Anarchy means only the absence of rulers who trespass against the natural rights of others. How can you argue that freedom requires trespass? That's a contradictory and absurd position.
What causes the absence of trespass? What prevents the person with a machine gun from ruling the person with a knife? How can you argue that freedom doesn't imply trespass? Clearly you spent a minute on your position. Did you spend two?
Not trespassing causes the absence of trespass. A better question would be, what is trespass, and is it ever excusable?
What is government if not a man with a machine gun ruling a man with a knife? Hell, in some parts of the world, knives are even "illegal."
Peaceful, productive society exists in spite of government, not because of it. Government is a parasite. It requires a host upon which it can feed. Propaganda to justify its predation is the sedative it injects to lull the victim into ignoring it.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
I started replying in good faith, but I stopped and deleted it after the third paragraph.
I'll leave it this way. I agree with you that parasites should be eradicated and maximizing freedom is desirable. Beyond that it is difficult to bridge our concept framings and I consider most things you said to be substantially incorrect in relation to generative positions.
Do you think it is fair to say you, yourself have no intention of improving the theory of 'anarchy' and are proceeding directly to implementing it via persuading others?
I am not sure what you are asking. Anarchy means not imposing upon others, and resisting imposition by others. The philosophocal aspect requires consistent analysis based on universal and reciprocal principles. Modern politics is all about double standards to justify trespass.
It sounds like you cast anarchy into the golden rule with an explicitly emphasized trespass clause...the game theory Tit for Tat strategy. It is a sound strategy, but it drops off significantly in meta competition - i.e. it primarily only dominates at lowers complexity scales.
Be aware that groups acting on a higher abstraction layer use lower abstraction players as pawns. Grandmasters effectively move the pieces of novices for them because they have a higher abstraction of time as it is applied to that system.
It is clear that anarchy will not displace the parasite it intends. Instead, the parasite will use anarchy to weaken actually viable threats operating near its abstraction.
I mention this because we each equally despise this parasite and I feel you would not willingly aid its goals. Quite simply, this is not a simple thing and treating it as such places you as a black pawn on the board (ironically because white declines to trespass against you)
Groups don't exist as some kind of gestalt entity. Society and the economy are an aggregate of numerous interpersonal interactions and exchanges. there is no reason the moral and rational principles of individual action and interaction cannot be extrapolated to a larger scale. You are trying to create a justification for trespass based on an imaginary idea.
Yes bro but its not fair for honest man
Posted using Partiko Android
Anarchy means only the absence of rulers who trespass against the natural rights of others. How can you argue that freedom requires trespass? That's a contradictory and absurd position.
What causes the absence of trespass? What prevents the person with a machine gun from ruling the person with a knife? How can you argue that freedom doesn't imply trespass? Clearly you spent a minute on your position. Did you spend two?
Not trespassing causes the absence of trespass. A better question would be, what is trespass, and is it ever excusable?
What is government if not a man with a machine gun ruling a man with a knife? Hell, in some parts of the world, knives are even "illegal."
Peaceful, productive society exists in spite of government, not because of it. Government is a parasite. It requires a host upon which it can feed. Propaganda to justify its predation is the sedative it injects to lull the victim into ignoring it.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
I started replying in good faith, but I stopped and deleted it after the third paragraph.
I'll leave it this way. I agree with you that parasites should be eradicated and maximizing freedom is desirable. Beyond that it is difficult to bridge our concept framings and I consider most things you said to be substantially incorrect in relation to generative positions.
Do you think it is fair to say you, yourself have no intention of improving the theory of 'anarchy' and are proceeding directly to implementing it via persuading others?
I am not sure what you are asking. Anarchy means not imposing upon others, and resisting imposition by others. The philosophocal aspect requires consistent analysis based on universal and reciprocal principles. Modern politics is all about double standards to justify trespass.
I agree that modern politics are corrupt.
It sounds like you cast anarchy into the golden rule with an explicitly emphasized trespass clause...the game theory Tit for Tat strategy. It is a sound strategy, but it drops off significantly in meta competition - i.e. it primarily only dominates at lowers complexity scales.
Be aware that groups acting on a higher abstraction layer use lower abstraction players as pawns. Grandmasters effectively move the pieces of novices for them because they have a higher abstraction of time as it is applied to that system.
It is clear that anarchy will not displace the parasite it intends. Instead, the parasite will use anarchy to weaken actually viable threats operating near its abstraction.
I mention this because we each equally despise this parasite and I feel you would not willingly aid its goals. Quite simply, this is not a simple thing and treating it as such places you as a black pawn on the board (ironically because white declines to trespass against you)
Groups don't exist as some kind of gestalt entity. Society and the economy are an aggregate of numerous interpersonal interactions and exchanges. there is no reason the moral and rational principles of individual action and interaction cannot be extrapolated to a larger scale. You are trying to create a justification for trespass based on an imaginary idea.
I think you don't understand the meaning of anarchy. I prefer not to be a subject of any state or ruler. You should too. Anarchy is freedom.
Posted using Partiko Android