The Death of Concepts Part 2 - Violence Borgs Voluntarism - Naomi Klein and the Shock Doctrine

[MutantBamHammer]

does this explanation of why people like naomi's book also explain religion?

[pretorious700]

17:57 I laughed out loud. Naomi Wolf is a typical propagandist, her writing is replete with all of the catchphrases and code words that make statists/socialists feel so smugly superior. When I read the book you are referencing I had quite a few LOL moments.

[Iamfatbrain]

Awesome, wtb more content :)

[rolynstone48]

There's no way that a person , in this statist world , can avoid or side-step their involvement in statism , unless one would choose to do without a car or a pair of leather boots or a set of tools , etc. !

So , to talk of statism , as if one would have any other choice , seems futile !

Not that I endorse statism , but to be anti-statist , in a world of individuals , is like being a non-breather, in a climate of oxygen - how long can you hold your breath in non-compliance ?

[thisisbunk]

try thinking of all the ways in which people freely comply with each other without resorting to statist measures. there is plenty of breathing room.

[kokopelli314]

Erasing the boundaries between big government and big business gives business' the power to force consumption. Try driving without insurance or choose not to use a child restraining device for your 4 year old. Try blending your own gasoline or heating your home with natural gas you extract yourself. The privatization of the state is equivalent to fascism.

[thisisbunk]

@kokopelli314 remind me to never stop at your lemonade stand.

[kokopelli314]

@thisisbunk

Then drink the Government Approved kool-aid!

[thisisbunk]

@kokopelli314 no thanx. i know you want me to... it's just not worth it. besides, i don't even like kool-aid and there are plenty of alternatives.

[PopperIII]

This guy is a taliban of the market.

[JiangalangG]

Hmm, I was thinking and... if somebody doesn't like government because it does not 'exist,' (it is a conglomerate of behaviors that make a concept [government] rather than a conglomerate of matter that makes a concept [cookie]) then they ought not like organizations of any sort either--since they don't 'exist.'

[fabian23rock]

try to "know what it means" before you do a refutation about any subject. otherwise I can't know if you were right or wrong.

[JiangalangG]

Couldn't your logic for how a "forest" does not truly exist also be applied to the term "tree?"

If you break a forest down to its parts--that it is just the trees, fungi, animals, plants, bacteria, etc. that make up something we call a forest, could you not also break a tree down to its parts--that it is just an aggregate of interdependent differentiated cells that make up what we call a tree

Could it be that nothing truly exists save as a concept?

[cmoleon]

if consciousness is conceptual, take away your concept of anything and your perception of its existence ceases to exist, or never penetrates into the mind.

[DissentingDogLevi]

I think we have Concepts to just save time.

[ctvwr]

You are actually being a bit deceptive Stefan: "There is no such thing a public human being". That isn't what was said, you tacked on "human" at the end of "public". Granted that Namoi does accept the implicit language of statism, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend you don't know what the "public" is.

[starsassy]

ctwr, please define public wealth

[ctvwr]

Placed within the context at issue here, "public wealth" is wealth controlled by the state and it's various departments. The "public" notion is derived from the supposition that the state is accountable to and controlled by the population in common. Of course, one can dispute the level of actual meaningful control, but it is inarguable that the levers of power within the state are more accessible than those of private entities like corporations.

[ER8846]

are you joking?

[neotechdrag]

Amazing Stef how you dismantle completely Naomi's propaganda so easily.

at around 14:20 your facial expressions are just sooo funny, I cried.

[tattootomorrow]

Public wealth might mean untapped wealth. So, if outside of the boundaries in the ocean, if there was a lot of value to be found, and no one has a legal claim to it, it is "public wealth" in that we all have equal claim to it.

[tattootomorrow]

Man, that's just one sentence.

[clthinkingman]

"No such thing as free anything" what about sunshine, is this not free:-)

[PeterTheEvilBastard]

Depends. If you move to California or Hawaii becouse you like the weather then no, it's not free. :D

[nitarna]

Maths DO exist objectively, in form of Laws in the Universe and so on. Math is the only thing thats really not subjective and man-made in any way.

[ADPathos]

Not so Nitara.

See:

Alfred North Whitehead

[thomasmoonman]

true

[neutrinoide]

If goverment doesn`t exist, Anarchy are argumenting agains nothing :P

[DoctorSparklesMusic]

well "stated"... (bad joke)... thanks for the inspiration!

[johnpdd]

Some corporations are as much a part of the state as some individuals. Without state violence, some corporations would lose all of their revenue, and their corporate structure would collapse. Think of the prison operators, companies like Xe (aka Blackwater) and many of the weapons manufacturers. I think these corporations are more a part of the state than a state employee is.

[brandeis1000]

Yes the state has its favorites and steals from people to support them.

[combatleague]

culture

1.the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent...(in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.)

[MikeLibertarian]

"no crowd residue left" !?!?!? Clearly you've never been to Mardi Gras ;-)

[robertdog0]

i wouldnt say that the government is a crime. I would say any1 to point a gun at u or threaten u in a way where u can not counter against it is called law. So if that mafia guy does walk into ur restaurant and points a gun at me and says, "i would be bad if somthing happend to this place." i would say. "heres the keys and just dont hurt me leave me in peace." and thats all that people want. So in a way yes the government is a crime. But crime is law in society. all people want is to left alone.

[DCLugi]

I suppose the idea is to show people that just because it's a hugely accepted organization that doesn't make it any less evil. So, even if they still used force at least we wouldn't think "Well, they know best". If all of the cows suddenly stopped making milk for the farmer I wonder if the farmer would then slaughter the cows or try to milk himself.

[RyanPig]

Also, you basically admit that a form of anarchy already exists between individuals and their own lives. Individuals are just other autonomous human beings. Well a mafia and a government, then, are just competing defense agencies. They exist also in a state of anarchy, vying for your business. What law could possibly stop them from this? There is no law of god to stop them, and you certainly don't want a single entity to dictate laws so let them all have at it.

[RyanPig]

The government isn't a business. You're using two abstract concepts that don't connect with eachother. Government ideally is an entity that protects individual rights by a monopoly on the use of physical force. They aren't there for profit.

Also, you simply brush away the objection that trees are just cells but you can't. A forest is an ecosystem. It's all tied in together.

[StrafingMoose]

HA HA. Governement not there for profit ? The federal governement here in Canada has like a 250 billion budget, I wonder if there's even one industry that big in Canada.

[RyanPig]

I'm talking in terms of ideals here, just as Stef does with his anarchic stuff.

[DCLugi]

It's still a matter of force and monopoly. "Ideally" let's say it was impossible to harm anyone. Then a government like any other business would have to make it's case through beneficial action right. Instead of me saying "Give me your damn money because I know better" I would have to show you that my idea actually makes life better. Knowing that other businesses are also trying to show you their ideas.

[kulza23]

Is there an mp3 of this? I just checked on Stef's site, but I couldn't find one for this...is he not making an mp3 version of his videos available anymore?

[D4Shawn]

Stef is not referring to the concept. He doesn't say, "'Forest' (the concept) doesn't exist." He says, "Forests don't exist." As soon as you use the plural form of the word, you are no longer referring to the concept; you are referring to the thing(s) to which the concept refers.

If someone says, "Cats (plural) do not exist", they are not referring to the concept "cat"; they are denying the existence of actual cats.

"Forest" is a concept which refers to real things ("a forest" or "forests").

[MaikUniversum]

exactly. The government, just like forest, do not exist. There are only seperate people and trees.

[hughtub]

Yes, people have a mystical view of government, as if it's something apart from the people, untouchable and above our laws.

[D4Shawn]

Ok, but people exist, and the word "government" refers to them. As such, "government" exists.

If you say:

a) Government doesn't exist.

b) Government=people

Then you are saying that the people "in government" (the people to which the concept refers) don't exist.

Obviously, that's crazy talk.

[gn0m1k]

In my thesis statements for my history class (I go to a public school), I'd argue the principals, axioms, etc of my argument and then do some writing on empirical evidence to support my thesis.

For example, I did a thesis on "Extent government needs to intervene in the economy," I brought principles like coercion, and de facto evidence like inflation.

What really bothers my teacher (and others, she's a gossip) is the coercion. Aesthetics don't justify exclusive powers, they know this.

[gn0m1k]

All of the teachers I have come into physical contact with get anxious. One asked me if I was going to "shoot up the school." Another told me that "Anarchy = violence," which can be true, but statism = violence no matter what. My teachers use de facto justification for states, but I can intuitively tell that the principles of government eat their false identities alive.

Rational philosophies eventually get spread memetically. No amount of coercion can stop that.

[regresseur]

this video has 202 views in search and 788 as i enter this msg

[gn0m1k]

I think a simple way to say that "logic," "truth," "right," and "wrong," don't exist is to ask "Can you touch, taste, smell, hear, or see" "truth." Is it tangible.

[Coughline5]

Do eyes betray?

[Valelacerte]

09:57 Lol, I want to drink milk from the udders of unicorns!

[SpeargunHDTV]

One could say that the forest does exist because part of the definition of "forest" is proximity of a large conglomeration of trees. The close proximity of the trees to each other relative to, say, a distant mountain can be verified as factual by taking distance MEASUREMENTS between and among the trees. Thus, the word "forest" is how we label the idea corresponding to the verifiable phenomenon of such a conspicuous localization of trees.

[jasonlajoie]

I read the Shock Doctrine a couple months ago and think it's the best book I've read giving insight on globalization. I'm sorry you don't understand what she's saying in her book because of your philosophical standpoint. I understand clearly what she's saying and appreciate her having written the book.

[LastReplaySC]

The worst one I found just lately was used by

Obama adviser : Brzezinski

"insidious influences"

And the statement that it has become easier to "kill 1 million" people as to "control 1 million" people in our present common world.

I mean, that said it all or did it not?

[TheTruthVibrations]

Stefan man your so real. So much respect to you to say it how it is. You are greatly appreciated.

[damagejackal10]

What pisses me off about Naomi Klein an the likes, Is how she rails about corporatism, facism, greed .....an yet she advocates even more/stronger regulations an Govt' authority.

[RexNunc]

We live in a giant hologram, and we are merely interfernce patterns recieving frequencies.

.....or something

[freekrolik]

14:19

[SpeargunHDTV]

14:19 and ff: ROFLOL!!!

[SpeargunHDTV]

Re 14:19: still LMFAO!

[Anon1696]

I LoL'd so hard at 11:44.

I did not expect Stef to say that.

[konshoff]

What is the dospook. Oh well let's remove all of the videos that make up the dospook and see if some phantom of dospook doesn't exist.... hmmm

'Oh, well that is why I call it dospookism, that which these 'corrupt' people engage in, as a team or monopoly.'

Overall the best idea is to stay out of personal attacks if engaged in criticism

[dospook]

What is the state. Oh well let's remove all of the people that make up the state and see if some phantom of state doesn't exist.... hmmm

'Oh, well that is why I call it statism, that which these 'corrupt' people engage in, as a team or monopoly.'

Then call it publicism, privatism, unionism if that helps you make lucid her obfuscation, her (or anyone else's) rhetorical forest.

Overall stephbot you are a worried little puppy. Worried about your asshole because ur not appeasing the king(s),

[stefbot]

Generally, if you can't think, it's a good idea not to type.

[TWITfromURANUS]

I was going to donate until you did that scary grin right at the end ¦:¬)

[stefbot]

dang. so close to eating...

[aquapurity]

When the crowd of people leave, there is no 'crowd' residue left so there is no 'crowd' just individual people. But there are no individual people, just collections of organs. But there are no organs, just collections of molecules. But there are no molecules, just collections of atoms. But there are no atoms, just collections of sub-atomic nuclei and electrons. But there are no sub-atomic nuclei, just quarks.. no quarks, just 'strings'. "Therefore there is no such thing as public wealth".

[shameoncanada]

LOL

[stefbot]

I doubt it was your molecules that thought and typed that, so I'm afraid that your argument contradicts its own expression. :)

[aquapurity]

no... actually is was my quarks.

early on in your piece you said that you didn't know what public wealth was... because there's only private people. so this was my attempt at making fun of that idea.

obviously public wealth exists because corporations are given individual status. a corporation can have wealth while it's individual people come and go... just like the crowd that you say doesn't exist.

not sure what "exist" means to you.

I'm just having fun. I enjoy your talks.

[shameoncanada]

Not to go into the whole determinism debate here, but your "doubt" that it was only molecules involved in the typing and thinking is not enough to assert that aquapurity's augment is contradicting its own expression. Indeed you comment begs the question if not only molecules then what was it? Mind stuff? The soul?

[stefbot]

consciousness, an effect of the brain, just as life is an effect of the body, and gravity is an effect of mass...

[shameoncanada]

Conscious is as conscious does. Is it not more succinct to say that the thoughts and typing were the effect of the brain, which is the same as saying it was the effect of the molecules organized as a brain, than to say that consciousness was the effect that then in turn caused the behavior? Consciousness as an entity can only be observed by the behaviors of an organism, and it seems to me that Occam's razor should be applied here. "Consciousness" describes behaviors rather than causes them.

[shameoncanada]

Anyway I did not mean to argue this point with you Stefbot, but I was curious what you thought of my argument regarding the existence of logic that I made earlier? In your video you said that logic doesn't exist and I think this can't be right.

[pseudonous]

Man may be more than the sum of his parts but so is a forest more than a group of trees. Your refutation of aquapuritiy's refutation of your position is itself a refutation of your position.

[neutrinoide]

So you don`t mind if I put some poison in your h20. They are only quarks or string like sugar.

[aquapurity]

I'm not sure I would frame the founding fathers as just a another business gang as you've done. The US Constitution is profound and a gang of business thugs would not have acknowledged that rights are granted by the Creator.

[VCADD]

A gang of business thugs are at least smart enough to know that rights are not granted by a creator.The guy who wrote the constitution also "wrote the book" on hypocrisy.

[VCADD]

I would like to take this opportunity to coin a phrase.A gathering of statist,deterministic,or religious men.A Penis Forest.

[shameoncanada]

You say logic doesn't exist? I think you are conflating the logical statement that is a concept, with the logical absolute that isn't a concept and isn't contingent on a mind conceiving of it. Logical absolutes exist objectively.

[MaikUniversum]

not in real world.

[shameoncanada]

What do you mean "real world"? Logic exists as the essence of reality. Nothing in the real world can be both what it is and what it is not. Logic is not merely a concept, because it isn't contingent on a mind conceptualizing it. In fact a mind's existence is contingent on the existence of logic as an objective absolute.

[MaikUniversum]

Reallity is reallity - the universe.

All material world.

"logic as an objective absolute."

of course, to us. But that doesn't mean, that it exists somewhere in universe (like dust or water).

But maybe we just have different definitions of word "existence".

[shameoncanada]

I don't understand what you mean. There are many things that exist which are immaterial. Planetary orbits exist, mathematical formulas exist. Minds discover them, they don't create them. If something is contingent on a mind conceiving of it for it's existence it is a concept, but these things exist regardless of whether or not a mind conceives of them.

[MaikUniversum]

well, maybe yes, maybe not. Actually you messed up me here with those orbits :D ok, try different:

The moon exists. The word is a concept of the real thing - the matter - the moon - a satellite.

The orbit is a concept too. But it is an imaginary concept, in a sense that "an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of one object around a point or another body" - from wiki. The motion.

Well, it's hard to me to explain in english but it's all I can do for now :)

[Agitpropist]

The orbit is a physical action and actions do in fact exist. Logic is an understanding of patterns, using logical deduction we can predict when the moon will be 'full'.

[shameoncanada]

Not quite what I was getting at. "Logic is an understanding of patterns" A logical conception or statement is an "understanding" of patterns, but the statement points to something in the real world. Or more accurately, it reflects something about the essence of reality.

[shameoncanada]

This apple exists or it doesn't is a conceptual logical statement, and it is logical because it reflects a truth about reality, if reality weren't inherently reliant on the existence of logic, then the statement would no longer be logical.

Logic is the essence of reality. It precedes reality if you will.

[Moragauth]

Or inheres in it.

[MaikUniversum]

no, orbit is that "invisible" line :) action is action.

[Agitpropist]

Orbit is a description of the path of movement of an object. The 'invisible line' is a tool for visualization, an orbit can be described mathematically.

[shameoncanada]

An illustration of what I mean would be that if you say something, anything does exist, then you are relying on the existence of logic in order to make your assertion. If you say this apple exists your statement can only be coherent in the context of a logical reality. Either logic exists or it doesn't and seeing as we cannot be coherent and say that it doesn't then we must accept that logic does exist.

[MaikUniversum]

hm.. I don't think so. We can see an apple by our sense. We can not see logic, for example. So in reallity I would say it doesn't exist.

[Trandofir]

You might be fussy over this stuff, I am - it's Voluntaryism, not Voluntarism.  They mean different things...

[stefbot]

go onnnn?

[Trandofir]

Sure :)

Voluntaryism is the belief in non-violence, and a non-violence approach to bringing down the state, synonymous with Anarcho-capitalism and all that lovely stuff.

Voluntarism is the position that the will is superior to intellect or emotion. Or, it means the reliance on voluntary action to maintain or achieve an end

I think Voluntaryism is the one you meant to use.

[UnhealthySalad]

i.e.?

I personally think volutaryism/voluntaryist sounds stupid.

[zipszink]

The obvious flaw in your thinking is in the concept of property rights. Like it or not we depend on government violence to protect individual property rights. How would you envision a world without government enforcement? People would have to carry a gun to protect themselves and their property would they not? If we abolished the state, would some kind of pure and miraculous "Free Market" suddenly appear to replace it? And, would such a free-for-all really be better than what we have now?

[stefbot]

You might want to check out my free audio book Practical Anarchy, available on my website... :)

[mitchrix31]

How can you suggest a free market when 2% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. MY class will be suppressed not through the goverment but through the lack of wealth regardless if goverment even exist. taxes dont redistribute wealth well 2/3 of our taxes go to social security and medicaid most of the rest to defense. In fact the rich dont pay the taxes we do so i dont understand why you criticize MY only weapon in the class war, the goverment.

[jakster72]

Been asking "silly questions" of people all day! After this vid, will continue! My friend asked me in a roundabout way,"havnt I got aposable Thumbs(!?)This jacket is almost impossable to do up! To which I answered,"oh thats why lepoards only wear bathrobes!"Ask a silly question..! Make a silly assertion..you get Stef! Kudos!!

[kittencartman]

OMG, I think i'm falling in love with you!!!! I'm not being weird honest. it's just that I love your clarity of mind, it's a jewel in a dirty world. I just wanted to tell you you are loved and adored and listened to by another human beings out there in the world. YOu Rock!!! much love and appreciation. xxxxx I can't stress the appreciation enough!

[stefbot]

Thanks you so much for your very kind words! :)

[stefbot]

um, actually the top 2% of earners pay 40% of the taxes...

[D4Shawn]

A "pile of random junk" (for example) exists. The relationship of the individual units composing the "pile of random junk" is completely irrelevant to the existence of said units to which the phrase "pile of random junk" refers.

Just as cells comprise our bodies, the "junk" (in this example) comprise our "pile".

Our pile is different from other things that are not piles (or different piles), and our pile is composed of junk.

Our pile of junk exists within material reality.

[stefbot]

Your argument certainly does... ;)

[nathanjonessr]

I agree that we subconsciously (or otherwise) seek a salve for our burdened conscience. Personally, my three children have been born on state subsidized healthcare and it makes me feel guilty that the money used to pay for the doctor and hospital was taken at the point of a gun. I participate in the system, but what else can I do? This is the system we live in. Is there a Galt's Gulch where Utopia can be found.

Who can make straight what God has made crooked? - Ecclesiastes

[sumadartsan]

"my three children have been born on state subsidized healthcare and it makes me feel guilty that the money used to pay for the doctor and hospital was taken at the point of a gun" If I could offer something to solve your guilt, being subject to something that is the result of having a gun pointed at you is not something you need to feel guilty about. The health care system is less than it could be and more expensive because of the state. Thus, you really don't have much choice.

[sumadartsan]

That is, without a state to meddle with health care, health care would be driven by the free market, thus much better, more efficient, and cheaper. Thus you wouldn't need subsidized health care because you probably could afford it on your own. Even if you can afford it now, perhaps another way to look at it would be to notice that you've been robbed by the government, by loss of quality of society, by higher prices, by taxes at your income source, etc. I don't think you need to feel guilty.

[DeeperBlueX16]

Hey, you mentioned unions in this vid.

Could you still have a useful union (meaning they have actual bargaining material to negotiate with the business owners) without the statist use or threat of violence?

[stefbot]

I believe so, absolutely.

[D4Shawn]

If you say, "I have 5 cookies", those five cookies DO exist. You can count them, you can eat them, they exist. The number 5 however is a concept.

If we come up with a word (such as "cookiesnookie" which means "a group of 5 cookies", that word refers to something that actually exists (i.e. our group of cookies [our 5 cookies]).

Those 5 cookies are real, and the word "cookiesnookie" refers to them.

[D4Shawn]

As such, "cookiesnookie" is a concept in our head, that refers to an actual thing or things (depending on how you look at it) that actually exist(s).

[stefbot]

You might want to work on your definition of existence, in my opinion. :)

[D4Shawn]

How are you defining it?

Maybe that would clear everything up (knowing how you're defining it).

However, just because my definition is different then yours doesn't mean I need to work on mine. I'm pretty sure the definition I'm working with is fairly standard.

I do not believe that a word can only have one supreme definition, so I'm happy to hear the definition you are using.

[erdal0]

d4shawn just try to look this way

if a group called " spicegirls " violates you and leaves you with a blue eye, the group spice girls (the concept) doesnt have a stick or a weapon to hit you

it doesnt matter where it refers to, the point is its not real and impossible

[D4Shawn]

Just because you can't assign to a group, all the characteristics of an individual, doesn't mean the group doesn't exist.

For example, a group a people can sing a song. A group of people however, can't sing a solo.

A group is different than a singular entity.

Just because my penis can expand when stimulated, doesn't mean that I (my whole body can). That doesn't mean my body doesn't exist.

[shameoncanada]

Quit misrepresenting your penis Shawn. I agree with your point here though.

[D4Shawn]

That's a perfect example! "Penis" (the concept) exists within our minds. However, as soon as you apply that concept to a specific penis (i.e "Shawn's penis"), then you are using the concept to refer to something real (outside of your mind), and the word is thus being used to designate a real thing.

"Group" (the concept) may exist in our minds, but as soon as we apply "group" to something (i.e. "group of cookies"), the word "group" is designating real things in reality.

My penis exists dammit!

[shameoncanada]

Seriously though I think you are absolutely right about this issue of groups existing. Forests exist as both concepts and as objective entities just as much as trees do. Galaxies exist just as stars do. I can see no real logical distinction between the concept that a tree is just a group of molecules and the concept that a forest is the sum of it's parts. The distinction seems entirely arbitrary to me. Some concepts point to things that do not exist, like gods or unicorns, but groups can exist.

[cmoleon]

all the repetitive befuddlement seems to stem from a basic linguistic problem: symbols do not by themselves have any specific meanings, all applications of words to the designation of things and concepts are merely abstractions and their conventional vocal or visual representations.

[cmoleon]

the use of a name, e.g. D4Shawn, is a concept unable to designate an individual human being, but that hints at the existence of such a discrete and specifically identifiable human individual. the application of a concept to anything does not prove the existence of that thing in reality.

[ctvwr]

You also can't point out the reification problem of tree/forest, and then assign motives and action to the state as a singular entity, as Stefan does. It serves to make him appear selective in his application of logic.

[myusernameisluc]

That's not what he means. I think what he means is that the state is a concept entirely divorced from reality, and is as such not a valid moral construct. Therefore, politicians, soldiers, police officers and any other state employees are just regular people, whose actions should be judged by the same moral criteria as everyone else's.

[ctvwr]

If that is what he meant then he wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to explain reification in veiled form and then use it to dismiss the idea of the "public" while sparing the state the same treatment. You can't deny the collective existence of the "public" and its actions while acknowledging the existence of the state and its supposed profiting from violence. The state is itself simply a group of individuals.

[erdal0]

i assume your pennis is NOTTTT a ghost

you can touch when you mastrubate on childporn, just say when im wrong?

its noTTTT a concept its real

on the other hand the government DOESst excist in reality.

lets turn it around how can you prove governments excist

[D4Shawn]

"lets turn it around how can you prove governments excist"

That's easy:

Don't pay your taxes. You'll find out just how real the government is.

[SpeargunHDTV]

Right. And suppose you're a shop owner in a Mafia neighborhood and refuse to accept "protection". You and your family will discover how real the Mob is? Is there a difference really between the two instances of retaliation?

[D4Shawn]

"Is there a difference really between the two instances of retaliation?"

Not ultimately. There's differences in the details, and of course, the government is a separate organization from mafia X, Y, or Z, but it's all the same basic sort of thing. You can certainly consider the government to be a type of mafia and vice versa.

Needless to say however: mafias exist. Anyone who believes otherwise should try having their legs broken with a baseball bat. It might make them a believer.

[erdal0]

you FAiLLLL!

the government doesnt excist. only people with guns and innocent people

major fail

[D4Shawn]

The word "government" refers IN PART to people with guns. Those people ARE NOT IMAGINARY. They actually exist. You just said yourself that they exist.

Do you think that"people with guns magically disappear when you call them "the government"? Is the word "government" a magical incantation that causes people to vanish?

Also, not everybody "in government" has guns, so the word "government" refers to more than just people with guns (i.e. politicians and postal workers as well).

[erdal0]

proposition 1:

not everybody has guns in the government

this doesnt matter, THE POINT is its a violent organisation in its whole

2.

your understanding of the word governments, is the same as the word god, it excist because i feel wind in my face because the god let a fart

[D4Shawn]

"THE POINT is its a violent organisation in its whole"

How can an organization that "doesn't exist" be violent?

How can something that is imaginary be violent?

You are contradiction yourself.

Something can NOT be violent *and* nonexistent at the same time.

[erdal0]

d4shawn at this point im trying to decide if you really dont understand it or you just make things up to enjoy your self?

"How can an organization that "doesn't exist" be violent?"

THE PROBLEM is that people claim that the government excist and justify them self to use force,

this is the same as a lunatic who beats children to pray because god(government) said so, but in reality it is their own idea

[D4Shawn]

The government DOES exist.

Sorry, but the only people who think the government doesn't exists are crazy people from FDR (no offense).

[erdal0]

that is the same as if you said. god excist because there are people with sticks who can beat me

doesnt me any sence (fail!)

[shameoncanada]

You keep repeating this, but it is you who is not making sense.

A 'government' can be defined as the relationship between individual people. It is the individuals and the manner in which the individuals are organized that constitutes the entity referred to as a 'government.

'God' on the other hand is not generally defined as the relationship between things that exist.

[shameoncanada]

You keep evoking the incoherence of the concept of god as analogous to the incoherence of the concept of government, but you merely state this as an arbitrary assertion.

You need to support your assertion with a rational argument.

If I said to you that your belief that people exist was the same as saying that unicorns exist because there are doughnuts, would that make any sense to you?

That is essentially the same argument you are making.

[shameoncanada]

invoking*

[erdal0]

is it not logical to link those two concepts, the government in it self is not a rational concept. how can you give a group of people the right to use force rational and the others not?

[shameoncanada]

Acknowledging the governments existence is not the same thing as giving a group of people the right to do anything. People organized into certain group structures are able to exert a force greater than the sum of the groups individual components. A basketball team is not merely five individuals playing against five other other individuals, but rather it is the ability of the individuals to function as a super organism that allows them to dominate the less well organized opposition.

[shameoncanada]

@erdal0

As Stef said earlier, if you can't think then you probably shouldn't type.

[DaveDoggOwns]

The problem is not that people say the government exists, the problem is people ascribe seperate moral properties to the state as if joining a group fundamentally changes the moral properties of the people within it.

[shameoncanada]

Right, extortion and murder are not any more moral when committed by the mafia, or a government, than they are when committed by the individual, but to say that the mafia doesn't exist is absurd.

[shameoncanada]

I think that concepts that refer to the relationship between things or people are referring to something real. Relationships exist between things.

[D4Shawn]

You can refer to people based on their relationship to each other. When you say, "Led Zeppelin", that phrase/concept/name refers to 4 people who were real fucking flesh and blood, who really existed, and played awesome music together. These folks who think that they were imaginary are fucking brain dead (thanks to this stupid "forests don't exist" brain killing meme/virus.

They think that anarchy means you don't "believe" in government the way atheist "don't believe" in "God". It's insane.

[DCLugi]

Sure but that's actual people existing responding to the concept of government. It's a concept in the mind of the folks that show up to remove your conceptual money with actual force.

[D4Shawn]

Yes, the concept "government" exists in our head. However, that concept/word is used to signify things that exist in reality. There is no debate over whether or not concepts are mental constructs that exist in the head. That is not the issue.

When stef says, "Forests do not exist", he is not referring to the concept "forest". Once he uses the plural form of the word "forest", he is thereby referring to the actual thing(s) in reality to which the concept refers.

[DCLugi]

Yes, if we assign the word forest as a group of trees that's no different than assigning the word tree as one tree.

I suppose I wasn't debating the forests analogy because I'm only interested in people seeing violence for what it is. It's easy to hide under the concept of government and still commit actual violence.

[D4Shawn]

Stef:

A number is a concept. It's true that the number five doesn't exist outside of our heads. In that same way, "forest" (the concept) doesn't exist outside of our heads.

However, when you say, "Forests do not exist", by virtue of pluralizing the word "forest", you are no longer referring to the concept "forest" but to the actual forests referred to by the concept.

This is why you are confusing everybody.

[D4Shawn]

Forest (the concept) does not exist.

Forests (actual collections of trees and whatnot [or the areas encompassing said trees and whatnot]) however, do exist.

[mindprism]

-- Forest (the concept) does not exist.

A chair is a pattern of subatomic energy patterns, a thought is a pattern of electro-chemical patterns in the brain.

Why is one more real than the other?

[D4Shawn]

By "does not exist", I meant "does not exist external to our minds". Yes, thoughts exist, just as comic book characters exist. However, we a talking about things in different ontological classes. The Incredible hulk does not exist in the same way that Edward Norton exists. As for what exists "more", that's a nice question, that I was tempted to try answering until I ran out of space.

[D4Shawn]

Even if all of reality is a product of the psyche (which I admit, we can't rule out), the universe is still subjectively objective. I can think about food, but I can't eat the thought of food. I can have a wet dream, but that sure as hell ain't the same as having "real life" sex, even if reality itself is one big dream.

[D4Shawn]

I can appreciate where you're coming from philosophically, but in terms of practicality, there are real distinctions that can be made (even if "ultimately", such distinctions are subjective).

[Throred]

Depends on your definition of 'real'.

If a concept as an emergent property of electrochemical patterns in the brain makes it real. Then the concept of unicorns are real as well.

Concepts obviously exists. But what the consepts points to does not necessarly have to exist.

So the '3 cupcakes' concept is real. However the '3' which the concept points to does not exist other then in your mind - the abstract concept.

I'm unsure if I got my point across. But my two cents non the less.

[mindprism]

'3' is more abstract than 'cupcake' but ultimately every concept is an abstraction.

[Throred]

Every concept is in a way abstract yes.

However what the concept 'Cupcake' points to is real. The cupcake in front of you.

The concept '3' does not. It's a pure concept, nothing more. It only exists in your mind as - excactly - a concept. Kind of like a NULL pointer to borrow some computer terminology.

[mindprism]

The cupcake is not any more real than if I draw a square and say "square". If I draw a triangle is this somehow more concrete than '3'?

[conquesimo]

"Hey it'd be really bad if something happened to your restaurant, you know? It looks kind of flammable."

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I heard that.

[fucksatanism]

first

[NeonKnight88]

Hail Satan

good vid