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]

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.

well, thanks for waiting, i just stumbled into this post and now i'm ready. see man himself is not perfect, in fact it's a flawed being. even before anchient rome was up and running they have been looking for a perfect being, and have not found it. yes, we have minds and we think before we use force or act, but the fact is the line between human and animal is very thin. this is porven when man becomes desperate. he begins to think "irrationally" and tends to do things that may (to him) seem enough to fit his needs, but are in no way shape or form not able to fit anybody's needs. he becomes a parasite to the world and those around him, even to himself.

everyone thinks. it is in our nature to think, but much of our thinking left to itself is biased distorted, partial, uninformed or down right prejudiced. the quality of our life depends on the way we think. Shoddy thinking is costly, in money, time and even in the quality of life. Excellence in thought however must be systematically cultivated. the average shmo cannot achive this, because of his education or lack there of. to this individual critical thinking is that last question on his test, that he will leave blank and still pass his test with an 85.

here is a checklist of reasoning:

1 All reasoning has a purpose.
2 All reasoning is an attempt to FIGURE something out, to sellte some question, solve some problem.
3 All reasoning is based on ASSUMPTIONS!
4 All reasoning is done from some point of view.
5 All reasoning is based on DATA, INFORMATION & EVIDENCE
6 All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, CONCEPTS & IDEAS.
7 All reasoning contains INFERENCES or INTERPRETATIONS by witch we draw CONCLUSIONS and give meaning to data.
8 All reasoning leads somewhere or has IMPLICATIONS & CONSEQUENCES.

the truth is most people don't go through this checklist when they think they just do it, with their bias and their corruption. this goes for people on both sides of an argument, pro- or con- democracy. there is no way to re-program these people to open up and think well. therefore your basis that humans can live in anarchy is flawed by the people in it.

[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]

Why am I doing this...

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.

But it is our intelligence that grants mankind the capacity of rationality, to construct, to evolve and develope. When Doug (that is Doug, is he?) talks about our mind, that includes our rationality and intelligence, our capacity to think and calculate. Mankind were not born in this world with brutal strength, but we developed weapons for hunting and tools for survival, this capacity made us the dominant specie of this world.

then again, cockroaches were not born in this world with intelligence OR strength, yet they survive, oh how they survive. As a matter of fact, we have no way of justifying that animals have no capacity to think...

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.

I don't understand where you're trying to get to here, who said that market anarchism requires every man to think objectively and dismiss human emotion? And I personally think that emotion causes us to seek death instead of life contrary to your belief. There are two reasons that would drive a person to suicide: in a desperate situation where death becomes better than living; or when live becomes vain and meaningless and death became the only form of escape, nihilism (yeah I nearly killed myself but I'm alright now). With these two reasons, mankind is the only specie that is capable of commiting suicide (quote me if I'm wrong).

Mind you that I only read Fountainhead and I am NOT an objectivist.

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.

Again, you can be an individualist/egoist and still live under the market anarchist system. In fact, the system encourages that. Not only chemicals in our brain make us seek companionship but also man cannot be a a demi-human being and live alone in the forest, we need others in order to survive and objectivism never remonstrated this notion. The essential part of market anarchism is the presupposition that all man are rational, and this would restrict us from the deeds we call "evil" right now. It isn't the law that stops us from killing and looting in democratic system but it is our conscience (which I personally think is constructed) that restrains us.

Now, I don't think objectivism would work, simply because of the reasons reno pointed out. Our rationality has to be cultivated by education and whatnot. Market anarchism may work, but it must be in a society where everyone is rational and educated. As long as there is still one person in society that is not bound by his conscience but by law, then we're still not in the stage for market anarchism.

[Narbus]

Why am I doing this...

Hey. There's already one philosophical debate going in here, we don't need more.

But it is our intelligence that grants mankind the capacity of rationality, to construct, to evolve and develope. When Doug (that is Doug, is he?) talks about our mind, that includes our rationality and intelligence, our capacity to think and calculate. Mankind were not born in this world with brutal strength, but we developed weapons for hunting and tools for survival, this capacity made us the dominant specie of this world.

I think it's doug. It was hollow minds, who I'm pretty sure was doug at one point, and I REALLY wish someone would disable that changing nick function.

Anyway.

Doug said that it was our minds that elevated us above the animals. This isn't true. That was my point.

then again, cockroaches were not born in this world with intelligence OR strength, yet they survive, oh how they survive. As a matter of fact, we have no way of justifying that animals have no capacity to think...

Excellent point here. Insects are, in many ways, the extreme of a collectivist society (Bees in the hive, ants, all work work work for the common goal), and they're likely to be around long after man kind is nothing more. Clearly there are several ways to longevity.
PS: With our knowledge of how brains work, and how our brains work, we can actually guess pretty accurately which animals can and can't "think" in the advanced ways we do.

I don't understand where you're trying to get to here, who said that market anarchism requires every man to think objectively and dismiss human emotion?

He said randian. Randian anything builds and plays on the ideas of objectivism. Objectivism, as one would guess, requires objectivity and rationality, both of which run rather contrary to emotion.

And I personally think that emotion causes us to seek death instead of life contrary to your belief. There are two reasons that would drive a person to suicide: in a desperate situation where death becomes better than living; or when live becomes vain and meaningless and death became the only form of escape, nihilism (yeah I nearly killed myself but I'm alright now). With these two reasons, mankind is the only specie that is capable of commiting suicide (quote me if I'm wrong).

Secret Service people are trained to take a bullet for the President, effectively commiting suicide. Self-sacrifice is still suicide.
I'm arguing that emotion is what gives us our drives, our passions. If we didn't have fear to convice us death is bad, or any number of more "positive" emotions to convince us life is good, then we'd not bother to get out of the way of that car, or try to excel in some area, or really do anything. Heck, desire is an emotion, and it's what drove doug to start this thread.

Again, you can be an individualist/egoist and still live under the market anarchist system. In fact, the system encourages that.

Objectivism is a rather individualist philosophy, therefore it is kinda required for this market anarchist system. I said that mankind isn't built to be strict individualists; we need other people, therefore individualism isn't the be-all-end-all of philosophical thought.

Not only chemicals in our brain make us seek companionship but also man cannot be a a demi-human being and live alone in the forest, we need others in order to survive

Perhaps. It is possible for someone to live alone, in the woods, and live off of berries and traped stuff. Possible physically, I don't know about the emotional part.

objectivism never remonstrated this notion. The essential part of market anarchism is the presupposition that all man are rational, and this would restrict us from the deeds we call "evil" right now. It isn't the law that stops us from killing and looting in democratic system but it is our conscience (which I personally think is constructed) that restrains us.

Ojectivism and emotion don't mix. It's emotion that leads us to seek out others. So.
Actually, in some cases, it is the law that keeps people in check. I don't mind speeding, but if a cop is behind me, I'll do the speed limit. Not out of any sense of right and wrong, but because I don't want to pay a fine. So.
I also agree the conscience is constructed. What we find horribly wrong and evil is nothing big to someone else. There are prolly people who think I'm terrible because I break the law (the speeding). The conscience is unique to every person.

Now, I don't think objectivism would work, simply because of the reasons reno pointed out. Our rationality has to be cultivated by education and whatnot. Market anarchism may work, but it must be in a society where everyone is rational and educated. As long as there is still one person in society that is not bound by his conscience but by law, then we're still not in the stage for market anarchism.

And for education and whatnot to happen, we, again, need other people.

[Odin]

...

Narbus, who are you?

[Narbus]

...

Narbus, who are you?

??

Don't know for sure what you're looking for here.

Or why, for that matter.

[Bandalero]

i think he just wanted a name dude.

[Narbus]

:wtf: i think he just wanted a name dude.

Oh. Well I've never once changed my nick (or avatar, for that matter) while I've been here, so I'm same ol' Narbus.



If you must know, my "real" name is Jeff. Yes, I know. No, not that Jeff, I'm a different Jeff. Yes, there's more than one Jeff.

[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?