News The What does Smurf think? thread.

[wasteofo2]

The "What does Smurf think?" thread.

This thread is all about what Smurf, my favorite anti-statist on this board, thinks. Specifically, about what would happen were "the state" abolished.

First off, is your version of anti-statism pretty self explanatory? Is anti-statism the same thing as total anarchy?

Secondly, were the state abolished, what do you think would happen? It's one thing to dislike what a particular state does, or what states do as a whole, but I'd like to see you make the case that the total absence of all states would lead to a better situation than you currently have.

Take your time, please, develop a well-thought-out manifesto if you will. Touch all your bases, try to make it as complete as possible. I realize you're big on how bad states are, and it's certainly easy to point out all the negative things about states. But try to postulate what would happen in a world without any states instead of point out the negative aspects of states and simply say that the absence of states would lead to the absence of said negative aspects.

Some basic problems I'd like to see you provide an answer for are:

1) Without a state, there presumably wouldn't be money. How would people get the goods and services they need/want without money?

2) Without a state, how would individuals be sure that they could keep the goods they do obtain? That is, how can you be sure someone with a weapon won't just take your food or clothing?

3) Without a state, there wouldn't be police or a military. How would people's general security be assured? What would be stopping someone from killing/enslaving others if he had enough weaponry/mercenaries?

4) In the absence of a state, what would stop some form of state from arising? What if another state arose in the absence of the previously abolished state?

I appreciate any time you might put into this,
Jacob

P.S. Just to reiterate, please, try to stay away from stating all the wrongs and evils of a state. Just because a state infringes upon people's liberties and kills people, it doesn't mean that in the absence of a state that things would necessarily get better.

 

[Smurf]

Woohoo! I've always wanted an "All about me" thread.

 

[wasteofo2]

Woohoo! I've always wanted an "All about me" thread.

So to apease your fans, will you take the time to write your Smurfist Manifesto?

 

[pattylou]

Woohoo! I've always wanted an "All about me" thread.

You really, are just so cute.

 

[moose]

I was thinking about what if someone started a thread about smurf today! O.O

Anyway, Smurf... why do you hate voting, believe in anarchy, and hate everything that I don't hate O.O

 

[Smurf]

The Smurfist Manifesto

Okay I've written a good part already and copied it into a text document. I'll write more later, I'm going to a show.

 

[Smurf]

Anyway, Smurf... why do you hate voting, believe in anarchy, and hate everything that I don't hate O.O

I know the truth and try to live ethically.

 

[Pengwuino]

*clap clap clap*

if smurf weren't here... itd be such a boring world... *tear*...

 

[Archon]

I know the truth and try to live ethically.

Stop thinking about sex!

 

[Smasherman]

Who's Smurf?

 

[wasteofo2]

Who's Smurf?

Woohoo! I've always wanted an "All about me" thread.

Smurf, perhaps when you've completed your treatise/manifesto/whatever, you should start a new thread, so people know to talk about your topic specifically, instead of just talking about you.

Unless, of course, all you really wanted to get through anti-statism was some attention.

 

[Anttech]

Unless, of course, all you really wanted to get through anti-statism was some attention.

Ouch.. freud
I would watch out or papa smurf will be a knocking on yer door

 

[Lisa!]

A thread about smurf?:bugeyes: Why doesn't it have a poll?

 

[Math Is Hard]

A thread about smurf?:bugeyes: Why doesn't it have a poll?

umm.. because it would only contain one person's responses? The thread is about what Smurf thinks, not what everybody thinks about what Smurf thinks.. I think..

 

[Smurf]

Stop thinking about sex!

sex isn't unethical.

 

[ron damon]

sex isn't unethical.

yeah, try telling that that to the girls I've dated... oh wait

 

[wasteofo2]

So Smurf, what's going on, are you still polishing it up or have you abandoned your ideals?

 

[Smurf]

yes, I'm still writing it, I'll post a little bit of it this evening. It'll give you lot something to complain about while i write the rest.

 

[Smurf]

The Smurfish Manifesto, Chapter 1

1.
On the Rejection of Anarchy:
Anarchy, in the political sense, is the rejection of the state. No more, no less. It is an umbrella term. A friend of mine said to me the other day that he didn't think Anarchy could work. My response was to point out that (since we're both philosophers that tend to work in formal logic) such a statement didn't really make sense. Anarchy per se is not a solution. It is merely the rejection of the state. Thus, the only way to say that Anarchy "won't work" is to (as opposed to attacking the feasibility of Anarchy) defend the state, and prove that it is absolutely necessary. Since there are numerous historical examples where there was no recognizable "state" institution (there are various definitions of the state) I contend that this can not be proven.
This does not, however, mean that arguments can not be made against specific political theories that incorporate Anarchism or specific branches or Anarchism such as Punk-Anarchy or Anarcho-Syndicalism. These are actually providing a culture or proposed way to organize society that does not involve a state, and so, can be attacked.

2.
Definitions of Anarchy:
As stated above, Anarchy is the rejection of the state. I am not aware how that term came about, except that Proudhon was the first person to call himself an "Anarchist" and that his philosophy revolved around the rejection of the state. Other "Anarchists" after him developed many different theories but kept the name "Anarchy" and it does not any longer refer specifically to Proudhonians but is a general umbrella term for any ideology that rejects the state.
This is different from the dictionary definition of Anarchy which, if you look it up, will probably say something like "Disorder, Chaos, Lack of Organization, Lack of any cohesive principle, etc". This is irrelevant to the political Anarchist's ideology.

3.
A Moral Argument:
I do not claim to have a "version" of Anarchy, per se. I have ideas, but do not align myself strongly with any version of Anarchy. I probably identify most with some form of Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism and Primitivism.
My reason for rejecting the state is on a purely moral basis. I am a Libertarian and thus, a Humanitarian. I believe all humans should be free, and believe that the idea of freedom automatically implies at least a limited form of human well-being and welfare (welfare being health, happiness, ect., not government programs). The state, and all other "destructive hierarchies", are in direct conflict any degree of realisation for these goals.

 

[Smurf]

I know that only really addressed one of the things you asked, I am very busy, this is just to wet your appetite and to touch on some other things I wanted to say.

 

[wasteofo2]

Again, I'd suggest when you're completely done you just start a new thread.

I'd like to really see you elaborate why you prefer Anarchy to any state, and what you think would happen were Anarchy established. If you don't think Anarchy needs to "work", or satisfy any goals, than do you believe that life for the majority of people could become far worse under Anarchy? What end would abolishment of the state satisfy, if any?

 

[russ_watters]

I'd like to really see you elaborate why you prefer Anarchy to any state, and what you think would happen were Anarchy established. If you don't think Anarchy needs to "work", or satisfy any goals, than do you believe that life for the majority of people could become far worse under Anarchy?

Smurf has said pretty explicitly before that anarchy could/does "work" - and that's the part I'm most interested in: how, specifically, "anarchy" can provide a functional, stable, prosperous society. That and how it would happen.

 

[Smurf]

What I'm really interested in is to hear an argument that the state is actually necessary. Or at the very least an argument that the burden of proof is on my to prove that it isn't. I mean, seeing the number of people that just assume that the state is completely necessary, I'd love to see this logic gap that I'm apparently missing which everyone else takes for granted.

I see no reason why I have to justify my moral arguments, which are completely valid, by providing a "solution" or some form of improvement. I reject the state on moral arguments which I have posted many times on this board. They are valid and logical, they are not disproven because I don't suggest an alternative. I have rarely even seen attempts to refute them, it seems the only argument against anarchy is this assumption that it doesn't work.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Although this is Smurf's thread, I would like to add something as a libertarian socialist and anti-statist. I support democratic socialism as a means to achieve such an end. Anti-statism, in my opinion, is the opposition to a mandatory state. Anti-statism supports collectives, groups of people who voluntarily join together by common interest. For a simplified explanation, you are not born into state. You have the option of joining an organization, a collective or a syndicate.

From wikipedia, "The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms."

Anti-statism is a commitment to the abolishment of a mandatory and corrupt institution. Some people are against the state because of its flaws; however, they may also support a democratically reached change over time (evolutionary not revolutionist). In short, what will replace the state will develop as the state slowly degenerates.

I don't believe Smurf has the burden of proof. His philosophy, as far as I can interpret, believes that state is a corrupt institution that must be abolished. I believe an alternative solution to the state can be reached through collectives or syndicates, though I am not certain on this. I do know, however, that the state is unsuccessful at working towards the ideals I hold true; therefore, it must be abolished.

The argument against anarchism is found in proving that the state works or is necessary, as Smurf has stated. It does not work to my satisfaction - it may work for some. Why am I forced into a mandatory state? Anti-statism is essential the to achievement of a truly liberal society.

 

[wasteofo2]

What I'm really interested in is to hear an argument that the state is actually necessary. Or at the very least an argument that the burden of proof is on my to prove that it isn't. I mean, seeing the number of people that just assume that the state is completely necessary, I'd love to see this logic gap that I'm apparently missing which everyone else takes for granted.

I see no reason why I have to justify my moral arguments, which are completely valid, by providing a "solution" or some form of improvement. I reject the state on moral arguments which I have posted many times on this board. They are valid and logical, they are not disproven because I don't suggest an alternative. I have rarely even seen attempts to refute them, it seems the only argument against anarchy is this assumption that it doesn't work.

I thought you had kinda agreed to lay out a detailed thing of what you believe/why you believe it would be good. Sure you've said bits and pieces of it all over, but it's hard to get an actual idea of what you believe from random bits and pieces of threads.

There are reasons that the burden of proof is on you, but you don't necessarily need to proove yourself, I was just asking for an elaboration of what you believed and why you believed it, because I haven't really seen any concrete reasons for it besides that the state was bad. All I've seen from you is an attack on the state, and suggestions that the abolishment of the state would lead to the absence of these problems, but no real justification for those claims.

You just stated that your ideas are logical and valid, but I have very little idea what they are, and for what reason I should accept them as logical and valid.

I believe the reason most people accept the state as a given was best summed up by James Madison when he said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." The reason I asked you to explain how you think a society without any state would function is because men simply aren't angels. Who would stop me from getting what I need by killing you and taking it, unless you were to kill me first? How would any liberties at all be garunteed to any people? How would people get what they need to survive to begin with in a state of Anarchy?

Currently, almost the entire world is ruled by states. We see every day what happens in states, and how states behave. We don't see anarchy on a massive scale, and don't know exactly how an anarchistic society would behave. The evidence for and against states is self-apparent, Anarchy isn't.

You have isolated instances of things that are close to Anarchy, such as Iraq right after Saddam was overthrown, or in extremely small groups of people (but even then tribal government usually exists), but there's no grand scale Anarchy to analyze, and therefore, no one has any reason to accept it over the state.

 

[Smurf]

I thought you had kinda agreed to lay out a detailed thing of what you believe/why you believe it would be good. Sure you've said bits and pieces of it all over, but it's hard to get an actual idea of what you believe from random bits and pieces of threads.

I know, I'm going to, but I'm a perfectionist and there are things I havn't really finished thinking about and I don't want to actually post anything that I don't consider finished. I will though.

Who would stop me from getting what I need by killing you and taking it, unless you were to kill me first? How would any liberties at all be garunteed to any people? How would people get what they need to survive to begin with in a state of Anarchy?

That begs the question. You're assuming people need to be controlled to prove that the state (controlling entity) is necessary.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I have a question for Smurf as well. In the upcoming election, will you be voting? If so, who will you vote for? I cannot vote, unfortunately, but I would vote Liberal to keep the conservatives out. If it was possible to vote NDP realistically, I would definitely vote for them. My only complain is the lack of a Libertarian Socialist Party. We lack a strong leftist and anti-statist party.

 

[alfredblase]

I see no reason why I have to justify my moral arguments, which are completely valid, by providing a "solution" or some form of improvement.

Because no state will change if the people within the state are not at least given the promise that if they do change the system, things will get better. Without offering a promising alternative, your critiscisms of the current system although perhaps valid, are just complaints. It is easy to complain, but there is no merit in it.

 

[Smurf]

We lack a strong leftist and anti-statist party.

Anti-statist party is an oxymoron. It is, don't deny it. The only way it makes sense it to change the meaning of anti-statist to something that only vaguely resembles it's actual meaning.

No, I won't be voting. I don't see a difference between the Conservatives who would privatize healthcare, and the Liberals which are trying to do it too.

 

[Smurf]

Because no state will change if the people within the state are not at least given the promise that if they do change the system, things will get better. Without offering a promising alternative, your critiscisms of the current system although perhaps valid, are just complaints. It is easy to complain, but there is no merit in it.

Okay, but the reaction is not "hey, you're right that's bad, let's try and find a way to make it better" it's more like "that point has no merit unless you can also provide a perfect solution as an alternative".

But I don't want to get into this too much, it's irrelevant.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Anti-statist party is an oxymoron. It is, don't deny it. The only way it makes sense it to change the meaning of anti-statist to something that only vaguely resembles it's actual meaning.
No, I won't be voting. I don't see a difference between the Conservatives who would privatize healthcare, and the Liberals which are trying to do it too.

I take it you support revolutionary means rather than evolutionary means to abolish the state? You can disagree with the state; however, you can still use democratic means to abolish the state. You can use the state to destroy the state.

 

[Smurf]

No, by using the state you legitimize it, thus encouraging/enforcing it.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I agree; however, I see no legitimate alternative. The most success at destroying the state will come from anti-state collectives along with state organizations that lessen the strength of the state. The days of revolution are long over.

 

[Smurf]

Days of revolution are long over? What on Earth does that mean? What are your "days of revolution"? Revolution has been going on for hundreds of years, even IF you managed to put forth a good argument that they're over, they're certainly not 'long' over by any shot. The last revolution was less than half a century ago, or just a decade ago, depending on where you count from. One is still going on in Mexico right now.

 

[alfredblase]

Yes, exactly, that is the reaction, indeed (refering to your reply to my previous post). Also another thought actually, it is unreasonable to ask you to provide a viable anarchic alternative to statism, as to provide an alternative system you would have to make rules, and so your alternative would no longer be anarchic. The only way a truly anarchic nation could come to pass, is if you were to convince every person in the nation to peacefully disregard law enforcment, (via some widespread message with a very good argument as to how things would improve).

 

[Smurf]

Yes, exactly, that is the reaction, indeed (refering to your reply to my previous post). Also another thought actually, it is unreasonable to ask you to provide a viable anarchic alternative to statism, as to provide an alternative system you would have to make rules, and so your alternative would no longer be anarchic.

Look up the definition of Anarchism before you talk about it. It's not chaos or disorder, and it's not opposed to rules or organization. Tool.

The only way a truly anarchic nation could come to pass, is if you were to convince every person in the nation to peacefully disregard law enforcment, (via some widespread message with a very good argument as to how things would improve).

My favorite way to advocate is organized tax-strikes. Everyone should just stop paying taxes, problem solved.

 

[alfredblase]

Hey there was no need to bring out the insults fool. You are contradicting yourself then: how can u have rules that are not enforced? if you enforce rules then you have a state. Therefore you cannot have antistatism with rules... Ok so everyone stops paying taxes... that sounds really good... NOT

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Days of revolution are long over? What on Earth does that mean? What are your "days of revolution"? Revolution has been going on for hundreds of years, even IF you managed to put forth a good argument that they're over, they're certainly not 'long' over by any shot. The last revolution was less than half a century ago, or just a decade ago, depending on where you count from. One is still going on in Mexico right now.

I am referring to Trotskyism and the reality that revolution is no longer a successful option to defeat capitalist in first world countries.

 

[Smurf]

I am referring to Trotskyism and the reality that revolution is no longer a successful option to defeat capitalist in first world countries.

care to explain it for the unititated? (me)

 

[russ_watters]

What I'm really interested in is to hear an argument that the state is actually necessary. Or at the very least an argument that the burden of proof is on my to prove that it isn't. I mean, seeing the number of people that just assume that the state is completely necessary, I'd love to see this logic gap that I'm apparently missing which everyone else takes for granted.

The logic gap is a simple one: there is a state now and it works. There has never been an example of a functioning modern society without one. So the onus is most definitely on you to show that your idea works and is better than the one in use now. That's how the scientific method works. But even more basic than that - you can't get people to accept your idea if they don't even know what it is or why it is good!

And besides - philosophers make arguments. Just saying 'prove me wrong' is a worthless cop-out.

Also, remember, we're not asking for proof here, we're just trying to understand what your idea is.

I see no reason why I have to justify my moral arguments, which are completely valid, by providing a "solution" or some form of improvement.

All I really want to know is what you think this idea of yours would look like. I'm not real interested in a logical proof at the moment - so far, after months and months and thread after thread, I still have no idea what you think your anarchic society would even look like!

I reject the state on moral arguments which I have posted many times on this board.

Yes, we know - that's fine, but that's not what is being asked here. What we're asking for is an explanation of the alternative.

They are valid and logical, they are not disproven because I don't suggest an alternative.

Not disproven, but useless if there is no alternative. Is that what you are saying: you don't really have an alternative?

I have rarely even seen attempts to refute them,

Much of your arguments are matters of opinion or assumptions, so there really isn't much to argue.

...it seems the only argument against anarchy is this assumption that it doesn't work.

It isn't an assumption, it's a logical consequence of human nature and conclusion of historical data. The assumption is yours, that an anarchic society is possible - until you make a logical argument to support it, the idea that it can work is an assumption.

 

[russ_watters]

You're assuming people need to be controlled to prove that the state (controlling entity) is necessary.

No, Smurf - wasteofo2 provided a logical argument and examples. I'm a little incredulous here: do you not understand what a logical argument is?

Okay, but the reaction is not "hey, you're right that's bad, let's try and find a way to make it better" it's more like "that point has no merit unless you can also provide a perfect solution as an alternative".

The way science works, Smurf, is that one theory isn't abandoned until a better one is found. So you do, indeed, need to show that not only can your idea work, but that it will work better than what we have now.

Again, though, let's set that aside - I really do want to know what your idea is. We can worry about proving/disproving it later.

 

[wasteofo2]

That begs the question. You're assuming people need to be controlled to prove that the state (controlling entity) is necessary.

It also begs the actual question I asked.

In an Anarchistic society, why shouldn't I get the best weapon I can and kill you to get what I want?

Of course people need to be controlled a bit by the state in order for society to function decently. Have you met any of these "people" lately? They're fuking nuts! I mean, they lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, torture, and do all sorts of things. "People" are not exactly the brightest or most moral group of folk out there.

 

[Smurf]

In an Anarchistic society, why shouldn't I get the best weapon I can and kill you to get what I want?

Well, because I will defend myself and because there are far easier and less emotionally and mentally traumatic ways to get what you want.

Here's a question, why would I, or any individual, be an obstacle to you getting what you want in the first place?

 

[Smurf]

There has never been an example of a functioning modern society without one.

What's your definition of modern?

 

[wasteofo2]

Well, because I will defend myself

So then everyone will just have to walk around armed to the teeth to make sure they don't get robbed, eh?

and because there are far easier and less emotionally and mentally traumatic ways to get what you want.

If you have something I want, and you're unarmed, what easier way is there for me to get it than simply shoot you in the head and take it?

Even if you're armed, maybe I've got a sniper rifle and I'm willing to hide out for a little bit until you just randomly walk into my sights. Even if you've got tons of guns, you're not going to have a force-field, and assuming you ever go out into open air, you can be killed by someone who's hiding. Even if you've got body armor to protect you from bullets, I could have an RPG or some other explosive.

Here's a question, why would I, or any individual, be an obstacle to you getting what you want in the first place?

Whatever I want would generally cost money. I'd need to work to get that money. Assuming I get enough money, I'd have to find what I want and pay for it. It seems much easier to buy a gun and a bunch of bullets and just kill people to take what I want.

Let's say what I want is a car, or a boat, or a house. It would be infinately easier for me to simply kill you and take your car/boat/house than it would for me to somehow earn the money to buy my own. So long as a single bullet costs less than what I want, I have every reason to use that one bullet to kill whoever it is that has what I want and just take it.

Plus, in an Anarchistic society, if I were to try to legitimately buy something, what garuntee would I have that the vender wouldn't just ask me for the money, kill me, and take it without giving me what I want?

 

[alfredblase]

Smurf, your method of discussion is pointless. If someone comes up with a question you can't answer you simply ask another question to get the upper hand. If someone comes up with an argument you can't counter you ignore it and hope it is forgotten. For someone who wishes for no state, it's amusing to note what a successful statesman (politician) you'd make.

 

[Art]

It seems anarchists always define themselves by criticising the status quo, citing what they are not and what they are against but rarely if ever by explaining their workable alternatives, at least not in sufficient detail to allow for a sensible discussion re it's pros and cons.

 

[NewScientist]

1) Without a state, there presumably wouldn't be money. How would people get the goods and services they need/want without money?

Well a couple of thoughts spring to mind. Bartering existed for a long time (and still does exist in communities and schools - I'll give you a drink of my cola for a piece of bubblegum), and despite having the obvious flaw of personal value depreciation due to the varying necassasity of aquisition by the 3rd party, it was a strong system as one was not confused with sometimes abstract concepts of a currency. Essentially, one would not have the issue where a bottle of soda costs £1:00 ($1.50) in the U.K. and 25p (37.5 cents) in Costa Rica, value would be based on need and quality not an inflated pricing market.

2) Without a state, how would individuals be sure that they could keep the goods they do obtain? That is, how can you be sure someone with a weapon won't just take your food or clothing?

Quite simply, you cannot, and to this end Cicero declared that "the safety of the people shall bethe highest law". Without state protection, protection raquets would emerge as societies safety net, and if you refused to pay the fee (in bartering terms of course ) you would have violence inflicted upon you; and indeed one could argue that this formation of raquets would symbolise the emergence of state to fill the power vacuum that was cused with the sudden removal of an established infrastructure. It is also possible, however, for 'soviets' to emerge, I am not talking of Communist cells but rather groups of people working together and forming small 'states' to organise themselves. In these two groups we would see the common forming/norming/storming/and performing stages; and also using the theoretical models of states, I believe the latter would outlast the former if it could secure enough physical and 'military' dominance as the soviets could rely an inter group faith to band them together, whereas the raqueteers would have only fear, and simple undergrad state study dictates that the state run soley on fear is on its last legs. The third option would be people 'going it alone' and fighting for their own survival, and this group would be the first to fall, as all of the others can use the others strengths and weaknesses to form a power base, either by growing in number or by aquisition of vital resourcers (weapons/food/water).

3) Without a state, there wouldn't be police or a military. How would people's general security be assured? What would be stopping someone from killing/enslaving others if he had enough weaponry/mercenaries?

Same point as above really, but I suppose it would depend entirely on the demographic/economic/military/and idelogoical make up of the sub states and their aggressors. If their aims are similar or at least reconcilable, or if the former is vastly out gunned, then they may form a larger group and become more dominant. If they are similarly matched with inconsolable ideologies there would be a power struggle where one would emerge and take over the spheres of influence the defeated power had had.

4) In the absence of a state, what would stop some form of state from arising? What if another state arose in the absence of the previously abolished state?

With the collapse of a state, another emerges (silly question really! would you go it alone without a police force?!)

-NS

 

[Hurkyl]

On why there's a burden of proof on Smurf:

If you were merely doubting the state, and were merely unconvinced by others who were affirming the state, then there would be no burden of proof upon you.

However, you are making a far stronger claim: you are actually rejecting the state. Therefore, a burden of proof lies upon you to support your position.


To put it another way, rejecting the state is synonymous with accepting the alternative -- this begs the question upon what grounds do you accept the lack of state?

I reject the state on moral arguments which I have posted many times on this board.

Simply arguing that the state is immoral is insufficient to actually reject the state.

I posit that your conviction is based upon the implicit assumption that, whatever your actual criteria for choosing an alternative may be, that there exists an alternative that is superior to an immoral state.

 

[NewScientist]

I posit that your conviction is based upon the implicit assumption that, whatever your actual criteria for choosing an alternative may be, that there exists an alternative that is superior to an immoral state.

And what is wrong with that?!