Think world wars would be prevented if had anarchy?

[noblegas]

Noblegas, before using the Roman empire as an example of, to quote a movie, "the violence inherent in the system", you mighty want to look up "Pax Romana". In fact, you might want to contrast the Roman Empire during the 1st and 2nd century with the period of anarchy in the 3rd.

And while Chomsky is a respected linguist, that doesn't make him a political scientist.

Just because one person did not formally study that subject he is given his opinions in, does not make him not an expert; Nietzsche was never formally trained in philosophy and he is one of the most influential philosophers of all time; In addition, Einstein was a well respected physicist by the tie the basic principles of quantum mechanics were being formulated , but he could never truly accept quantum mechanics, as indicated by his famous "god does not play dice quote"

 

[arildno]

In addition, Einstein was a well respected physicist by the tie the basic principles of quantum mechanics were being formulated

Eeh?

Einstein was fully competent at the quantum mechanics of his day; ever heard of why Bose-Einstein condensates are called...Bose-EINSTEIN condensates?

What he did not agree with was the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and wanted to develop a field theory more in line with classical thinking that could derive the results and predictions in QM. he failed at that.


To regard Chomsky as the Einstein within political science is a rather astounding claim on your part..

 

[TVP45]

The problem with anarchy is not to be found by looking at idealistic or intellectual anarchists but rather at the ordinary person in an anarchical society. We have some instances where people come fairly close to that, though at first it might not seem so. Consider general population in any maximum security prison. There is no government, no accepted religion, no set of external ethics, save the ultimate threat of deadly violence. In such a setting, people are apt to do whatever serves their own survival, needs, or desires. If prisoner A has a box of candy bars, and prisoner B wants those, then it becomes a matter of which prisoner is physically stronger, or wilier, or deadlier. This, in fact, is unstable and leads prisoners to form self-governments (we call these gangs). These gangs look something like small states in that they create internal rules, rules for cooperating or negotiating with other "states", and punishment for those who transgress. The end result is that the only anarchy in prison is among those who are victimized by these gangs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In such a setting, people are apt to do whatever serves their own survival, needs, or desires. If prisoner A has a box of candy bars, and prisoner B wants those, then it becomes a matter of which prisoner is physically stronger, or wilier, or deadlier. This, in fact, is unstable and leads prisoners to form self-governments (we call these gangs). These gangs look something like small states in that they create internal rules, rules for cooperating or negotiating with other "states", and punishment for those who transgress. The end result is that the only anarchy in prison is among those who are victimized by these gangs.

I quoted your post to disagree with "unstable", but I see now that we understand the situation the same way.

 

[eyebeam]

Anarchy is all fun and games until someone steals your bike.

 

[noblegas]

Eeh?

Einstein was fully competent at the quantum mechanics of his day; ever heard of why Bose-Einstein condensates are called...Bose-EINSTEIN condensates?

What he did not agree with was the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and wanted to develop a field theory more in line with classical thinking that could derive the results and predictions in QM. he failed at that.To regard Chomsky as the Einstein within political science is a rather astounding claim on your part..

I never said he was incompetent in quantum mechanics; I am aware that einstein made significant contributions to quantum mechanics; I am saying on a personal level, einstein did not accept quantum mechanics because some of the ideas that sprang from quantum mechanics was so counterintuitive to him;

you are putting words in my mouth; I never said that Chomsky was the Einstein of political science; I was not even making the analogy between einstein and chomsky; I said that experts in a field of study don't always know the direction to take their field of study in; Sometimes outsiders have to steer the field in the right direction; Being an outsider is not an automatic disqualifier to making contributions to a particular field is the claim I was trying to convey;

 

[arildno]

So Chomsky was steering political science in the right direction by cheering on the mass murders under Pol Pot?

He hasn't learned a thing since then; now he is cheering on various Islam-inspired death cults to do their great work.

 

[noblegas]

So Chomsky was steering political science in the right direction by cheering on the mass murders under Pol Pot?

He hasn't learned a thing since then; now he is cheering on various Islam-inspired death cults to do their great work.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth; When did I ever say I chomsky was steering political science in the right direction?Never! I probably should have used nietschze in my original example;

 

[noblegas]

Anarchy is all fun and games until someone steals your bike.

Anarchy means you would live in a less secure society than we currently leave; That means you would just have you will have to look after your property yourself or you would have to hire someone too look after it for you

 

[arildno]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth; When did I ever say I chomsky was steering political science in the right direction?Never! I probably should have used nietschze in my original example;

Why did you even mention Chomsky?

 

[noblegas]

Why did you even mention Chomsky?

Because he just happened to be a person who is influential to many people and people take his opinions on political matters seriously and he takes the theory of anarchy into serious consideration;

 

[eyebeam]

So Chomsky was steering political science in the right direction by cheering on the mass murders under Pol Pot?

He hasn't learned a thing since then; now he is cheering on various Islam-inspired death cults to do their great work.

Please provide a quote with references for Chomsky "cheering on" Pol-Pot/"various Islam-inspired death cults", unless you're just lying.

 

[Phrak]

Please provide a quote with references for Chomsky "cheering on" Pol-Pot/"various Islam-inspired death cults", unless you're just lying.

Noam Chomsky the linguist?

 

[WhoWee]

I'll have a look, but just fyi, no serious political scientist believes such things. If there can be such a thing as "political crackpoterry", anarchism is it. Anarchism is basically just naive daydreaming.

A good place to test his ideas may be in the area around Mogadishu, Somalia with the warlords and pirates. I understand there are some enterprising folks there.

 

[russ_watters]

If the government continued to have a complete monopoly over the phone industry, advances would not have been made in phone technology ; We've all still would of had black phones and would have still been asking an operator to connect us to another line; Its when the government loosing its grip on the phone industry , real innovations in phones begin to occur; If the government continue to loosing its grip on the phone industry, more innovations will continue to occur;

That's just plain flat-out wrong, as are your other examples. It just didn't happen that way.

Just because the government is responsible for spawning the spaceflight industry , doesn't mean it it is the only sole entity that can make advances in space flight; If private individuals were allowed to create spacecraft for business purposes in a more lenient fashion than they can now and the government didn't have a monopoly in the spaceflight industry, I predict that many more significant advances would have been made in spaceflight at a faster rate the advances in spaceflight provided by the US government

That one's even worse. The reason space flight is and always has been a government function is cost vs return. The costs are enormous and the potential for profit tiny. The government does not today and never has restricted commercial spaceflight - it (commercial spaceflight) simply didn't happen because there was no way for it to happen. There are some potentials for commercial satellite launching coming, but as far as I know, none of them are ground-up designs. In other words, virtually all of our satellites are launched by ICBMs, developed with military funding. Why? Because it costs too much for a company to develop such technology on their own.

This isn't a forum where you can just say whatever you feel like believing is true. It isn't a wishful thinking or idle speculation forum. Yes, even social sciences must be based in facts and historical examples here. You are saying things that are factually wrong in an effort to support a point that is at best, poorly thought out wishful thinking.

I'm not going to dissect your other examples one by one - they are no better than these.

Why do you think anarchy is 'political crockery' as you call it? It is just an a political ideology no different from other political ideologies , like laissez faire capitalism,libertarianism communism...

The others aren't just ideologies, but political theories. These are ideas that have been developed through logical thought, put into practice, and tested. What makes crackpottery crackpottery - whether in science or politics or whatever is when an idea is tested and fails and people refuse to accept the failure or try to argue the failure into a success. And doing so requires just plain factually wrong arguments, such as the ones you have provided.

noam chomsky, isn't well respected?

Noam Chomsky is a political crackpot and is well respected only by other political crackpots. We have another thread going where someone pulled a youtube video to question something he said on it - he flat-out lied about income progress in the US. He does that.

noblegas, you need to start connecting your arguments to reality better. This thread is problematic at best and can only continue if it is based on facts and logic, not idle speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[russ_watters]

I think Russ's lapse was that instead of citing homicide rate (which is uniformly decreasing significantly through history and compared to primitive societies -- see Steven Pinker at http://ted.com" ) he used an indirect proxy (since part of the life expectancy really is due to sanitation, and the question of what caused that discovery isn't relevant to deciding governance systems for now that knowledge already exists).

You're right - sanitation largely masks the issue. And it doesn't help that some ancient societies did have better sanitation than others. Still, running water and sewers aren't possible without a highly organized society, whether in the modern world or in Rome or the Aztec empire.

Anyway, I've heard about the murder rate in history being higher, but googling is tough to find facts on this one - do you have any you can cite?

 

[mheslep]

...Noam Chomsky is a political crackpot and is well respected only by other political crackpots...

Edit: already said above by vanadium
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2312911&postcount=25

 

[noblegas]

That's just plain flat-out wrong, as are your other examples. It just didn't happen that way.

. The US government did not show favoritism towards the bell phone company from 1877-1984? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System, http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj...://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment

FCC allowed businesses to operate the communications lines(http://www.telephonymuseum.com/History%201940-today.htm);

are you just going to flat out deny that individuals not affiliated with any government research institution did not make any contributions that would make the telephone more convenient and cheaper to its consumers and it was only government research? Your going to deny that people like Dr. Cooper from the Motorola company are not pioneers in the mobile phone industry?(http://www.economist.com/sciencetec...3725793),http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/
and newer phone innovations like the iphone made by steve jobs http://www.macworld.com/article/54764/2007/01/liveupdate.html;

Here is a website containing a list of innovations in the mobile phone invented by individuals and individuals at private phone companies
http://www.cell-phone-accessories.com/timeline-cell-phones.html
The

Tell me how was the FCC responsible for those two innovations I listed;

The others aren't just ideologies, but political theories. These are ideas that have been developed through logical thought, put into practice, and tested. What makes crackpottery crackpottery - whether in science or politics or whatever is when an idea is tested and fails and people refuse to accept the failure or try to argue the failure into a success. And doing so requires just plain factually wrong arguments, such as the ones you have provided.

I was talking about world wars, not local conflicts between two or more individuals fighting. I acknowledge that conflict will not cease because its in our human nature to be violent but it is also natural to want to have full control over your life and not want anyone else to direct your life; Show me a country where you are not directly responsible for initiating a war , but are financing the war or directly participated in that war ; I advocated anarchy not for utopian reasons but for having complete sovereignty over your life and not being conscripted into a war you did not helped create; How would you addressed those problems in our current society I've pointed out? Would you be for a voluntary war and a voluntary tax that finances a war?

That one's even worse. The reason space flight is and always has been a government function is cost vs return. The costs are enormous and the potential for profit tiny. The government does not today and never has restricted commercial spaceflight - it (commercial spaceflight) simply didn't happen because there was no way for it to happen. There are some potentials for commercial satellite launching coming, but as far as I know, none of them are ground-up designs. In other words, virtually all of our satellites are launched by ICBMs, developed with military funding. Why? Because it costs too much for a company to develop such technology on their own.

This isn't a forum where you can just say whatever you feel like believing is true. It isn't a wishful thinking or idle speculation forum. Yes, even social sciences must be based in facts and historical examples here. You are saying things that are factually wrong in an effort to support a point that is at best, poorly thought out wishful thinking.

I'm not going to dissect your other examples one by one - they are no better than these.

Like spaceflight , Up until 1951, computers used to be used mainly for military and scientific purposes and also used to be very expensive because of the large vacuum tubeshttp://library.thinkquest.org/27629/chronicle/1951.html; The integrate circuit, an essential electronic device was invented simultaneous by http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/kilbyctr/jackbuilt.shtml at Texas instruments and Robert joyce at the William shockley laboratoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Noyce#cite_note-5,http://www.themanbehindthemicrochip.com/; Computers became very cheap when visionaries like Bill gates , paul allen and various other individuals representing various personal computers companies that emerged in the late 1970s saw its wide applicability and commercial value;(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers);
None of these great minds invented those devices essential to our modern society under the direction of some government bureaucrat;
Now why couldn't the spaceflight industry go through the same process that the computer industry went through to become a cheap commodity?

 

[Astronuc]

Now why couldn't the spaceflight industry go through the same process that the computer industry went through to become a cheap commodity?

Calculate the energy requirement to lift 1 kg of mass into orbit, say 200 miles above the Earth's surface, or even better, to escape velocity at 200 miles above the Earth's surface. Then multiply by one's mass, and the mass food, water, oxygen and spacecraft carrying one. Or just assume 100 MT.

Now multiply by the $/J.

Rough estimate is about $10,000/kg to put person and their life support in space. It's not trivial and it takes a lot of people and a lot of energy - which cost a lot.

 

[noblegas]

Calculate the energy requirement to lift 1 kg of mass into orbit, say 200 miles above the Earth's surface, or even better, to escape velocity at 200 miles above the Earth's surface. Then multiply by one's mass, and the mass food, water, oxygen and spacecraft carrying one. Or just assume 100 MT.

Now multiply by the $/J.

Rough estimate is about $10,000/kg to put person and their life support in space. It's not trivial and it takes a lot of people and a lot of energy - which cost a lot.

Have there been any space manufacturing processes implemented to attempt to make the the construction of the space-aircraft less expensive? Or has the construction process and price mode remain mostly unchanged since the dawn of the Space age?

 

[jackqpublic]

<i>Rough estimate is about $10,000/kg to put person and their life support in space. It's not trivial and it takes a lot of people and a lot of energy - which cost a lot.</i>

<p>Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
<p>Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop.

 

[jackqpublic]

Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop.

 

[mheslep]

Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop.

Different problems. Moving mass up and out of the Earth's gravity well requires a certain amount of energy which is fixed by the laws of physics, as does transportation in general. Increasing the integration while reducing the size of integrated circuit electronics is largely about managing complexity which is bread and butter for engineers.

An analogy in human terms might be reading/language skills versus running. From childhood to adulthood reading and language skills advance by orders or magnitude, indeed one can continue to learn other languages, and we know of savants that can memorize phone books. In other words, these skills are about information. On the other hand, a speedy 12 year old is only ~30% slower than the world's fastest human across 100M (~9.5s), and no savant or diet or even drug cocktail is going to improve on that by orders of magnitude because of the underlying physics.

 

[Galteeth]

Depends on your definition of anarchy. If you take it as the the total lack of use of coercive force, then by definition, yes.

In regards to the rest of this thread, political discussions tend to run into semantic problems. Strictly speaking, there is only one course human events can take. So any supposition of what "could" or "should" be is, in a sense, naive daydreaming. However, humans operate on the premise of free will, so these discussions still take place. I just find it amusing that some ideas, which are ultimately based on morality (what one thinks should happen) as oppossed to scientific investigation (what's going to happen, independent of it's "right or wrong" qualities) are considered any more fantastical then others.

 

[Astronuc]

Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop.

The cost of satellite launches has come down somewhat, and part of that is due to better technology. However, the cost of human space flight does not decrease similarly, because it is so capital (infrastructure) and energy intensive. The cost of energy is not decreasing, but increasing, because the demand is increasing and the principal resources are finite in supply.

The cost of building nuclear power plants has increased with the cost of basic materials like steel and concrete, but also the increased cost of specialized technology. Building large engineered systems, e.g., nuclear power plant, aircraft carrier or submarine, large commercial aircraft, high rise office building, . . . is way more complicated than constructing a disposable commodity like a microchip, hard-drive or lightbulb. Furthermore, if a computer chip, hard-drive or lightbulb fails, it is not a life-and-death situation. One simply replaces the failed component. If a spacecraft fails, it could mean the death of the occupants. Human beings are not considered disposable.

Space-craft, especially those which return to the Earth's surface, or land on other planet or moon with significant gravity, are some of the most highly engineered systems humankind has devised. They are designed, built and operated by thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians, and they are resource intensive.

For comparison, take the energy required to launch the Space Shuttle on an average mission to the space station (ISS), and then figure out how many miles one could travel in a car at 30 mpg, and figure the cost of the fuel. The add to that the cost of food, water for such a venture. And that does not include taking along the air one breathes (which is free on earth).

But this discussion is way off topic.

The OP asks whether or not 'anarchy' would have prevented world wars.

I heard a discussion about the anarchic state in Somalia. Certainly Somalia is not going to start a world war, but elements of that society are engaged in piracy and kidnapping, and in some cases, their problems are spilling over into neighboring states. If left unchecked, their instability could spread to other parts of the region. The powers to be have to intervene.

 

[noblegas]

The OP asks whether or not 'anarchy' would have prevented world wars.

I heard a discussion about the anarchic state in Somalia. Certainly Somalia is not going to start a world war, but elements of that society are engaged in piracy and kidnapping, and in some cases, their problems are spilling over into neighboring states. If left unchecked, their instability could spread to other parts of the region. The powers to be have to intervene.

yes, but you have to take into consideration the history of conflict in those regions as well as other variables like finite resources like access to water and rich minerals that might sparked such conflicts. And you should also examine the previous regime that was in place that led to the exploision of violence that would occur in somalia. I looked at briefs periods/instances of anarchy in regions of the world throughout history like the Reign of terror that took place during the french revolution and the briefs periods of anarchy between the october revolution and the formation of the USSR. These periods of anarchy preceded former regimes that were oppressive to there countrymen , whether apathetically or intentionally. Somalia is following the same pattern that Russia and france formerly followed when a regime was toppled;

 

[arildno]

But to let democracy "evolve" (others would say DEGENERATE) into anarchy is something you wish to happen?

 

[WhoWee]

yes, but you have to take into consideration the history of conflict in those regions as well as other variables like finite resources like access to water and rich minerals that might sparked such conflicts. And you should also examine the previous regime that was in place that led to the exploision of violence that would occur in somalia. I looked at briefs periods/instances of anarchy in regions of the world throughout history like the Reign of terror that took place during the french revolution and the briefs periods of anarchy between the october revolution and the formation of the USSR. These periods of anarchy preceded former regimes that were oppressive to there countrymen , whether apathetically or intentionally. Somalia is following the same pattern that Russia and france formerly followed when a regime was toppled;

Can you name one place on the planet that hasn't had conflict?

It make sense that oppression would follow anarchy - it restores order (for every action there is...total chaos leads to total control). Once the oppressive control is no longer needed - democracy becomes possible.

Anarchy is a reasonable beginning and cause of conflict, not the answer to avoiding conflict.

 

[Astronuc]

yes, but you have to take into consideration the history of conflict in those regions as well as other variables like finite resources like access to water and rich minerals that might sparked such conflicts. And you should also examine the previous regime that was in place that led to the exploision of violence that would occur in somalia. I looked at briefs periods/instances of anarchy in regions of the world throughout history like the Reign of terror that took place during the french revolution and the briefs periods of anarchy between the october revolution and the formation of the USSR. These periods of anarchy preceded former regimes that were oppressive to there countrymen , whether apathetically or intentionally. Somalia is following the same pattern that Russia and france formerly followed when a regime was toppled;

Please provide an example of an anarchic state that was successful - and everyone was happy, content, well fed, and there was no violence - at least not from within the society.

 

[noblegas]

But to let democracy "evolve" (others would say DEGENERATE) into anarchy is something you wish to happen?

If you are talking about the US , we don't live in a democracy, we supposedly have constitutional republic as are form government . But in actuality, the creed laid out by the founding fathers is not being practiced very well where the federal government only intervenes in cases where there is an individuals or group of individuals are violating the property rights and liberty's of others. In many instances, the federal government has arrested people for not violating those basic rights; For heavensakes , we are supposedly the freest nation on the planet, yet , our nation has the highest prison population and we have a prison population where almost half of the prisoners are doing time for victimless crimes( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm ) and prison population exponential grew coincidally when the war on drug was conceived and implemented into public policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg) even the violence has pretty much declined for the past 25 or so years;(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm); If you did not know the CIA has been responsible for participating acts of violence such as toppling regimes in various countries throughout the Middle East , Asia, and South/central america and reinstalling dictatorships who they believe will protect US interests; Where is it written in the US constitution that we toppled foreign regimes in foreign countries that don't attack ; and Don't get me started on Cointelpro(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) and Jim Crow(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow);

You see, this are the number of regimes why I am not satisfied with our government currently; Governments may start out with the best of intentions, but history has shown time and time again that government will be corroded over time and political corrosion will eventually create poliltical corruption and many cases , political oppressions;