Is it still anarchists fault Ron Paul isn't winning?

[newbitech]

You get to the heart of the matter and reveal our core disagreement at the end, so I will just skip there:

You are here presenting for my consideration the idea that the universe is irrational. You are saying that the universe does not entirely follow natural laws or whatever you want to call any factor which can be comprehended by reason. Much of the universe violates reason and law and is thus totally out of the realm of the comprehensible and cognizable.

So what does that mean? Mysticism. This is the world-view which you are presenting for our consideration. "Emotion" is the label for the witch doctor with whom you consult to reveal things about this unrevealable realm of chaos which your mind cannot reach.

This is bogus. Of course, even the fact that you are presenting the idea for my consideration using a means of communication -- language -- which was invented by the rational and is entirely structured and rational, this very contradiction proves your claims bogus. You cannot make a defense of the worship of irrationality which you call "emotion" without using rationality. If you wanted to defend emotion using its own tools, without inherent contradiction that is, you'd have to do it using facial expressions and grunts. Just as a dog can convey his emotional state with such tools, you could as well, but you could not convey any abstract ideas. For instance, you could not even make nonsense statements such as "Many things cannot logically exist, but they do." Nope, to make such a statement you must use the tools and methods of reason, or "logic" as you call it. Internal contradiction.

So, in order to defend your thesis without simultaneously undermining it, you would in your next post need to reply using only smileys. And no using code, either, like smile for yes and frown for no. Such code makes facial expression no longer a conduit for showing raw emotional states, but a conduit expressing cognition.

Ultimately, what does it mean if the universe is partially incomprehensible? Not just incomprehensible because we haven't figured out how to comprehend it yet, but because it is, as you claim, literally impossible to ever comprehend? What if parts or aspects or "layers" of existence are logically impossible to exist? What would that mean? What would it mean for logically impossible phenomenon to nevertheless come into being?

It would mean that causality is being violated. It would mean we must throw out the law of causality. You likely do not realize what it means to throw out the law of causality, but let me assure you it isn't pretty. You get to have fun paradoxes like "Back to the Future" time-travel, sure. You also get not-so-fun paradoxes. You get any paradox possible, because they're all possible now, so they might as well start happening. That word "happening" becomes a problem, too. Since there was no possible causal path to get the universe into the illogical point in Hemn space it's now in at this moment, what happens the next moment? Clearly time flow can no longer be defined by causality if causality no longer is an immutable law, so...

So, well, in short, if the universe is illogical/impossible (even partially) you've deeply, thoroughly, and metaphysically messed up our entire existence and we're all hosed.

I wish your liver good luck refuting me with it's emotive states.

Are you accusing my liver of being statist?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Troll.

He's not a troll, he's just oblivious to the way he alienates his audience. He's out for attention and to peddle his blog while exclaiming how much better and how much easier it would be to do things his way, when he can't even get another person to promote his cause.

He feeds off responses, no matter what they are, and as long as there are sock puppets to argue with him he's going to use it as an opportunity to peddle his blog and his one-man-movement.

Listen and understand.

 

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

One of my buddies on another forum made a counter-blog to Xero: http://dirtywebgarbage.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-to-solve-problem.html

Welcome to the link to my solution. Here you can read the solution in question. My goal is to draw traffic to my site, out of my sheer laziness to discuss a forum topic, within the topic.

You now have the mommy and invisible hand working in collaboration to choose what is best for them. The invisible hand chooses to smoke, the mommy chooses to participate in extreme sports. This way, both, by working in their own special interest, can now get the maximum benefit, which helps everyone.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

One of my buddies on another forum made a counter-blog to Xero: http://dirtywebgarbage.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-to-solve-problem.html

Cool he should link to my blog on his blogroll, lol.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Are you accusing my liver of being statist?

No. I would never do that.

 

[Pragmatarian]

This "dirty web garbage" guy is rude and inconsiderate. Xerographica has presented us with a new ideology: one which all can accept.

Would you call Rand's objectivism "dirty web garbage"? What about Buddhism? What about mutualism? No, I thought not. These are all unique and valuable ideologies, not to be insulted.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I'm a minarchist, and by definition a statist. I don't know why other minarchists care that they are called statists - it's what we are.

If you're for being philosophically pure in regards to liberty, you go with anarchism. It's not difficult to understand.

Minarchists come to their position due to the recognition that human interaction is a lot more nuanced than a rigorous philosophy, owing to the simple fact that humans do not always behave logically or rationally, often to the detriment of others. We end up with that position due to a perceived gain in utility compared to the alternatives. The minarchists I've talked to are often utilitarians, holding in higher esteem the concept of justice over the NAP so integral to anarchism.

Minarchists reject the NAP as some sort of holy grail, holding consequentialism in higher regard. For individuals such as myself this is a natural extension of rejecting natural law/rights due to the implicit fallacy of reification (it can easily be guessed I am a nihilist when it comes to abstract concepts having objective truth).

If you're a minarchist and not comfortable with that being the way things are, then become an anarchist. Until then, quit apologizing for your beliefs.

 

[newbitech]

I'm a minarchist, and by definition a statist. I don't know why other minarchists care that they are called statists - it's what we are.

If you're for being philosophically pure in regards to liberty, you go with anarchism. It's not difficult to understand.

Minarchists come to their position due to the recognition that human interaction is a lot more nuanced than a rigorous philosophy, owing to the simple fact that humans do not always behave logically or rationally, often to the detriment of others. We end up with that position due to a perceived gain in utility compared to the alternatives. The minarchists I've talked to are often utilitarians, holding in higher esteem the concept of justice over the NAP so integral to anarchism.

Minarchists reject the NAP as some sort of holy grail, holding consequentialism in higher regard. For individuals such as myself this is a natural extension of rejecting natural law/rights due to the implicit fallacy of reification (it can easily be guessed I am a nihilist when it comes to abstract concepts having objective truth).

If you're a minarchist and not comfortable with that being the way things are, then become an anarchist. Until then, quit apologizing for your beliefs.

minarchist is a term used by anarchist. Along with statist, anarchist use these terms in the derogatory. Describing anyone who is not purely anarchist as statist. Yet there is no such thing as pure anarchism. This becomes very clear in recognizing your relationships with others. So it makes no sense to me whatsoever to hold the view that anyone who is not an anarchist is a statist. This completely dilutes what a statist is. A statist is NOT defined as someone who is anything but anarchist. I also think the idea that government control "to some degree" qualifies as supporting statism is misdirected as well. Self-government is government control to a very small degree. So the idea of "degrees" of control is not well fit for any definition of statism.

A better definition of statism, the applicable and relevant definition are those who believe that economic and social policy should move towards more and more centralization. This shifts power away from the individual rather than towards the individual.

A statist to me is someone who believes and supports growing the state rather than shrinking the state.

If we were living in the anarchy side of a failing republic and I supported a return to the constitution and rule of law, you could call me a statist and it would make sense. We are in fact living on the totalitarian side of a failing republic and supporting a return to the constitution and rule of law is supporting decentralization of economic and social policy power, so calling me a statist uses a definition that belies my support.

By using the definition that anyone who is not an anarchist is a statist, you are calling Ron Paul a statist right up there next to the Santorums, Obamas, and Romneys of the world. Ron Paul also supports a small amount of government for whatever reason. Is he a statist?

I say no because the definition I chose has nothing to do with anarchism. Why? Because I believe anarchism is illogical and impossible outside of the individual self. Even then, I believe anarchism is not even possible within the self from my experience, but I will leave room to believe that anything is possible with some individuals. Once we step outside of self, then no anarchism starts to incrementally break down as our network of relationships expands.

You may be find with accepting the label minarchist or statist, but I am not. I don't appreciate when people disrespect me by labeling me and trying to put me in a position to defend intellectual attacks that in of themselves fall short of their own standards and practices.

 

[Conza88]

This "dirty web garbage" guy is rude and inconsiderate. Xerographica has presented us with a new ideology: one which all can accept.

No he hasn't. Lmao.

It's direct democracy wrapped up in demented bs. It's the latest attempt at a "third way".

 

[TheTexan]

You may be find with accepting the label minarchist or statist, but I am not. I don't appreciate when people disrespect me by labeling me and trying to put me in a position to defend intellectual attacks that in of themselves fall short of their own standards and practices.

Statist has two meanings depending on context. One is derogatory (big government), and the other can be, but usually isn't (believing the state is necessary to protect freedom). At least, I try not to be derogatory when using the word in the second sense, because even though I disagree with minarchism, I don't disrespect those who hold it.

By definition though, you are a statist. This definition isn't going away, so you should probably learn to not take it personally.

 

[newbitech]

Statist has two meanings depending on context. One is derogatory (big government), and the other can be, but usually isn't (believing the state is necessary to protect freedom). At least, I try not to be derogatory when using the word in the second sense, because even though I disagree with minarchism, I don't disrespect those who hold it.

By definition though, you are a statist. This definition isn't going away, so you should probably learn to not take it personally.

you just said two meanings depending on context, yet I should just not take it personally when it's used in the derogatory out of context? Really though, I do not take the internet personally, much. This is a case where I am not the only one being called a statist, and for the venue AND context it is rather disturbing.

Taken in context, you could not accurately describe my support as statism. So I wouldn't take it personal if someone is just flat wrong. It is the conflation of the term and the derogatory nature in which it is used that has people trying to have me either accept that label for myself and a large majority of Paul supporters and activist, including the man himself that I oppose, OR renounce my "statism" and accept anarchy. Personally or not, it is an issue that has been around these forums for a long time and is a big reason why anarchist start threads like this and feel like they are getting blamed for the lack of campaign success or "winning" as it were.

Maybe if anarchist put a muzzle on their out of context definition or at least put it in the proper venue, they'd not receive the scorn from what they call "minarchist" or even worse "statist". Clearly, anarchism vs statism is not a black and white issue. There is a grey area and I have yet to "see" or "hear" anyone in this forum display the pure sense of anarchism or statism in which would create the necessary context for applying such static labels. This is why I think the correct definition of "statist" is those in support of moving government towards MORE centralization and consolidation of power vs what I would call anti-statist (no not anarchist) or those in support of moving government towards LESS centralization and diffusion of power.

A person stops becoming anti-statist the moment he is comfortable with the level of government that is realized all around him. An anarchist will never stop being anti-statist even when he is on his own island all by himself with no outward signs of government. Internally, he will have instituted his own self government and he will continue the battle in his own mind. Freedom and Liberty is not something you settle for. There is no final state, or absence of state. There is not either the state exist or it doesn't outside of individual. Outside of the individual, the state exist. Period, full stop.

 

[Cabal]

I'm a minarchist, and by definition a statist. I don't know why other minarchists care that they are called statists - it's what we are.

If you're for being philosophically pure in regards to liberty, you go with anarchism. It's not difficult to understand.

Minarchists come to their position due to the recognition that human interaction is a lot more nuanced than a rigorous philosophy, owing to the simple fact that humans do not always behave logically or rationally, often to the detriment of others. We end up with that position due to a perceived gain in utility compared to the alternatives. The minarchists I've talked to are often utilitarians, holding in higher esteem the concept of justice over the NAP so integral to anarchism.

Minarchists reject the NAP as some sort of holy grail, holding consequentialism in higher regard. For individuals such as myself this is a natural extension of rejecting natural law/rights due to the implicit fallacy of reification (it can easily be guessed I am a nihilist when it comes to abstract concepts having objective truth).

If you're a minarchist and not comfortable with that being the way things are, then become an anarchist. Until then, quit apologizing for your beliefs.

It's refreshing to see a minarchist who is at least being intellectually honest, though I would raise some objections to some things you've said here.

I tend to agree that minarchists are generally influenced to one degree or another by utilitarian/consequentialist thought which certainly contributes to their advocacy of minarchy over anarchy. What I don't agree with is that minarchists hold the concept of justice in higher esteem than anarchists; as well, I don't see how you can accurately separate justice and NAP from one another.

The concept of justice extends from ethics and morality, which NAP is certainly concerned with. So, if anything, anarchists hold justice in the highest regard--so much so that they are willing to completely reject statism at any level due to the inherent injustice associated with it based on NAP-centric morality.

I'd also say (and perhaps this what something of a point you were making) that not all minarchists are necessarily admitted consequentialists or moral subjectivists (though many are) who reject NAP. Rather, I find, that many minarchists like to advocate such things as NAP, and voluntaryist ideology in general, but they fail to be logically consistent in the applications and arguments.

 

[TheTexan]

you just said two meanings depending on context, yet I should just not take it personally when it's used in the derogatory out of context? Really though, I do not take the internet personally, much. This is a case where I am not the only one being called a statist, and for the venue AND context it is rather disturbing.

Taken in context, you could not accurately describe my support as statism. So I wouldn't take it personal if someone is just flat wrong. It is the conflation of the term and the derogatory nature in which it is used that has people trying to have me either accept that label for myself and a large majority of Paul supporters and activist, including the man himself that I oppose, OR renounce my "statism" and accept anarchy. Personally or not, it is an issue that has been around these forums for a long time and is a big reason why anarchist start threads like this and feel like they are getting blamed for the lack of campaign success or "winning" as it were.

Maybe if anarchist put a muzzle on their out of context definition or at least put it in the proper venue, they'd not receive the scorn from what they call "minarchist" or even worse "statist". Clearly, anarchism vs statism is not a black and white issue. There is a grey area and I have yet to "see" or "hear" anyone in this forum display the pure sense of anarchism or statism in which would create the necessary context for applying such static labels. This is why I think the correct definition of "statist" is those in support of moving government towards MORE centralization and consolidation of power vs what I would call anti-statist (no not anarchist) or those in support of moving government towards LESS centralization and diffusion of power.

A person stops becoming anti-statist the moment he is comfortable with the level of government that is realized all around him. An anarchist will never stop being anti-statist even when he is on his own island all by himself with no outward signs of government. Internally, he will have instituted his own self government and he will continue the battle in his own mind. Freedom and Liberty is not something you settle for. There is no final state, or absence of state. There is not either the state exist or it doesn't outside of individual. Outside of the individual, the state exist. Period, full stop.

People use the pure (and original, it seems) definition of statism on this Political Philosophy forum all the time. Outside of this subforum, maybe not so much.

Outside of the individual, the state exist.

It sounds to me that your confusions are rooted in a poor understanding of the meaning of the word state. Because this quote is simply false, based on the definition that 99% of people use for the word state.

 

[newbitech]

People use the pure (and original, it seems) definition of statism on this Political Philosophy forum all the time. Outside of this subforum, maybe not so much.



It sounds to me that your confusions are rooted in a poor understanding of the meaning of the word state. Because this quote is simply false, based on the definition that 99% of people use for the word state.

The point is, it is not enough for me to just hear and see on a forum the purist ideological "arguments" some folks may have. The very ACT of participating on the internet can be construed as "statism" in the pure sense. How was the internet created? If someone was pure enough ideologically, would they also not be pure enough in their deeds? Of what use is it to spout pure anarchist ideology on a "state" created communication system, militarized no less? Some level of outright purest rejection has been given up to utilize a piece of the state to denounce the state. Of course it is more convenient. However, for the discerning eye, it smacks of hypocrisy.

As far as my "poor understanding of the meaning of the word state". I could say the same about anyone using a definition that I do not agree with. There isn't really a consensus on the definition. It means different things depending on what you are trying to "justify". We do know some facts however.

The term itself is derived from Latin status with the meaning condition or status. So if I use the original meaning of the word, I am 100% correct in saying that the outside of the individual the "condition" or "status" exists.

Your 99% is what is wrong because you made it up.

 

[TheTexan]

The point is, it is not enough for me to just hear and see on a forum the purist ideological "arguments" some folks may have. The very ACT of participating on the internet can be construed as "statism" in the pure sense. How was the internet created? If someone was pure enough ideologically, would they also not be pure enough in their deeds? Of what use is it to spout pure anarchist ideology on a "state" created communication system, militarized no less? Some level of outright purest rejection has been given up to utilize a piece of the state to denounce the state. Of course it is more convenient. However, for the discerning eye, it smacks of hypocrisy.

Just because the internet was created by a State does not mean it would not have been created in a Stateless society. In fact I would argue that it would have come about sooner without the State.

As far as my "poor understanding of the meaning of the word state". I could say the same about anyone using a definition that I do not agree with. There isn't really a consensus on the definition. It means different things depending on what you are trying to "justify". We do know some facts however.

You can use whatever definition you want, but that kind of defeats the purpose of language. Using your definition of state, "having a condition or status", your definition of "minarchism" may actually be most people's definition of "anarchism". So, really, until you adopt a more specific definition of state, all derivative words have no meaning to us.

You may be an anarchist, for all I know, based on your current set of definitions.

Your 99% is what is wrong because you made it up.

99% of statistics are made up, it's just a fact.

 

[newbitech]

Just because the internet was created by a State does not mean it would not have been created in a Stateless society. In fact I would argue that it would have come about sooner without the State.

You can use whatever definition you want, but that kind of defeats the purpose of language. Using your definition of state, "having a condition or status", your definition of "minarchism" may actually be most people's definition of "anarchism". So, really, until you adopt a more specific definition of state, all derivative words have no meaning to us.

You may be an anarchist, for all I know, based on your current set of definitions.

99% of statistics are made up, it's just a fact.

Ahh so you think that centralization of information is a good thing? You statist you.

Where does the state get it's "power"? Why from the consolidation of two things. FOOD and INFORMATION. While I agree that the internet is a great resource and a valuable tool for dispersing information, this is what we see on the front end. On the back end, it is one very large collection apparatus that serves to consolidate all the power that this same information has.

I'd like to know just how many anarchist here really grow their own veggies and slaughter their own livestock while simultaneously do not participate at the largest well of consolidated power, the internet. Show me THAT person, and I will show you someone who has a solid foundation for calling me a "statist".

 

[TheTexan]

The internet is actually extremely decentralized. Some functions such as domain name registration, are centralized, but other than that..... Nope

 

[otherone]

What I don't agree with is that minarchists hold the concept of justice in higher esteem than anarchists

I'd be interested in hearing how Justice could exist in the absence of Criminal Law, and how Criminal Law could exist without a de facto state.

As to the minarchy/staty deal, what purpose is served by saying minarchists are actually statists other than to imply they are cut from the same cloth as totalitarians? Why not simply refer to them as minarchists? What purpose does the term 'statist' serve?

 

[Cabal]

I'd be interested in hearing how Justice could exist in the absence of Criminal Law, and how Criminal Law could exist without a de facto state.

As to the minarchy/staty deal, what purpose is served by saying minarchists are actually statists other than to imply they are cut from the same cloth as totalitarians? Why not simply refer to them as minarchists? What purpose does the term 'statist' serve?

I'd be interested in hearing how statist criminal law equates to justice. Were slave laws just? Are intellectual property laws just? Are cannabis laws just? Are seatbelt laws just? Is ObamaCare just? Are FDA laws just?

How many people has the criminal 'justice' system wrongly imprisoned and/or murdered? How many lives have been destroyed because of it? How much unequal punishment has been handed down in the name of 'justice'?

Criminal law has hardly anything to do with justice; and those instances that do result in any real justice (if they exist at all) are surely anomalous at best.

As for why refer to statists as statists, well aside from the obvious, I personally don't like to get distracted from the truth of things. I like to cut through the bullshit and get down to the barebones.

 

[newbitech]

The internet is actually extremely decentralized. Some functions such as domain name registration, are centralized, but other than that..... Nope

You'd think with a decentralized (sort of) topography the internet could be hailed as a fine example of decentralization. Here is the list of tier one nodes.

[TABLE="class: wikitable, width: 75%"]
[TR]
NameHeadquartersAS numberJanuary 2011 degree[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]Peering policy[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]AT&T[/TD]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]7018[/TD]
[TD]2365[/TD]
[TD]AT&T Peering policy

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Centurylink (formerly Qwest and Savvis)[/TD]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]209 / 3561[/TD]
[TD]1367[/TD]
[TD]North America; International[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Deutsche Telekom AG[/TD]
[TD]Germany[/TD]
[TD]3320[/TD]
[TD]535[/TD]
[TD]DTAG Peering Details[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Inteliquent (formerly Tinet)[/TD]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]3257[/TD]
[TD]886[/TD]
[TD]Inteliquent Peering Policy[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Verizon Business (formerly UUNET)[/TD]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]701[/TD]
[TD]1946[/TD]
[TD]Verizon UUNET Peering policy 701, 702, 703[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sprint[/TD]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]1239[/TD]
[TD]1183[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]TeliaSonera International Carrier[/TD]
[TD]Sweden[/TD]
[TD]1299[/TD]
[TD]630[/TD]
[TD]TeliaSonera International Carrier Global Peering Policy[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NTT Communications[/TD]
[TD]Japan[/TD]
[TD]2914[/TD]
[TD]718[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Level 3 Communications[/TD]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]1 / 3356 / 3549[/TD]
[TD]4402[/TD]
[TD]Global Crossing Peering policy (2003)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tata Communications[/TD]
[TD]India[/TD]
[TD]6453[/TD]
[TD]569[/TD]
[TD]Peering Policy[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Pretty short list eh? That is why I say the internet is centralized. The technology is there for true decentralization, but only the convenience of consolidating power. Along with the parent directives, the internet was created as vast data collection and dissemination tool. Think of all the function that have been consolidated and centralized under this decentralized technology.

Banking, Stock Trading, Education, Licensing, Ad Listings, Bookstore, Bulletin Board, Shopping, Job Searching, Photo Processing, Research, Social Interactions, TV Watching, News Aggregation...

The list goes on and on. All found in one convenient place called, the internet. Sure the technology is decentralized (sort of), but from day one everything we find to be valuable gets heaped into the bottomless pit. It's all out there a few clicks away. Centralized on one vast network. Data is as redundant on the internet as the connections between nodes.

The information is in effect all gathered in one place. As much as we'd like to believe that the internet is dispersed and not centralized. We cannot escape the fact that their exist a core that everything connects to. If that core goes down, the internet goes down. Of course the data is still there, but without the ability to move that data from point A to point B, the information becomes worth less.