I don't see much resistance anymore to referring to same-sex spouses as being "married." I'd say there's been a general acquiescence to that terminology.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Anarchism- Capital Hill Autonomous Zone declared in Seattle (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ren hoek
- Start date
ren hoek
Footballguy
I guess I don't think ostracization is in the same ballpark as extortion. Especially since the beginning and end of it in western civilization is essentially don't be a jerk. Maintaining the basic minimum amount of social capital to be a part of society is different from an armed ruling class with a monopoly on legalized force threatening you to pay up.
Just throwing an example out there, I think you could count Native Americans as a pretty free society. If only they had private security contractors back then.
In the future you could have neutral countries that adopt a minarchist structure to embrace global capitalism and classical liberal legal frameworks. I doubt I'll ever see free market anarchism in my lifetime but it's enough for me that I believed in something morally conscionable.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well let's face it at the time of the OP the question was what state legislatures would vote for it. Yeah, religious conservatives haven't picked up arms to 'resist' the Court's judgement, but they never agreed to it either.
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Achieving progressive and successful governance without a subclass or an abiding strictly-defined moral structure as Christianity was in this country's 1st 200 yrs will be as much of an adventure as democracy originally was. It will require deep consensus, which has NEVER been achieved on a large scale without fear as the defining motive; will require humans to stop letting the poop-throwing monkeys inside them run everything and turn things over to the most blessed instrument in existence, the human cerebral cortex; and the scientific development of equilibriums (such as that between the corruption of small institutions vs the stasis of large ones) as the code by which we clear the brush for democratic ideals to pass thru this morass.
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Thanks for the reply Ren.
The bolded above is why I initially asked about clans & tribes, as I felt they were the closest to what you may be comfortable with in regards to extortion...or the lack thereof.
Although, as you noted (and I implied) ostracization can be an effective death sentence. Your explanation of minimal social capital in order to avoid it is valid in regards to the freedom of the society, but it is still rather harsh.
I'm still thinking about this. Interesting topic. I will keep checking in.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Five years. Didn't want to clutter that thread with a completely different conversation.
No they didn't. They rushed to the hospital and had a kid. Even if they did, it still doesn't explain where the authority to declare someone a subject of a given state is derived. What if the mother arrives at the hospital, on the verge of giving birth, and refuses to sign any paperwork? Does the hospital have to receive some sort of authorization from parents before granting it? What happens if they deliver the baby and parents refuse any sort of signature? I'm asking honestly because I don't know.
My understanding is that it's sort of assumed at birth. How is it that a child barely capable of opening its eyes can consent to a lifetime of citizenship? Doesn't that seem authoritarian to you, to impose a country's arbitrary code of law on a human being that never had a say or opinion before being subjected to it? There isn't really a social contract, because if there was it would have been null and void a long time ago.
Yeah, that's what I think we're getting at here. Like I said I'm not trying to force you into any sort of conversation, just wanted to continue in a place I felt was more appropriate. I appreciate your opinion
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
I will assume you were born in the US. I will also assume your parents were here voluntarily, of their own free will. I will also assume they were citizens or here legally. That is how they chose for you. If they had not wanted you to be subject to this government & these laws, they had the right to leave the country. They did not. (Again, based on said assumptions; please correct me if I'm wrong)
I will also assume you are an adult, and that you live in the US. If that is the case, you have the right to leave, if you cannot accept the social contract involved with being a citizen. The fact that you stay here (again, assuming that is the case), you are accepting the fact that you are subject to this government & its laws. This is true of all governments, but in the US, you have the right to criticize, and strive to change, the government. That's not true everywhere.
What nation has a better system of government, in your opinion, if I might ask?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet J
Footballguy
In Ren's defense here: He made an argument in the Trump thread that is related to this issue, and he specifically said, "I think this is side-tracking this thread a little bit," or something like that. And I wrote back to Ren saying something along the lines of: "I don't necessary agree with you, but this is a fascinating discussion, you should create a thread that brings these issues up."
I'm assuming Ren pulled an anti-Tim and figured there is already an existing (albeit old) thread discussing these issues, so he will bump it with the new discussion.
Anyway, that's my take.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Agree, I think it was a great move, don't hijack the thread, put the argument where it belongs.
Sweet J
Footballguy
This reminds me of my college years. I had a philosophy major friend who used to love to quote, I think it was Kant. Was he the existentialist? Called himself an existential warrior (he was an ex-bouncer in Providence Rhode Island, and a little terrifying when he got drunk and talked about existentialism). Anyway, he liked to talk about the "social contract." He used to say something along the lines of: "I never signed a contract? Show me the contract! Show me where I signed!" He was a fun guy.
But I digress. I dig what you are saying. Essentially, I think it boils down to: "I don't like the fact that our government has so much power over us. I never agreed to it, and I don't agree that I have "agreed" merely by living here and using American resources."
I can dig it. After all, would someone say the same thing about Nazi Germany, or any other oppressive regime. Of course not! And it is a weak argument to say: "well but we are more democratic than the others, and you won't be killed for complaining like the others." But that doesn't quite solve the problem, for me.
Now, on the other hand, and where I probably disagree with Ren (and likely most people that like to talk about this), is that this is one area where theory and practicality seriously diverge. As a practical matter, Ren, me, you, anyone else, we all have to live SOMEWHERE. And if we are not the supreme ruler of all that you can see in this place that we live, we ultimately need to be somewhere where the Power In Charge has control over your fate. Whether it's 10,000 years ago in Africa, 500 years ago in feudal Europe, 50 years ago in Asia, or here in America. You can't escape the fact that some State where you are living (or Tribe, I guess) has power over you.
And the fact is, theory be damned, what are you (we) going to do about it? This is the real world. If this was feudal England, I'd feel one way (and probably act one way), if I was a black man in Jim Crow, I'd feel and act another way, if I'm a white man in 2017 America, I act a completely different way (and I guess, if you are a black man today, yet another way).
I do agree with you Ren that it is ultimately unfair (maybe not "unfair," maybe "sucky") to have to live knowing that you can be jailed in America for doing nothing worse than pissing off the wrong small town cop at the wrong place at the wrong time. That REALLY sucks. But again, as a practical matter, I accept that this is a fact of life as a human inhabitant of the earth. And of all places to live, 2017 America is pretty effing sweet, at least for a straight white guy.
This doesn't make it any less sucky to be at the end of the State's gun (literal or figurative).
I think I have more, but have to get back to work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. The social contract is a fiction we use to make ourselves feel like our democracy is legitimate, the same way the notion of the divine right of kings was used to justify monarchy.
There is no contract as such. Many of us never agreed to it. "You agreed to it by living here and accepting the benefits of it" doesn't work under the law of contracts.
The correct reaction to this insight, IMO, is not to stubbornly but falsely insist that the social contract is a real thing. The correct reaction is instead to acknowledge that voluntary contracts aren't the only legitimate way of organizing certain aspects of society, that aggressive force may indeed have a place as well, and that the idea that there is some kind of original state of nature where all transactions were strictly voluntary and aggressive force was universally disapproved of is also a fiction.
We all should be able to come up with hypothetical situations in which using aggressive force against someone's person or property, without their consent, is morally correct. Those who can't owe it to themselves to try harder -- and if they still can't, they should probably become anarchists. The rest of us, having refuted the non-aggression principle to our own satisfaction, are, as Winston Churchill might say, just prostitutes haggling over price, so to speak. We acknowledge that using force against others, however unseemly that me be, is acceptable when the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs. Some of us are willing to forcibly tax others to fund a military of volunteers. Others are willing to go further and forcibly conscript soldiers to serve. Still others want government-run health care. And so on. But all of us non-anarchists should be willing to admit that our kings serve neither by divine right nor by the universal consent of the governed, however nice those things sound. We are, in fact, bossing others around, using violent force if necessary, to organize society in ways we believe will promote the greater good.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
That's fine, as long as you acknowledge it operates by the grace of violence over consent. It's right there in the declaration of independence:Bayhawks said:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This isn't to say that I think a 200-year old piece of paper can legitimately govern anything, or stop the expansive growth of state. Lysander Spooner is probably my favorite person of all time. He was way out in front on slavery, offered free legal services to fugitives, tried to break up the postal service monopoly with his own letter company, campaigned against government enabling of monopoly.
The reason I bring Spooner up is this: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." None of the things that purport to give government legitimacy to use force and violence are valid. I don't consent. It is not any more legitimate than if I came to your computer and forced you to quit posting because people without avatars are lames.
Hong Kong and Singapore rate pretty highly on economic freedom indices. HK is partly controlled and protected by the PRC so it's not the best example of an outright free state but it's a start.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Hopefully it can be an amicable parting of ways rather than a bloodbath. The experiment does seem to be coming to an end.
The Declaration of Independence is not a part of the US government. It was the colonies stating that they would no longer be ruled by the British; obstensibly because they were not allowed to participate in their own government.
So your suggestion that are government is based on violence over consent is based on a false premise (& is inaccurate, in any event).
With regards to your 2 examples; one (Hong Kong) is a city that is a sub-unit of a communist nation, where individual rights are lacking. They don't have to worry about national defense, international affairs to the extent nations like the US does. Singapore, likewise has far fewer protections of individual liberties, and if you have an issue with government based on violence over consent, that's an odd choice.
Again, the complaints you are making will be true of any government (at least of any large government). Sure, you could probably get a couple dozen people to agree to live peacefully together without rules; but it is impossible on a large scale.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
It didn't have to. If media and money hadnt made such a lovely marriage just when the populace wanted to trust themselves as much as their institutions for answers, we might have had enough basis to ride out this anarchy of personal license. But we have locked out our better angels and anyone in tune with human history will trust blood in times to come. Learning the lessons of applauding greed and placing self over community (and making a science of those equilibriums i mentioned earlier) will be the best we can do in the interim.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm not exactly sure which people dying in the streets in Seattle he's referring to but I have questions about the treatment of the homeless. If that's what he's talking about I agree. I'd also emphasize this shows the importance of local politics over national. This is where it starts. If you want to participate in democracy go to City Hall.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm not sending a wayback machine slam here, I'm just curious if you still feel this way about Molyneux?
Was this thread bumped at some point? I think the issue of anarchism (vs socialism, nationalism) is really interesting right now.
ren hoek
Footballguy
I don’t know what happened to Molyneux, I think he lost it several years ago. He used to be pretty reasonable, although even then he would talk about ‘defooing’ (distancing from family/friends that don’t accept his anarchist principles) which I always thought was crazy.SaintsInDome2006 said:
Apparently he was banished from youtube, which I think is ridiculous even if he was pretty far out there. Is that what pulled up the thread for you?
Reddit also banned thedonald and chapotraphouse subreddits, it’s like there’s a coordinated purge going on for spurious reasons. This is where the ‘fake news’ ‘russian disinformation’ moral panic was always taking us.
Similar threads
