You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
You are hopeless.
Illusion? Like when the paramedics come after someone has stopped breathing. Or perhaps it's an illusion when the firefighters come to put out my neighbors house.
Delgating responsibility is rationale in that it allows for greater effeciency. I do X and Bill does Y so i don't have to do Y, and Bill dosen't have to do X. Both things get done, both of us are happy. I have entrusted bill with his responsibility, and he with mine.
Reality is friggin illusion so you're gonna have to do better than that.
Spare us the trite melodramatic asserstions.
Those are defense of property? Hmmm. Sounds like division of labor to me - nothing to do with delegation of self defense.
If you can justify how slavery is natural then you are intellectualy bankrupt. it jst ain't so.
Laziness, the weak overcoming the strong, natural selection over-riding morality, prejudice and self aggandizment, a feeling of cultural superiority. All natural. Not necessary. Nor moral. Just like the state.
So Statism isn't neccessary, it's just a natural development arising from increasing individual human interaction. Hmmm, something that naturally occurs as the product of our environment is not neccessary?
Viruses are natural. Are the necessary? Slavery is natural. Is it necessary?
- Sha'uri de la Asca
The reason why statis, arises is becuase *I* as an individual have not the means, nor is it effecient, for me to secure my rights with every individual. The concept of fronteirism or whatever it is you are reffering to works becuase the individual is able to hold other individuals accountable for their interactions with me.
You just proved my point. The laziness derives from delegation of responsibility rather than accepting it for themself. Delegating responsibility is simply an illusion - it does not make one safe. It provides an illusion of safety.
- Sha'uri de la Asca
Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point.
Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point.
Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point.
Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point.
Just because an individual choses statism over anarchism does not mean that the state is necessary. What in the #### are you people talking about?!
- Sha'uri de la Asca
Here's my reply to Josh Cryer since the other thread isn't working:
You are suggesting that as populations become bigger, a state is more and more necessary.
Josh Cryer, I just flat out said statism is never necessary in any situation. In no way did I suggest, or did George suggest that it will become more and more necessary, as population increases. From the essay:
"The more humans who live and work in a small geographic area ( cities, in other words), the more virulent the demand for an overarching statist solution to the problems that naturally arise when basically self-interested, variously skilled and talented individuals co-exist. The reason for this is quite simple - population density equals a higher crime rate without fail, due to simple logic of increased opportunity. Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point."
Statism arises out of the laziness of individuals, not because statism is necessary. The only way to get rid of the state is to head for the frontier, and never turn back.
In any anarchistic text I have read, the argument has always been that the State exists for property, for power, etc, not because of a population problem.
Just as it was with Libertarianism, I couldn't care less about the anarchistic text you have read.
But to say that ?all? large populations are inevitably statist is to suggest that the state is necessary,
Anarchy as the natural human condition which, ironically, is why it is difficult for people to recognize. Since it is natural, it is hard to perceive; sort of like trying to explain how I walk. Over millennia of statism engulfing the planet, individuals have come accustomed to being ruled. Many are lazy. But George is not suggesting laziness causes the necessity of statism. No, he is stating, quite simply, that this laziness causes statism. Since this is the second time you have brought this up in your post, I must ask, where are you getting this from?
and I simply don't see the justification.
You don't see the justification for the incorrect assumption you made that George Potter was suggesting that the state is necessary in populations, or you don't see the justification that cities are inherently more statist than the frontier? If it is the latter, just look at every city on the planet.
You go on and define ?the market? to be almost meaningless, since under your definition anything wherein humans interacted would be ?the market.?
You've got it. What else could I mean by the market?
I'm willing to wager that your market is the same as Proudhon's Right of Increase... this is hardlyanarchistic.
I am unfamiliar with Proudhon's Right of Increase, and have no ambition of ever reading about it.
Well, I'm sorry it offends you or something,
Offend me? I was just wondering what in the hell you were talking about. I still am, "and you'll see why mommentarily."
and I'm delighted that instead of questioning the logic in my comments, you simply picked out something that you found annoying.
But Josh Cryer, I did question your logic. In the following paragraph. See? See?
It makes it a lot easier.
Questioning your logic and picking out something I found annoying is not a lot easier than just questioning your logic. I spent hours, upon hours writing that paragraph.
?We? refers to everyone who is constrained by the laws of the universe. The laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of mass, etc.
?We? refers to real economic limitations. That we can't simply ship resources to Mars, and that we mustbe resource independent.
?We,? also, to a smaller extent, refers to social limitations. That we can't really have ?poor starving people,? no matter which system you chose, because they might get this funny idea to revolt and so on.
?We? includes you whether you like it or not.
You're the most insane collectivist I have ever talked to.
And I have not once mentioned a large organization, mainly because I'm not using ?we? in that context.
Yes you are:
"How do we define property?"
"Once we have autonomous processing facilities on Mars"
Both of these imply some sort of organization. A state, if you will. They have utterly nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, or the conservation of mass.
"Any trade systems would then be cut off or drastically reduced."
What would be stopping trade?
Where have I suggested otherwise?
You have not. You have simply expressed your desire for a system-wide collective of some sort.
I'm fairly certain anarchism canwork.
Anarchism is not something that can or cannot work. It is something that is. Government doesn't exist.
So, if we're going to pick a system, why not pick one which works?
Why do you want a system so bad?
I see no problem with what you're suggesting on the face of things, really, you can do what you want, but when you start shooting people up, you turn things into a mob state real quick, and you show hypocrasy by pretending that your system promotes liberty.
Shooting someone makes a mob state? Mob states, or majority rule states, or Democracy's, whatever you want to call them, have nothing to do with shooting someone.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? Or are you extrapolating? It could be said that I am talking of a potential empire, but that's irrelevant, the so called empire would still be constrained by the same rules.
Yes, I am reading what you're saying. You are talking about a potential empire.
I don't see how I'm ?excluding? Earth, here.
You specifically pointed out that trade between the frontier and earth would be discontinued.
Other than that we're not going to be trading much.
People will trade for whatever they want, regardless of what you think.
Since you'd be unable to profit because of my generosity, I'm sure it'd piss you off.
No I wouldn't. I would just trade with individuals from Earth. From what you make it sound like, I would be the only person doing this. There would be lots, and lots and lots of profit for me.
Especially people who I've stolen patents from and so on.
Why would you steal a worthless piece of paper?
I like how to speak of a frontieer, statelessness, anarchy and so on, but you use the Earth's markets as an example of the ?frontieer market.? You show, almost automatically, how this so called market would require a state,
Then you agree with dicktice? Human interaction requires state intervention?
you just neglect, like most "anarcho"-capitalists, to accept that a mob which protects the Right of Increase is in itself a state.
I don't know what the Right of Increase is, but I do know that the only person who can protect my property is me.
I don't see the Earth as a legitimate example, because Earth has yet to successfully expand into space via capitalistic means
Certain individuals out there are definitely trying.
Name some stuff we'd be trading and we'll see how silly it really is...
I have no idea what your totalitarian empire would be trading with Earth.
What would people who want to make a profit trade with people on Earth? Every single mineral that is rare, or not found on Earth, but is found in other parts of the solar system. I don't suppose you want a list?
This topic title was somewhat misleading, because it explicitly mentioned anarchy.
Oh--Boohoo. Get over it already.
The American anarchist is the Idiot Anarchist.
I have never met one. I honestly wouldn't know. I live in Costa Rica.
Anarchists show solidarity with the rest of the masses, this does not equate ?begging for favors.?
No, they're begging. No way out of it.
Are you saying that I'm a space lover pushing for anarchy?
No. I thought you were a nazi.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
Ah, Darwin.
Do you know who was smarter than Darwin?
No. I don't care either.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
You accept the results of the situation without examining the You accept the results of the situation without examining the implications.
So?
If you agree that the results are acceptable, then how shall we maintain the social stability neccessary to protect all individuals within an environment that can be destroyed by ONE individual.
Do whatever you want, I wont get in the way.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
True...but he hasn't taken into account private welfare groups.
The strong will live, the weak will die. Private welfare, state welfare, no welfare; makes not difference.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
What happens to those unable to pay for baisc utilities?
They don't get them.
What happens if you are unemployed?
Whatever the unemployed person wants.
What happens if you are hurt in an accident, which is your own fault, and can no longer work?
You die.
What happens if you develop an addicition and blow all your money on said addicition?
You're broke
What happens if all of the above, and people on Mars cannot return to Earth?
Adapt or die.
What happens if all of the above, and people on Mars cannot return to Earth?
You die.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
I can't read what you've said on that thread. can you repeat on this thread?
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
An "official language" is a stupid idea.
You can say that again.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
THOR:
The basis of the THOR weapon system is the fundamental nature of any object orbiting the Earth. To balance the force of gravity, a satellite two hundred miles above the surface must travel at a speed of seventeen thousand five hundred miles per hour. At this speed, the satellite travels around the world once every ninety minutes. With a hundred satellites in orbit near this altitude and travelling in random orbital inclinations, one of the satellites will pass over any given location on Earth every thirty minutes. With a thousand satellites, the timing between satellites overhead is less than ten minutes. The basic physics of orbital motion gives us our global coverage; it also gives us the weapon. If a one pound object moving at orbital velocity ran into a stationary target, the energy released in the impact will be the equivalent of exploding almost ten pounds of TNT.
The THOR system is composed of a thousand or more cheap satellites, each made up of a bundle of projectiles, guidance and communication electronics, and a simple rocket engine. When a crisis arises, a THOR command center (on Earth or in space) sends a signal to the appropriate THOR satellite. The satellite then orients itself. At the proper time, the rocket engine fires to deorbit the satellite. When the rocket engine burns out, the individual THOR projectiles are dispersed from the satellite in a pre-arranged pattern. Instead of blunt noses, the projectiles have sharp points which slice down through the atmosphere losing little velocity. Just seconds before impact, a (relatively dumb) terminal guidance sensor looks for a mettalic or other pre-programmed guidance target and steers for it. The result is spectacular: a bundle of tens or hundreds of twenty pound projectiles streak down at four miles per second to strike targets with the explosive equivalent of two hundred pound bombs each. In five seconds, the action is over, and the enemy dosen't know what hit them. All that remains is dozens of luminous trails, each angling downard to a slowly dissapating explosion cloud.
And an island in the south pacific.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
Given how that place is, I bet you also heard about how the Jews plotted Sept. 11.
Don't judge a massive forum by its trolls, please.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
Soph, how do you define 'anarchy', and 'societal interactions'?
-foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
Hmm, so you're saying that once the frontieer becomes populated, it would necessarily require a state?
No, George is saying that statism is a population density effect. Statism is never necessary in any situation, but is inevitable in population centers.
how does one maintain a market without a state?
The market, the human market is inevitable, state or no state.
How do we define property?
We? I am not a collectivist, Josh Cryer, I am an individualist. George Potter defines property as morally obtained goods - either by creation, barter or homestead. I would have to agree with him.
Is it the anarchist kind, or the libertarian kind?
I am unfamiliar with both of those.
And, once we defined that property, how do we uphold it?
How would who? I would uphold my property however I damn well pleased.
One should note that Libertarianism necessarily requires a State of some kind to uphold property right (even if it's a mob state). Minimising the state in that context (ie, just have police to uphold property right), is just giving more power to those who own property, not making the people more free.
I couldn't care less about Libertarianism, Josh Cryer.
I can honestly say I have never heard this before, and I have to question where you heard it.
I heard someone say it on libertyforum.org yesterday. I cannot speak for George.
Once we have autonomous processing facilities on Mars or Luna or where-ever, there would be no need to get supplies shipped. Any trade systems would then be cut off or drastically reduced. Private exploitation would then have nothing to do with a market, unless it was with those in the locale area, and then we get into a whole pandora's box of who ?owns? the life support systems, and stuff like that.
You keep on saying 'we', as if everyone that ventures into the frontier will be part of the same large organization. With an open frontier theres room for ANY form of social organization - from utter hermitude to totalitarian hive minds. Your vision of an empire encompassing the entire Solar System, excluding Earth makes little sense. Attempting to impose your ideals onto other individuals is a sure way to get yourself shot on the frontier.
The market on Earth is large. The demand on Earth for resources found in NEO's is large. To think that trade between Earth and the frontier would be closed off is silly.
What you seem to be suggesting is "anarcho"-capitalism, a twisted version of anarchism and capitalism that does have a state, even if it's a small one.
It's not Anarcho-Capitalism, it's Frontierism.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
I have long maintained that the earthbound hordes of humanity will never see the end of the State. This is because I see the problem of statism as a population density effect. The more humans who live and work in a small geographic area ( cities, in other words), the more virulent the demand for an overarching statist solution to the problems that naturally arise when basically self-interested, variously skilled and talented individuals co-exist. The reason for this is quite simple - population density equals a higher crime rate without fail, due to simple logic of increased opportunity. Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point. Anyone who has lived in both urban and rural areas will know exactly what I'm talking about. The ironic thing is that - as most libertarian/anarchist minded folks are well aware - the increase of regulation in search of security not only does not effectively discourage real crime (measurable damage against persons and property), it also creates a monopoly on force that seeks to gain ever increasing hegemony for itself - leading to the classification of voluntary, non-other damaging actions as "crimes".
Even the simplest perusal of human history points to the market (the sum total of human interactions, and the goods and services created by those interactions) as the only true arbiter of freedom. In fact, one may posit that the more access to an unhindered market is available, the more freedom of action and opportunity exist for a given population. If one posits a system where the only 'regulation' is a mutual agreement between individuals not to defraud or use force to obtain the possessions and labor of another, one can extrapolate a society where true freedom is the norm. This will never, of course, be accomplished by a state in any form. A state - being the embodiment of a desire to shun personal responsibility and the ever-present duty of defending one's own self from force and fraud - exists to hinder human action, therefore hindering the market. The state is a vast, multi-leveled tool used by a parasitic cadre of individuals who's only purpose is to hinder human interaction! The state's answer to any problem is always 'hinder more actions', despite the fact that many of the problems arise from state hindrance of the market in the first place! (see The War On Drugs, and the increase in burglaries/muggings/theft thanks to victim disarming "gun control" laws.) It is in the states best interest for the crime rate to soar. It is in the states best interest for people to live in poverty and clamor for welfare. It is in the states best interest to create enemies who attack and kill it's citizen. It is in the states best interest to maintain and make compulsory public schools that produce ignorant, rote-spouting citizens who are unable to use critical reasoning to solve even the simplest of problems. This gives the state a reason to exist, and a reason to grow, and a mass of ignorant true believers who will demand it's existence and encourage it's growth.
I have come to accept the rise and growth of states as a natural phenomena, triggered by population density and the inherent non-equality of the human race. To most of my friends this is an almost heretical conclusion - I've been more or less denounced by people I respect and like because of this conclusion. The point they refuse to see is that the formation and growth of states actually serves to create anarchistic pressure to flee the grip of control and therefore is the main impulse in the settlement of new frontiers. The driving force for the expansion of humanity. The invisible hand that widens the market.
Human society MUST expand, so long as we live in a world of resources and scarcity. The earth - as vast and abundant as it is - is but a speck in the cosmos. Outside this cradle lies the rest of the universe, infinite to our still limited senses, waiting to be claimed and put to use. The grand stage on which the drama of the market, the story of human action, will be played out.
The hardcore space-socialists tell me that private exploitation of off planet resources can never be opened to the masses. They have a common reason: it's dangerous. This always makes me laugh. What frontier isn't dangerous? What frontier isn't settled on the blood and bones of the brave and foolhardy, the desperate and the contrary? Frontierists are by nature anarchistic.
Anarchy is dynamic. Statism is static. The human waveform is a naturally expanding sphere, anarchist on the wavefront, decaying into statism within. The true beauty is that there is always a place for the frontierist to depart when the grip grows too tight. It will not be easy. Nothing worth having is ever easy. It is the supreme challenge facing the human race - and the question in every seekers mind is simple: Is it worth it?
I say it is.
The only solution to statism - and the only hope for the survival of this human species - is a dynamic, expansionist human society with an unlimited frontier.
The answer to statism is to open the frontier to immigration.
I'll see you in the NEO belt!
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
What are you, some kind of commie?
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
I believe that people who call themselves anarchists would like this party.
Statism is statism.
Living Free,
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
Pages: 1