philosophical warfare

[mosaik]

the anarchy debate... from a purely philosophical perspective:

the market anarchist philosophy stems from the randian belief that all men are rational or have the capacity of reason. this thinking mind is what seperates man from the lower animals and has allowed and supported his rise over the centuries.

while what is "right" and what is "wrong" can never truly be identified as morality is not a natural occurance, we can identify actions that coincide with the rational nature of man and actions that do not. all men have a conience, it's your rational mind that gives it voice.

we believe that humans have advanced through life by thinking. we know that some animals are stronger then us, some animals faster, etc etc. how then did mankind become the strongest race? his mind.

any animal has the capacity to use force. nature will show you that force does not build sky scrapers or airplanes. the use of force is irrational, it is not a thinking action.

every society founded on and enforced by the iniation of force has failed. they have been overthrown or they have imploded or they were conquered by a stronger nation. this pattern will repeat itself.

an important characteristic of market anarchism is a sense of individualism or selfishness. market anarchists recognize that a mans life is his highest value and nobody has more invested in an individuals life then that individual. a thinking man will recognize that he must act in his own best interest whenever it possible as self-destructive action is not rational.

this concept of individualism also lends itself to the belief that all men must act as individuals and must have the right to do so. men must be allowed to purse whatever interest they choose as long as they do so in a rational manner and do not initiate force against another. an individualist knows that collective thinking is flawed as the mind is not a collective instrument.

we don't believe in force - it is irrational. governments and the laws they create are ultimately enforced by the threat of death.

if you are going to argue that i'm wrong, i don't want to hear "anarchy will never work" because i have news for you: demockracy ain't working now and the united states government, the greatest demockracy of them all, will ultimately be overthrown as well just as every other regime built on force has been in the past. this will happen. it is the nature of man.

if you're against my position, debate my theory. argue against man's rational nature. read some books if you have to, generate your own position. i want a real philosophical converation and not a Q & A session about "who would make laws" in an anarchist environment. if you're not prepared or you don't have a belief structure yet, don't debate. i don't want to be a teacher, i want to learn from you.

if that means that this post gets no replies... well. that's life. i'm waiting for your answers now.

[Johnny]

Where do you find these topics dude?

[mosaik]

my thirst for learning provokes me.

[Johnny]

I see...well I guess thats good

[Bandalero]

[Solidarity 9-6347]

i know you said no question-answer sessions doug but i just have one question for reno, corey, or whomever feels like answering:

what exactly qualifies one to impose their "morals" on another person. "morals" is a subjective word. there is no natural standard for good and bad, no matter how you argue it. we are not all born with a standard set of morals by which we must live.

[Corey]

majority rules. That's what.

[Solidarity 9-6347]

you see but then people get hypocritical. they use that as an excuse when they're part of the majority but then bitch and moan when their little self-imposed confinement backfires

[Corey]

Poop happens.

[Solidarity 9-6347]

that was deep

[Corey]

Thanks

[lora]

as far as my political opinion goes, i think this idea is by far the best for me.

just felt the need to say that.

[Narbus]

A few things:

First, it was not man's mind that allowed him to advance throughout the ages. The expanded mind came after such advantageous physiological developments as bipedalism and the opposable thumb. Check the archeological record. It wasn't through our minds that we became the strongest species. It was our bodies. Even after the expanded mind, it was humans working together, as some form of society, that enabled the foundation of culture, which leads us to the vastly expanded minds of today.

Second, as someone kinda said, objectivism is bound for failure because mankind is a flawed being. All the information out there we filter through our personal biases before adding to our own "personal reality." We cannot know, objectively, what's going on in a situation. We see what we look for.

Third, objectivism will fail because it largely dismisses human emotion (you cannot be objective when you are emotional). Yet it is emotion that causes us to seek life instead of death. I don't see a way for these to ideas to reconcile...where you must deny emotion to live, but without emotion, there is no desire to live.

Finally, man is a social animal. We need other people, there are chemicals in the brain that appear to make us seek companionship. Denying that we need other people is a critical error, as it runs contrary to the very manner in which our brains are wired.

[Odin]

[Narbus]

[Odin]

[Narbus]

[Bandalero]

i think he just wanted a name dude.

[Narbus]

[Odin]

Sorry, just realize that I don't really know the CM lately, so I wanna know everyone's name. And since Doug (whatever his name is) is not responding I can spam in this thread all I want.

Btw, who's actually a philosophy student here?