News The What does Smurf think? thread.

[wasteofo2]

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.

And if I wanted a Car? How many cans of cola would I have to give up?

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

All that is stuff I really wanted Smurf to answer, to see how his theories really held up.

 

[NewScientist]

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.

"A politician is a person with whose politics you don't agree; if you agree with him he's a statesman"

And if I wanted a Car? How many cans of cola would I have to give up?

It would depend on how thirsty the driver was - and on a serious note with larger items - larger trades would be made.

All that is stuff I really wanted Smurf to answer, to see how his theories really held up.

Oh! Sorry- how did I do anyway?!

 

[Hurkyl]

I posit that [Smurf's] conviction is based upon the implicit assumption that, whatever [his] 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?!

Surely it's obvious? It means his argument is essentially of the form: "I'm assuming you're wrong, therefore the opposing view is right."

I'm not claiming that his assumption is (or is not) correct -- the point is that his reasoning is based upon this assumption, and thus not very useful in a discussion with others who are unconvinced of this assumption.

In fact, the whole point of this thread is essentially to get Smurf to at least sketch a justification of this assumption.

 

[russ_watters]

What's your definition of modern?

Oh jeez - ok, forget modern, that was an assumption on my part. How about just functioning? And now specify what the society would be if not modern. I suppose the guy (can't remember who, don't feel like checking) who suggested that you'd prefer a hunter-gatherer society is correct?

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

Isn't it obvious? You have something I want.

Surely it's obvious? It means his argument is essentially of the form: "I'm assuming you're wrong, therefore the opposing view is right."

I'm not claiming that his assumption is (or is not) correct -- the point is that his reasoning is based upon this assumption, and thus not very useful in a discussion with others who are unconvinced of this assumption.

In fact, the whole point of this thread is essentially to get Smurf to at least sketch a justification of this assumption.

It's worse than even that - it's a multi-layered assumption:

'I assume that Smurfarchism is better than democracy,' because...
'I assume that democracy is immoral,' and...
'I assume that Smurfarchism can work and work better,' but...
'I don't know what Smurfarchism even looks like, but I assume it can exist,' but...
'Though I don't even know what it looks like, I assume that in the absence of a state, Smurfarchism would come to be on its own.'

Oy vey!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Would now be a good moment to introduce my ideas on invisibilism, or are you all a bunch of anti-invisibilist puppets?

 

[alfredblase]

but you see to be a successful politician people have to agree with you, and so a successful politcian IS a successful statesman. Read properly before you counter-quote. People don't agree with smurf in this thread, but that is due more to his very radical, seemingly unsound position rather than his skills as a politician.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

but you see to be a successful politician people have to agree with you, and so a successful politcian IS a successful statesman. Read properly before you counter-quote. People don't agree with smurf in this thread, but that is due more to his very radical, seemingly unsound position rather than his skills as a politician.

Surely a skillful politician will obscure how radical and unsound their position really is if they know that position would work against them.

 

[NewScientist]

but you see to be a successful politician people have to agree with you, and so a successful politcian IS a successful statesman. Read properly before you counter-quote. People don't agree with smurf in this thread, but that is due more to his very radical, seemingly unsound position rather than his skills as a politician.

Hitler was a phenomonal politician, with ihs rise to power with back stairs intrigue and also his ability to manipulate the conceptions of the pre-existing power structues; yet I would not class him as a great statesman.

My counter-quote came from David Lloydd-George who used it over a v similar issue to great effect .

 

[alfredblase]

Surely a skillful politician will obscure how radical and unsound their position really is if they know that position would work against them.

no, you see, because we are clever folk and can see that his position is unsound; just as most of the time when we listen to or read the speeches of famous politicians, we see through their usually, to put it politely, unsound/misleading arguments. The thing is skilfull politicians know that clever folk who can see through their poor arguments are in the minority. So they confuse arguments, make misleading comments, answer questions with questions, distort phrases and words in the most clever and subtle ways, quote superficially surprising yet in truth meaningless statistics, and come up with witty cutting soundbites in order to seemingly, (to the dullwitted majority) yet falsely gain the upper hand in arguments in a charming fashion. They can't do this with the keen observer as a keen observer perceives much of the truth and so is difficult to mislead, but since the keen observer is a minority it doesn't really matter.

 

[alfredblase]

Hitler was a phenomonal politician, with ihs rise to power with back stairs intrigue and also his ability to manipulate the conceptions of the pre-existing power structues; yet I would not class him as a great statesman.

Yet previously you quoted from Lloyd-George:

"A politician is a person with whose politics you don't agree; if you agree with him he's a statesman"

Can you not see that the Lloyd George quote contradicts your last post?

My counter-quote came from David Lloydd-George who used it over a v similar issue to great effect.

I respectfully, yet strongly suggest, that this time, it wasn't up to the task.

 

[NewScientist]

Hmmm, I would argue my quote is perfect as I don't agree with Hitler's politics thus he is a politician!

Whereas I respect somebody like Churchill as I agree with his politics (on the whole - note I'm not an anti-semite).

-NS

 

[alfredblase]

ok yes from your personal point of view he was not a statesman. Is a statesman a statesman because NewScientist from physics forums agrees with him, or he is he a statesman beause many agree with him? ...

Anyway I think we are engagin in a bit of hair splitting =), and that neither of us are wrong in our views. But your Lloyd-George quote did sound like it was made to undermine my witty comment about Smurf making a good polititian , and as I enjoy fencing like this I decided to take up the challenge =)

Also I would like to compliment your very good arguments about how a new, probably unelected and violent state would emerge to fill the power vacuum. I believe you are correct.