Anarchistic Law - Re: Anarchism's Flawed Analysis

[natdavi]

I disagree w/Xomniverse b/c of his 2nd definition of "objective". Firstly the point of getting an objective arbitrator is to get someone who's POV isn't clouded by attachment to the situation. Secondly I doubt that said arbitrator would be inclined to disregard the parties' interests in the dispute since that's the point of the dispute

[Guncriminal]

What happened to your hair?

[grantsinmypants]

Also, You're right that "the law, when placed on the market, would naturally tend to correlate with natural rights". That's why the United States has become the strongest, most prosperous nation in the history of mankind in just 2 short centuries.

[grantsinmypants]

You are wrong that there are 2 meanings of "objective." Objective is that which exists in reality. An individual's right to smoke marijuana exists in reality, and any 'impartiality' towards a law that violates that right is not really impartial at all. To honestly entertain the notion that the law may violate individual rights and to impose punishments on law breakers is tantamount to supporting the law. In fact, it is abetement.

[adaalman]

I dare anyone to provide evidence of the existence of ANYTHING which is objective.

[grantsinmypants]

I feel like I'm 16 years old again having this discussion, but here's some evidence:

How about your claim that there if, in fact - in objective reality - nothing which exists objectively/independently of conciousness.

You should find another youtube video to have this simple, basic argument on.

[adaalman]

Your response did not provide any evidence of objective knowledge.

[neutrinoide]

If I punch you, you won't like it :)

[adaalman]

If you take a few minutes, look up: zenos paradoxes and the philosophy of heraclitus. I'm not denying reality, just straightening out the context.

[DavoT2]

Define your terms....let's see if they make sense in the first place.

[adaalman]

Objective knowledge can never be experienced for the same reason "the future" can never be experienced. It's a description of a state of knowledge rather than of knowledge itself, as "the future" is a description of a state of time rather than of presently experienced time.

[adaalman]

Your response is a trap. To provide evidence that an answer is not possible is the very thing I am attempting to prove in my challenge, so if that is what you are trying to prove you will only be doing me a service.

[DavoT2]

The objective status of an object is it's objective details, ie, weight, colour, size, molecular structure, etc.

[adaalman]

I think that is the status of objects in non-objective relative knowledge. For example, those details are relative to space and time as well as other various conditions. If you buy an apple for instance, it will first appear to be an "apple", but if you come back 20 years later where is the apple? If everything but the apple were moving at the speed of light how would those details appear to change?

[DavoT2]

The apple has decayed as per its identity, IOW, we know in advance that all apples will decay, so we can call it decay, rot, disintergration, you name it...it all accurately describes the apples state and identity.

[adaalman]

Ok, consider the apple 2 billion years later if you will, or better yet 2 billion years before you held it in your hand (imagine). Would you say the apple still exists? Is its state still within its concept? Would you see it and recognize it? Things are only understood as memories and not real objects. We project our memories onto objects to create knowledge of them.

[DavoT2]

An apple implies certain objective qualities,....so according to the terms of your thought experiment, the apple did exist in the past...ie, I have to know what an apple is to imagine it at "any" point in time, otherwise "what" am I imagining..?

[adaalman]

It would not be verified directly through sensation but through memory.

[adaalman]

Empirical science is synthetic. It uses what we have available to make judgments, the only parts of it which are analytic are projections of statistical probability. Notice how to be objective these judgments would have to be verified universally, to do that requires universal knowledge.

[DavoT2]

A very Kant like view of science....however, everything we know about an object is a result of science/logic and reason, as such, any further knowledge will be the result of more of the same ole same ole.

You want knowledge of the totality before you give science its dues, but we're not omniscient, all we have is lowly science and philosophy as the means to acquire knowledge.

[adaalman]

I don't want knowledge of totality, I'm comfortable with relative knowledge, it's highly utilitarian and is the only method available; My problem is with these people on youtube who are making the grandiose claims of having objective universal knowledge of this and that who I am debating.

[DavoT2]

But what does that actually prove?

For me to accurately remember an object, I must have had first hand experience with it at some point...

[DavoT2]

Objective knowledge as I understand it, is simply that which can be verified.....also, the alternative to believing in an Objective reality is subjective reality "determined" wholly by the mind, IOW, the reason one doesn't survive a car crash is because they're weak minded, LOL

[adaalman]

Well, there are alot of definitions of "objective" but the one I am using is the one that surfaces in most philosophical debates I have had. I like to divide things this way: subjective, general, and absolute. All these being major points of reference, under relativity. Objective knowledge is absolute but considering our subjective/general condition we can not obtain absolute knowledge.

[DavoT2]

Proper truthful science{often refered to as Objective science} is objective in that only science can overturn it, ie, experiment/discovery....so at no point, can wild guesses replace the efficiency of science aka subjectivity.

[adaalman]

Science is empirical not objective, at least as far as I know. That means science is, in short, based on statistical analysis of general conception of the condition of objects. The status of understanding directly from sensation is that apparently all sensible objects fall apart and break down to elements; that is still within conception, and not yet considering the possibilities of what is occuring outside this relative state.

[DavoT2]

""Science is empirical not objective""

I see no reason for these terms not to be interchangeable WRT science.

Science's output isn't subjective, just as long as it's subject to verification, IOW, if I can duplicate the results, then it's not just "one" persons opinion, and thus subjective.

[adaalman]

First, the terms are not interchangable because they do not define the same things. Second, there is nothing in relativity which requires that the subjects be singular. For example, grouping is possible in information gathering and of the information itself. So, to split everything between subjective or objective, into a sort of monochrome reality, is to deny the entire spectrum of relativity.

[urbanclimber777]

damn thats complicated.

[PureLiberalChallenge]

Anarchists seem to SPECIALIZE in intellectual frustration. I had a conversation with Lew Rockwell (who visited New York) of The Ludwig von Mises Institute a few days ago, and he was rather interesting in his way of thought and defense of anarchy -- but he was still FRUSTRATING AS HELL to chat with!

Why are there no well-established authorities on this?! All Lew Rockwell mentioned was Murray Rothbard and Lysand Spooner!

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Anarchists are everywhere. Rockwell, David Friedman, Rothbard, Wendy McElroy, Stefan Molyneux, Carl Watner, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Claire Wolfe and many, many others.

[PureLiberalChallenge]

LibertyIsNotGiven -- Anarchists may be everywhere, but they don't seem to have any coherent theories. Each is different from the others, whereas laissez-faire CAPITALISTS are pretty much all the same. With anarchists, there's never even a clear, clean idea or theory to DISAGREE with.

[PureLiberalChallenge]

LibertyIsNotGiven -- No anarchist that I'm aware of can even decently answer ISSUE ONE: how to avoid competing governments and resultant civil war. Anarchists just drown people in VERBIAGE -- never in logical ideas or anything coherent that anyone can follow along with.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

That issue has been addressed numerous times. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stefan Molyneux and David Friedman come to mind.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Well, if you're lumping anarcho-collectivists and market anarchists together, I see where that might confuse you. Otherwise, I guess it's just a comprehension problem, because plenty of respected scholars disagree with you.

[XOmniverse]

Did something about this video frustrate you?

[chimaster123]

LIBERTARIANS KICK ASS! ahahaha, im a libertarian

[Luke12000]

...can I?...can I say it?...ANARCHY!!!

[adaalman]

There is no way to logically prove that anything exists objectively; it is impossible to do so without referring to the mind as your source. Objectivity requires that something exist external to the mind, but logic can not prove anything beyond its own reach (things external to the mind). Any argument which proposes that objectivity can be found within conception is self refuting.

[neutrinoide]

So you aren't writing this comment and I didn't reply to it. Amazing!

[adaalman]

Well, our comments written and left have been validated within conception, within the mind. It couldn't be recognized otherwise. Concepts that exist without the mind are inconceivable, and so objective reality must be as well. This isn't a denial of reality, just a straightening out of terminology.

[neutrinoide]

So why you even bother to have an opinion or comment? Event if I change the word gravity for glutchipoo. Gravity still exist and the rock still fall. So what we learn is, if you gonna say something you make sure your concept fit with what is reality.

[adaalman]

I don't understand your response. Could you try again?

[neutrinoide]

You keep saying thing like: You can't prove objectively. If it is true, then how can you be sure? It is a self contradiction. Our Objectivity concept drive from external element. You just make sure what you think and what really happen are the same.

[Elhan2005]

What he is saying essentially is that all data must ultimately be perceived by a human mind, and that in this sense knowledge is ultimately subjective.

[neutrinoide]

I know, I`m just pointing out that even if our mind make mistake it doesn`t mean we cannot be objective. Someone cannot say murder is bad then go kill someone. The action don`t fit his believe. Most people think ethic cannot be objective because we can ignore it. But it isn`t what objectivity mean in ethic. It is like following a diet, you can eat chocolat cake all your life, but don`t think you care about your health.

[adaalman]

Ethics do not have to be objective in order for them to be as consistent as conception. What would make you think that ethics should be held to a higher standard than conception itself? By the way, I am speaking relatively, not subjectively, as conception itself and conception of objects are both relative, and not entirely subjective and clearly not objective.

[neutrinoide]

You compare you goal or value with the action you are proposing. If for exemple, you want to live and be free. What would be the objective way to deal with other people? Some says collectivism othe individualism. Let compare both and see.

[adaalman]

I can only be sure of anything within the framework of conception, being that it is the only option available. I am not making any claims of objectivity whatsoever or that anything I am saying is true beyond the limits of conception. My standards of what is "sure" verses that which is "not sure" exist throughout and up to the frontlines of my ability to form conceptions but can't reach beyond that.

[adaalman]

Even statistical possibility would be inversely related to the degree of objectivity. In other words, the more known something is, the less objective it could technically be considered. The difference between my argument and yours is that you are making absolute claims of objective knowledge without conception.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Then why are you arguing?

[adaalman]

I'll correct myself, I can't reach beyond that with 100% certainty, but can gain higher relative certainty using statistics and probability.

[neutrinoide]

See, you keep doing it. You are 100% sure that you gain higher relative certainty using statistics and probability. Absolute claim aren`t objective, rational,logical and empirical claims are objectives.

[adaalman]

Nobody can ever be absolutely or objectively sure of anything at all. I'll admit that right now so there is no contradiction. I am only certain within the confines of relativity, as relativity is the only option available. BTW, empirical knowledge is the complete opposite of objectivity. You have it the wrong way around.

[neutrinoide]

lol

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Gotta love the nihilistic world-view. I guess mathematics does not exist.

[adaalman]

I am not a nihilist and I am not in denial of objects or lack of objects. I am simply making a point that in order for experience to take place, conception must occur, and that conception is relative. So, within logic, experience and knowledge are relative. Logic itself exists within the framework of that only option available, and deductive logic provides no information about anything other than what it contains, and is limited to relativity.

[adaalman]

Induction isn't like deduction but is assumed, and this is the area where relative statistical analysis takes place. Mathematical knowledge exists within the structure of understanding which itself can be contemplated but not regardless of conception.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

You can believe 2+2=5, but it doesn't.

[adaalman]

Something like that.

[Elhan2005]

Democracy the God that Failed - although advanced reading - is much better IMO than Friedman's work, as is Rothbard's For a New Liberty.

[EpistemicDuty]

The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill is a great book defending market anarchy from an Objectivist viewpoint(or at least it's heavily influenced by Rand's ethics).

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Since an "Objectivist" government still must stem from the ad populum fallacy of democracy (unless one argues for some benevolent Objectivist dictatorship), the entire idea of it being objective is laughable to me.

Nice rebuttal, btw.

[oogashakaooga2]

Your pathological obsession with such a silly idea as anarchy even more laughable than the Objectivist cult.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Your pathological obsession with me is amusing. Thank you.

[oogashakaooga2]

I don't think that being in awe of the highs of lunacy that internet zealot nerds can get to is an obsession.

Seriously, just join a fucking church if you need an ideological crutch to go about your daily live so badly. THis Anarchistic preaching and obsession is fucking pathetic. Your stupid ideas don't hold water, you know it, you fucking lunatic.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Who pissed in your cereal this morning?

[oogashakaooga2]

Your mother.

I'm trying to get her to use to potty, but she's such bad manners...

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I hope the rest of your day is better.

[Elhan2005]

You've been pwned so many times, I do not understand why you continue...

[oogashakaooga2]

"U LIEK HAVE BIN TOTALY PWNEDXOR LOL!!1!!!! LIEK U HAVE BIN PWNT TO DEF SO MUCH PWNAGE U TOOK"

The anarchistic maturity showing right there.

No, you guys are not stupid internet nerds obsessed with some pathetic ideological crutch like 12 y.o. girls with the latest boy band. Not at all.

You fucking anarchistic internet nerds are the bottom of the fucking barrel of bullshit ideologies, right there with veganism and marxism.

[Elhan2005]

I can definitely see how spewing profanities like an uncivilized ape is 'mature'...

[neutrinoide]

So, you are saying that no Statist use words like pwned? I'm sure there is more statist using it then anarchist. So, if I follow this logic, statist have way more immature peoples. This kind of deep philosophical discussion are so great.

[oogashakaooga2]

Say Ethan, why don't you tell me more of how much of a big Satan governments are, and how should we all spend the whole day preaching the gospel of anarchism on the internet while we alieanate ourselves from normal people digging bullshit ideological trenches around us?

I guess it must be worth all the hassle just so you can be part of you tiny little clique of lunatics, and have a nice little label to which you may define your whole worldview and personality around... not.

[Elhan2005]

If a 'normal' person is someone like you, trust me I am happy being an anarchist 'geek'. Debating with you is pointless, so I am done. Go on hurling vacuous insults.

[oogashakaooga2]

I doing for you own good, Ethan.

If there's a change that I can prevent you from ending up like a Libertyisnotgiven, a middleaged man who bases his whole existence on a bullshit irrational ideology, I think it's worth taking.

You're an atheist, eh? Have you seen Daniel Dennett talking about people who spend their whole lives feeding bullshit beliefs only to become trapped by their own little belief they don't even believe anymore?

Sad sight, ain't it?

[Elhan2005]

Oh I see, you want to 'save' me.

Yep, and I've also seen statists like yourself, who believe every single bit of nonsense they are fed. So please be careful with your comparisons. ;)

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Not yet thirty, been an anarchist for less than two years, yet I'm already a "middleaged man who bases his whole existence on a bullshit irrational ideology." Wow.  Sorry you feel that way, since you still can't formulate a coherent argument. I feel sorry for you. Really. No kidding. I really do.

[neutrinoide]

"For you own good": That is a really interesting quote. Like a mother or father hit their child because he didn`t listen when they told you so. Because not making your bed and talk back is very immoral. See the patern?

[DavoT2]

"""unless one argues for some benevolent Objectivist dictatorship"""

Now you're talking!!!

[Questionablescum]

Excellent video...5 Stars

[CelticRobot]

say....did you get a haircut?

[VonHelton]

"say....did you get a haircut?" ^^^

Never play with lawnmowers, kids!

:P