Stargazer5781 1 year ago
@Stargazer5781 Thanks, appreciate it coming from you.
Dabba23 1 year ago
Propaganda, so what? Hmm... Why dismiss it so easily? Propaganda is an immense obstacle. If you have no systematic way to counter propaganda, statism will continue. No one has yet invented anything that would counter the success of propaganda besides other propaganda. Also, maybe there is something about statism that is inseparable from capitalism (along w/ industrialization & its large concentrated populations). Maybe any possible anarchism will inevitably be socialist (or even tribal).
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I do not presuppose a fiat land claim, meaning that I am simply anti-state, no details or other labels. I believe that both individualistic and communal institutions will likely emerge, but they will emerge on a free market. As for propaganda, that can be used by ANY institution to try to sway peoples' minds. There is really no point in me sitting here dwelling on it. "Oh, freedom won't work because of propaganda!". Fuck that, I'm going to try anyways.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I heard you say in the video you don't presuppose a fiat land claim, but I still think propaganda is the key issue. The trouble with anarchism is if asked most people want a centralized govt. How are you going to convince most people that they don't really want a state? Unless you're rich and powerful, you won't be able to create successful counter-propaganda. Of course, you're free to try. More power to you. But trying would be less futile if you worked out the practical details first.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Only big businesses would likely have any serious interest in reestablishing a state. I believe, for long and complicated reasons, that businesses will tend to be smaller and that there will be more horizontal firms that will emerge. What all this means is that all of these non-big businesses would have it in their interest to OPPOSE the reestablishment of a state. Of course, most people believe in a state right now, and a libertarian society wouldn't work right now...
Dabba23 1 year ago
...because most people have a statist ideology. I think that competition and the lack of legal protections for big business would be enough to stop them from engaging in mass propaganda without having to face competitive propaganda. But, beyond all this, propaganda can't force you to act, it can only impel you. If libertarian anti-statist institutions come about, then it will likely be because the inter-subjective consensus of that society dictates that. This makes mass prop. unlikely to work.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I don't fully agree with any ideology or world view, but I have some anarchist leanings. My usual criticism of anarchism is that most anarchists are impractical in their idealism or else the only way their ideology could manifest is if all civilization as we know it collapsed. I'm sympathetic with the latter because I'm not all that sure civilization was ever that great of an idea, but still I'm not looking forward to its collapse.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Umm...I do not believe that civilization arises from the state, so your point is moot with me. Subjectively, I DO believe that "civilization" is a good thing (along with law and order) and believe that "emergent" institutions will tend to bring about the fulfillment of civilization and order, rather than the negation.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 My argument is that, based on history, it seems clear that statism has arisen simultaneously with civilization & capitalism. By civilization, I mean any society that begins to organize itself into forms larger & more complex than hunter-gatherer tribes. I point this out because the only social system that has proven itself to be sustainalbe in the long term is the hunter-gatherer tribe. The first states were the city-states which were the first beginnings of civilization as we know it.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP My theory is that the state has attached itself to the emerging civilization and squandered its resources for its own use. Civilization and capitalism have arisen precisely as state controls were being loosened and people were being allowed more and more to interact with anyone they wanted to. Those early city-states were largely religious superstition that didn't serve much functional purpose, besides robbery. Civilization has thrived in spite of the state, not because of it.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 First, those early theocratic city-states were so successful for the very reason they were superior in their function (also superior in their ability to destroy the environment & other social competitors) even if not morally superior. Second, it's difficult to argue that state controls have loosened considering that state power has grown steadily throughout history. You can theorize a state-free civilization, but it doesn't change the fact that such a thing doesn't presently exist.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Can you substantiate their success? How could they get the resources to be successful unless there was some civilization for them to tax and conquer first? The point is, that those states were bought into by ignorant people who were convinced through religion (ie IDEOLOGY) that they were "necessary". Force was used at the margins to restrain resistors.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP State power has not grown steadily throughout history. It has been a roller coaster ride, with states being extremely dominant and totalitarian theocratic monarchies to constitutional republics, to totalitarian fascism and state socialism. Do not take a particularized view of history as it will lead you astray. It's not been a steady line, but rather one with huge twists, drops, and rises. I theorize in order to convince people that it SHOULD exist.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Just want to clarify that last sentence. I theorize about anti-statism in order to convince people that it should exist, so its present existence (or lackthereof) is irrelevant. Although, of course there is the quasi-anarchic Somalia, but that's a different discussion.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Propaganda works because most people don't realize it's propaganda. It creates the framework for all discussion and creates a reality tunnel that disallows certain choices from being perceived. Even the rich & powerful aren't immune from propaganda. The best propagandist is the one who comes to believe his own propaganda. The fact that most people (including non-big businesses) don't oppose the state demonstrates how difficult it would be to create libertarian anti-statist insitutions.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Well in that case, anyone can use propaganda and so fighting it is pointless! Look, people may use propaganda to try to bring back a state. That is why it is all the more important that we have people with an anti-statist mindset in order to at least try to repel this. Your last sentence is puzzling. We have an institution with a monopoly on certain services, and hence, in some ways, a monopoly on propaganda. At least in a stateless society there would be "competitive" propaganda.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Your argument seems to be that a propaganda monopoly wouldn't be possible if a propaganda monopoly didn't exist. Yes. That is true, but it's a bit circular and I doubt such logic will be helpful in attaining the anarchist ideal. I'm arguing from the reality of our present society and of the history of civilization. You are arguing for an ideal. I love ideals. I genuinely hope one day anarchism may be possible, but most anti-statist arguments don't seem compelling to me.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP No, statelessness is not an "ideal". It has historical precedence and most of our interactions in daily life are based on spontaneous ordering and voluntary agreements, despite the presence of the state. Using your logic, every "new" form of government or social organization that has ever arisen was simply an "ideal" before its implementation. It's a really bad argument and it often appears to be a cop-out for real intellectual honesty.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Yes, any theoretical ideology that is put forth as desirable is an ideal. Such ideals are neither inherently good or bad. Sometimes ideals are eventually implemented, but most aren't. Even those that are implemented, tend to incur problems as bad or worse than the ones it was intended to solve. Most ideals end up being used as propaganda to support systems seemingly opposed to the ideal itself. Still, ideals are worth striving for.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Again, it is not only theoretical, although you are correct that theory is neither good nor bad for simply being theory. Ok, so some ideals are bad. Some are good. This doesn't change the fact that all significant human change in the world were at some point an ideal.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Idealistically, I'd prefer an anarchist society (assuming that such a society would operate according to my idealistic vision of anarchism). My resistance is that, even though I'm an idealist, I'm not an optimist who tends toward moderation. Most anti-statist sentiments are to virulent for my taste. If an anarchistic society evolves naturally, then that is good and was meant to be. But unless the govt becomes as bad as Nazi Germany, I won't be joining the revolution to smash the state.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Strawmen, red herring...ok I think I'm done with you. No one is abandoning moderation and I would say that anti-statism is the fulfillment of pessimism and realism rather than what you are saying. But, again, you are just resorting to nonsense now, so unless you have a good argument I am done for now.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP One more thing, you said, "But unless the govt becomes as bad as Nazi Germany, I won't be joining the revolution to smash the state."
AKA, "Unless my slave masters start beating me every day I won't be joining the revolution to end slavery."
That is a pathetic attempt to justify something you know is unjust.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Slave master? Talk about rhetoric. Modern states in the West, even with all their problems, provide more civil rights and protections than any other form of society in all of history. I don't see the govt as evil. It does some things well & other things badly. Only an ideologue would dismiss all that is good by pointing out the failings as if they represent the whole. We should seek to maintain the positive accomplishments of civilization while also seeking to improve upon them.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP It was an analogy. I guess you are a utilitarian. I'm not dismissing the fact that government has, consequentially, produced some favorable outcomes. What I am arguing, is that it is an unnecessary and aggressive entity that deserves to be abolished. I agree with seeking to maintain positive accomplishments of civilization. This is why I want to abolish the leech on civilization, the lumbering overlord which slows it down.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 It was probably my utilitarian propensity that you perceived as my being conservative. I'm both an idealist and a cynic which balances out to somewhere in the middle. I believe every system will have problems, but some systems will have less problems and that is key. The main problem of industrialized statism as it presently functions is that it's simply not sustainable. Industrialization will have to transform immensely in order to deal w/ growing populations & decreasing resources.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I don't see why industrialization has anything to do with proving why we need a state. Industrialization is a result of ideology and certain property norms. Both of these can still be protected in a stateless society.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 The reason you "don't see why industrialization has anything to do with proving why we need a state" is probably because I wasn't saying it did other than the natural alliance of the state and capitalism in general (or rather capitalism beyond the level of mere bartering). By industrialization, I wasn't meaning to speak of ideology or certain property norms. I was talking about industrialization as a physical system of resource procurement, factories, & pollution: 'empirical evidence'.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP You were heavily implying that a stateless society couldn't deal with industrialization. You have mentioned it several times, yet failed to give any logical reasoning as to what it has to do with a stateless society; thus my guess.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Well, I can't speak for what you perceive me implying. I don't recall this being on my mind while writing any of my comments. Two things were on my mind. 1) Non-state run towns during early industrialization (mining towns owned by mining companies). 2) Environmental destruction & overpopulation related to industrialization. It's possible an an-cap society could avoid some of the problems with industrialization I have in mind, but I honestly couldn't say going by the arguments I've seen.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Oh. Well now you've explained why you were talking about industrialization. You kept mentioning it before without saying why the hell you were talking about.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 In my other comments, I mentioned the problems of population and resources use. I even mentioned mining towns in a comment 13 hours ago. I thought all of my comments were creating a context for understanding what I meant by industrialization, but apparently I wasn't being clear enough.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP You weren't.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 The problem is, as I pointed out, that I'm coming from a broad context and you are coming from a narrow context. It's impossible to communicate a broad context into a narrow context and so communication failure is inevitable. I've made a case for why all the issues I've brought up are related, but it simply doesn't interest you as your interest (at least in this discussion) is apparently limited to anarchist theory. Empirical data is simply irrelevant to your focus here.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Dabba23 In case you care to understand my criticisms, here are some posts I've written:
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/02/12/anarcho-capitalism-stateless-society/
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/02/13/libertarian-nightmare/
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/29/anarcho-capitalism-will-not-work/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Btw, why do you, "genuinely hope one day anarchism may be possible", but then say that most anti-statist arguments don't seem compelling to you? Why would you hope for it if you don't agree with the system? It is this attitude that is the problem. The state relies on ideology, and you are providing it.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 My views are complex on the issue. At present, the only kind of anarchism I think is possible would require the collapse of civilization. But I think less drastic form of anarchism may be possible in the future, meaning not in our lifetime. A state is required in the modern civilization because hierarchical organization has been the most effective in dealing with the complexities of large populations, but it's possible future technology might allow for non-hierarchical organization.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Well, I don't prefer anarchy anyways. I prefer the removal of the state. I'm not sure why you think "hierarchical" organizations cannot exist without the state (or why you are judging two peoples' voluntary agreements, but I digress...). Anti-statism will not be some corporate power fest. It will end up in societies which differ with regard to hierarchical organization and property. Only a certain inter-subjective consensus is required to sustain "hiearchical" institutions.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 There are two issues related to anarchism which I see as separate but anarchists see as directly related. The first issue is about whether anarchism can exist as a central organizing principle of a large industrialized society with concentrated populations. The second issue is about whether anarchism exists in everyday relationships. As I see it, the latter doesn't prove the former. The latter proves anarchism exists on the small scale but doesn't prove it can exist on the large scale.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I did not say that the fact that society operates voluntarily 99% of the time proves that it can 100% of the time. It does, however, present a strong case that society is spontaneously ordered, not top down ordered. I believe that this spontaneous ordering of society, of which our every day relationships are a part of, present a strong case that THIS is the order of society, and not the decrees of the state.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 It seemed you were arguing for anarchism. I might agree with removal of state depending on what you mean. Even a local govt such as a city can be a state. So, are you against all govt? I can go as far as minarchism, but I have severe doubts about getting rid of all govt. Anti-statism won't be a corporate power fest just as long as it includes anti-corporatism as well. As long as any concentrated power exists, oppression will exist with or without a state.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I am for, what you could describe as, "Emergent anarchism". IE I am fine with socialistic or capitalistic entities arising in the absence of a state, although I prefer and think the latter would arise more frequently. I do not say that, X economic order shall preside in Y land. Most anarchists do this, and thus they presuppose a certain economic order. This is still a form of statism. Thus, I prefer the term "anti-statism" to "anarchism".
Dabba23 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Corporations are largely an entity that are propped up by the state. The original corporation (IE the non-legal entity of people joining together to make a profit) was a good thing and one that raised many people out of poverty. These vast machines of power that we now call corporations would likely be scaled down to a significant degree in an anti-statist society.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I'm resistant to ideals because I know how easily utopias turn into dystopias. I'm not a person who favors change merely for the sake of change. I tend toward the precautionary principle. I want to know a new system won't be worse before it's implemented. Ideals make for inspiring rhetoric and for that reason they can be dangerous. But that isn't to say I doubt the ideal of anarchism per se, but I'd be suspicious of the motives of any group that gains enough power to implement it.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Red herring, "Utopia" is merely a distraction with no logical basis and you are pissing away credibility by referring to it. When people resort to this argument, it generally means they lack the logic to combat your argument and thus must try to denigrate your position. I do not favor change simply for sake of change. I favor change if I believe it will lead to efficiency and more liberty and justice (subjectively decided of course).
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 The modern ideal of anarchism is a utopia in that the original meaning meant 'no place'. An anarchism has never existed as the central organizing principle of any modern industrialized society (which is the world we live in). I use 'utopia' to refer to ideals that haven't yet existed & are improbable, but future circumstances may change. The only types of anarchism that have proven sustainable (hunter-gatherer tribes) don't represent the ideal society most anarchists are putting forth.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Those are not the only types of anarchism that have proved sustainable. You really should read up more on market anarchism before engaging debates like this. You are still evading the point. Utopia is a red herring most of the time. And you are using it as such. You are simply avoiding the debate because it "isn't so", rather than engaging in the possibility of it.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I'm fine with speaking in terms of possibilities. Theoretically, anything is possible. OTOH arguing for the superiority of a specific ideology is a whole other matter requiring overwhelming evidence and irrefutable logic. The main issue I still see is propaganda. A free market of propaganda might keep a propaganda monopoly from forming (& thus allowing a new state to form), but that doesn't explain how the present propaganda system will end since most of the population believes in it.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP You cannot know for sure that a new system won't be worse before implementing it. But, again, if people had taken your view throughout history nothing would have ever gotten done. You do realizing that you're just spouting conservative "propaganda" right now, right? You are committing red herrings and distracting from the real conversation by referring to such buzzwords as "utopia" and "rhetoric" and "ideals". Stop. If you don't have an argument, just say it and we'll end this.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 The only way I'm conservative is in not wanting radical change, but I'm liberal in that I'm always in favor of improvement. I'm way left of the Democratic party. I'm uber liberal on every issue, but I have a strong distaste for radicalism (partly b/c of what often goes along w/ it). Of the anarchists I'm familiar with, the only two I respect are Noam Chomsky and Derrick Jensen. The latter is a bit radical to say the least, but I respect him because he has great insight about society.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I've made my case rationally and explained what I mean by my terms. I'm not forcing you to discuss this topic. I'm merely presenting genuine criticisms. Please don't throw around things like 'red herrings' and making insults that have nothing to do with my comments. It doesn't help to further discussion. Stop. If you don't want to discuss this rationally and respectfully, just say it and we'll end this.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP LOL. No, you have thrown around useless labels in an attempt to distract the issue. I have engaged every argument head on. Your criticisms, at first real and substantive, have devolved into red herrings and baseless attacks because of a lack of logical ground to stand on.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Why are you stepping away from the discussion? I haven't personally attacked you and I have indeed made rational criticisms of your position. Is your ideology so precious that it must be defended at all costs? Modern ideals of anarchism aren't a utopia? Okay. Then show me a large industrialized society with concentrated populations that operates according to the principle of anarchism. Oh wait. There are no such examples. Interesting.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP You didn't personally attack me, but you made baseless criticisms using buzzwords. I don't want to engage in such a discussion. Again, you must logically show why anti-statism couldn't work in large industrialized societies. You are also committing the argumentumum ad populum fallacy by appealing to the lack of ideological support for anti-statism as evidence that it can't exist. It is a matter of ideology that states exist today.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I don't need to show why anti-statism won't work any more than I have to prove God doesn't exist. I don't even have a desire to argue anti-statism can't work, but I see no evidence it will work w/ the social & technological development existing in the world at present. But I can't speak for the future which is filled w/ endless possibilities, none of which are predictable to any degree of accuracy. All I can say is I hope society continues to improve as it has been doing for centuries.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP But I feel no need to describe in detail the way society will improve or even that it will necessarily improve. I suspect that we are coming to a point where society won't be able to continue along the same trajectory of recent centuries. I see problems in both capitalism and statism, but I don't know if those problems are inherent to those systems or not. If a free market meritocracy were possible, it would by definition be egalitarian in offering equal opportunity of success.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I agree, though, that anarchism might be possible in the future. My only point is that I haven't seen a good case made for it that deals with criticisms such as the problems of propaganda. I'm not just attacking you. I have no ideology I'm trying to defend. I honestly would like to know how a society could go from a state with propaganda and corporate media to a society with a free market of ideas and egalitarianism for all. I honestly would like to know.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I am not an anarcho-syndicalist/communist so I do not care much for terms like "egalitarianism", so you may want to talk to them about that. You do have an ideology. Everyone does. Yours just happens to be not subscribing to one particular ideology. But that, in and of itself, is an ideology. If you haven't seen the case for anti-statism/market anarchism than you haven't looked hard enough.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Yes, everyone has an ideology. However, there is a difference between open-ended and self-enclosed ideologies. My ideology is more of an attitude of looking at data and viewpoints. I'm inherently liberal, but that isn't per se my ideology because it's a very general perspective. What could be an ideology is egalitarianism. I have a tendency to suspect egalitarianism is better and the data I've seen supports this. Societies with high wealth disparity have high rates of social problems.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Dabba23 But even with egalitarianism my 'ideology' is very loose and open to new data. If I saw data that shows equality leads to problems, then I'd reassess. I don't have any specific ideology I'm defending at all cost. The only ideology I believe in with some conviction is my valuing critical thinking. If I don't see data & real world examples or if I don't have personal experience, I don't accept it as anything more than a possibility. But being open to possibilities is part of my ideology.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Empirical evidence is extremely overrated in judging human societies. One man's objective data is another man's subjective guess.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 If we dismissed all empirical evidence, our entire society could no longer function. Even basic utilities and services are based on empirical evidence. Cities use empirical evidence to measure traffic flows in order to determine where to build roads and how to time stoplights. Companies use empirical evidence in order to better target advertising to customers and to improve products. All of this is about using empirical data to judge individual and collective human behavior.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Eh? When did I say to dismiss all empirical evidence? Come on dude...read more closely. I said it wasn't the greatest idea and has some serious problems.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Yes. And dismissing empirical evidence out of hand without doing thorough research or cherrypicking data has some serious problems. Come on dude... read more closely the blog posts I linked. I mention that the type of person who mistrusts empirical evidence doesn't necessarily dismiss all empirical evidence.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP 1. I'm not dismissing empirical evidence out of hand. I said you overrate its necessity.
2. Who is cherrypicking data? Logically backing up empirical evidence is fine in many cases, just don't expect empiricism to be the end-all-be-all.
3. I'll skim those links later.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 My reaction to you here is based on interactions I've had with other an-caps & libertarians. For some reason, many of these people are extremely distrustful of empirical evidence (especially from social sciences) & place logical axioms above scientific research. However, maybe you're different than many of the other an-caps & libertarians I've come across on youtube. I don't overrate it, but I do realize without it all opinions are subjective. Even a verified observation is empirical.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP On the contrary, that is the problem with extreme empiricism. It is mostly subjective. People can prove almost anything empirically. It is very hard to disprove axioms. But, like I said I don't totally discount empiricism at all (mostly because other people don't, and it is the only way they will be persuaded). Both approaches, however, require logical backing to be taken seriously.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 What do you mean by "extreme empiricism"? I consider the scientific process (double-blind research, peer review, etc) to be the complete opposite of extreme. It takes a lot of research over a long period of time for a theory to form and become widely accepted. For example, it took decades of research from hundreds of scientists in institutions all around the world to go from doubt to consensus about anthropogenic global warming.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Any given scientific study may prove wrong or incomplete, but the scientific method isn't dependent on single studies. There is a danger in forming opinions on limited info. The data on wealth disparity and social problems comes from multiple sources from many different countries. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it's highly significant that a correlation exists. In the US, wealth disparity & social problems both increased simultaneously over the past several decades.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Well I'm not getting into the whole wealth disparity thing, but the problem is that studying human society is not a controlled experiment. There are too many factors involved and thus studying the motives of the individual is probably best for social research.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 Studying human society isn't a completely controlled experiment, but it's more controlled than speaking in mere hypotheticals. Science is about probability & not complete control. The correlation between wealth disparity & social problems is found in diverse societies & the correlation is shown over time. This doesn't prove causation, but it proves wealth disparity is consistently correlated w/ undesirable social conditions. This strongly supports the argument for egalitarianism.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Not sure why you are so interested in going for the wealth disparity argument. I never claimed that a stateless society would have a huge wealth disparity or that I am against egalitarianism. I just don't care for using the rhetoric that comes along with it right now.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I wasn't using rhetoric. I was speaking of data and you were treating the data as if it weren't rhetoric. I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between data and rhetoric.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I meant to say: "... you were treating data as if it were rhetoric."
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Ha, there is hardly a consensus, but I'm not opening THAT can of worms. My point is that the scientific method is an inferior tool of deciding things for the social sciences and for the study of human society.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 The only way you can deny a consensus is by denying the opinions of experts. Studies have shown that 97% of active climatology researchers support the theory of AGW. Also, around 80% of all scientists in a variety of fields working in institutions around the world support the theory of AGW. It's only a can of worms for someone who denies the science and denies consensus scientific opinion. Yes, there are dissenting voices, but that doesn't disprove 97% of expert consensus.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP This is why I'm probably going to stop talking with you soon here. You keep latching onto unimportant topics trying to sway the discussion. It's getting kind of annoying.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 This is a difference of mindsets & world views. I see issues in a larger context that includes all issues. You seem to prefer to look at issues in isolation using a narrow framework. If you're familiar with personality research, you'd have noted my username includes INFP. The way an INFP thinks is to expand discussion in all directions. Any connection providing context & possible insight is important. One personality type will find the thinking tyle of another personality type annoying.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP No, what I find annoying is you constantly shifting the debate to things like, "global warming!", or "wealth disparity". Those are all real debates to be had in their own right, but in this case they are distractions. You keep going off on tangents so its impossible to actually know what you're saying.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 What I find annoying is you seem to lack knowledge about basic science such as AGW & psychological research. Global warming & wealth disparity are the type of problems that can't easily be dealt with locally & so that is why states create laws & regulation. Big businesses could theoretically deal with these problems, but they don't have much incentive to do so in a quick manner since most CEOs aren't concerned about social & environmental costs that don't directly effect their profit.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Alright these will be my last comments to you since you keep creating red herrings and trying to change the discussion. No, what you are doing is bringing up irrelevant issues to the discussion at hand and then strawmanning me and saying that I'm somehow "annoying" for not engaging in these completely unrelated topics.
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 That is fine. I only said I was annoyed because you were saying you were annoyed. I brought in many issues because single issues considered in isolation are rarely understood with much insight. Context is everything. If you define a debate narrow enough according to your own preferred world view, it's easy to feel like you won the debate. But it's all those pesky details that don't fit into one's preferred framework that are always causing problems. Questions lead to further questions.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I'm genuinely trying to have a dicsussion. What I bring up aren't red herrings nor am I changing the discussion. If you knew about personality research (especially MBTI), you would understand that many if not most disagreements come down to different personality tendencies. I can't see how statism could ever be considered in the abstract without considering fundamental issues of how statism operates in the real world (AGW, wealth disparity, etc). Obviously you see the world differently.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP To me, this is all part of the same discussion. The connections seem obvious to me. I know from experience that other INFPs would see these types of connections as obvious as well, but I also know from experience that other types would see no connection at all. To understand this psychological component, read this post from another blogger:
personalityjunkie. com/2009/12/12/convergent-or-divergent-thinking-intp-infp-intj-infj/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP This is very significant. If you can dismiss 97% of expert consensus, it's very hard to have a discussion. This is a precise example of the conservative mistrust of all scientific research and empirical data. How can we have a rational discussion, if any time data is brought up that you disagree with, you can merely dismiss it out of hand?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP What are you talking about? You are a walking strawman. I will repeat: I DO NOT DISMISS ALL EMPIRICAL DATA. There. Understand now?
Dabba23 1 year ago
@Dabba23 My point is you dismissed scientific consensus on AGW which is a strongly supported theory. It's no longer even a question that global warming is happening and that humans contribute to it (although there is disagreement about the extent of contribution). My point is that, if you dismiss such a theory with so much research and consensus backing it, there is no empirical data you potentially couldn't dismiss, but of course that doesn't mean you necessarily dismiss all data.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I've noticed this odd view of empirical evidence among many different right-wing types (an-caps, objectivists, libertarians, & yes even fundamentalists). Sometimes logical arguments (what some of these types call axioms) are treated as more factual than facts.
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/06/11/conservative-mistrust-ideological-certainty/
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/06/14/conservative-mistrust-ideological-certainty-part-2/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Dabba23 I've seen many arguments for anti-statism/ market anarchism. I simply haven't found one that is compelling in terms of objective data and moral consequence. For example, I've looked into the Stefan Molyneux's DROs. It's an interesting possibility, but going by historical examples of mining towns it could lead to potentially horrible results. I haven't seen any compelling defense of DROs against this criticism. So, I don't presently find the theory compelling enough to embrace as worthy.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Thanks for the response. I will make a reply but it will be in a couple of days because I'm training some bitch at my work. I look forward to crushing your head with my pussy... haha.. only kidding. Thanks for the very kind response. I look forward to our future conversation.
NoMoreSunsets 1 year ago
@NoMoreSunsets Sure thing!
Dabba23 1 year ago
great work!
return135 1 year ago