The What does Smurf think? thread.

[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?!

 

[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.