Score one for the Anarchists

[Mycroft]

You choosing a specific system to stick with constitutes you having a pet system.

I see, you're back to calling laws "belief systems". You already lost that argument, so why rehash it?

Then, being the one with the positive claim over the set of possible systems, feel free to argue for it at some point.

What are the set of possible systems, and with whom would I argue it?

 

[Mycroft]

Very reasonable points and questions. 'Anarchy/anarchist' are pretty wide umbrella terms, which encompass anachro-capitalist to anachro-communist to anachro-'all y'all'.

That makes sense. At the same time, I've observed that calling yourself an "anarcho-capitalist" in some anarchist circles is likely to get you beat up. They're very fond of beating people up as a way of expressing their disagreement.

If we take it as fundamentally meaning 'against Rulers', maybe it is easier to pin down. I see anarchy as a means rather than an end, a means of political expression against a system that is beyond repairing from within or discussing change with.

Which suggests a lot of anarchists are not very familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of anarchism, but are attracted to it because they are against the establishment as they see it.

Kind of like suggesting to Stalin to relinquish some power for the common good? I think there is no intent to destroy a given system, but to deliver the opening volley and normalize extreme dissent, in the sense of letting people know that others have reached the breaking point, too.

Do you self-identify as an anarchist? Or as an anarchist sympathizer?

 

[TJM]

Which suggests a lot of anarchists are not very familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of anarchism, but are attracted to it because they are against the establishment as they see it.

Balaclavas are the new Guy Fawkes mask.

 

[Thermal]

That makes sense. At the same time, I've observed that calling yourself an "anarcho-capitalist" in some anarchist circles is likely to get you beat up. They're very fond of beating people up as a way of expressing their disagreement.



Which suggests a lot of anarchists are not very familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of anarchism, but are attracted to it because they are against the establishment as they see it.

Exactly. The same blanket term doesn't seem appropriate to describe the musings of Noam Chomsky and the actions of the 'anti-Milo' protesters at Berkeley. The anarchists I am familiar with (East coast, USA, late '80s to early '90s) were aligned against the three 'C's: corporatism, commercialism, and consumerism. While the idea of stateless/rulerless societies were kicked around, the 'enemy' was the masses who willingly prostrated before consumerism. It was a social revolt more than a political one, and certainly, as you say, attracted anti-authority types into the fold. It really would be much clearer to use different terms for the groups as they have little in common besides a distaste for direct rule (and don't we all).

Do you self-identify as an anarchist? Or as an anarchist sympathizer?

Sympathizer. Sympathized more when younger, then grew up and got practical.

 

[caveman1917]

I see, you're back to calling laws "belief systems". You already lost that argument, so why rehash it?

What are the set of possible systems

Any system you care to imagine.

and with whom would I argue it?

Not with but for. Argue for your preferred system, as in: make a case for it.

 

[Jules Galen]

Balaclavas are the new Guy Fawkes mask.

I'm still trying to figure out why some so-called anarchists identify with Guy Fawkes - who was obviously an advocate of the Religious State and State Control.

 

[TJM]

I'm still trying to figure out why some so-called anarchists identify with Guy Fawkes - who was obviously an advocate of the Religious State and State Control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)

V for Vendetta has been seen by many political groups as an allegory of oppression by government; libertarians and anarchists have used it to promote their beliefs. David Lloyd stated: "The Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny – and I'm happy with people using it, it seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way."[5]

Usually adapted by morons like 9/11 truthers and then later, occutards. I'd wager 99% of them couldn't tell you who they're wearing a mask of.

 

[Mycroft]

What, you don't remember? Laws exist independently of your belief in them?

Any system you care to imagine..

So I'm supposed to argue for something without a reasonable alternative? Okay, my argument is that there are no reasonable alternatives.

Done.

Not with but for. Argue for your preferred system, as in: make a case for it.

To whom?

 

[caveman1917]

What, you don't remember? Laws exist independently of your belief in them?

There's nothing to remember because I didn't lose any argument about that. Also, your position is utterly moronic, of course laws don't exist independently of our belief in them.

So I'm supposed to argue for something without a reasonable alternative? Okay, my argument is that there are no reasonable alternatives.

That's not an argument, that's an assertion, not that I'm holding my breath for you to develop the intellectual capacity for understanding the difference. Though good for you to finally admit that you do, indeed, have a pet system to promote - namely the status quo.

 

[Mycroft]

There's nothing to remember because I didn't lose any argument about that. Also, your position is utterly moronic, of course laws don't exist independently of our belief in them.

Are you kidding? Civilizations have risen and fallen and we still know what their laws were (mostly). That nobody obeys or enforces them anymore doesn't make them go away or alter how they've influenced history.

That's not an argument, that's an assertion,

Yeah, just because something can be labeled with one nown doesn't mean other nouns don't also apply.

Though good for you to finally admit that you do, indeed, have a pet system to promote - namely the status quo.

Not at all. I'm always trying to change the status quo. When I do, I have ideas on how to make it better.

The idea that we should change the status quo without knowing what we're going to change it to is laughable to me. Almost as laughable as your assertion that I should argue for the parts I agree with. What a waste of time that would be.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

Are you kidding? Civilizations have risen and fallen and we still know what their laws were (mostly). That nobody obeys or enforces them anymore doesn't make them go away or alter how they've influenced history.

They're still human constructs which, being fully part of our beliefs, don't exist outside of our beliefs.

Almost as laughable as your assertion that I should argue for the parts I agree with.

Of course you do. You don't just get to declare that parts of the system you promote do not require argumentation.

 

[Mycroft]

They're still human constructs which, being fully part of our beliefs, don't exist outside of our beliefs.

Certainly they do. That's why they have survived longer than the people who enforced them or obeyed them have.

Of course you do. You don't just get to declare that parts of the system you promote do not require argumentation.

Who requires this?

 

[caveman1917]

Certainly they do.

Of course they don't. Erase everyone's beliefs, where have your laws gone now?

Who requires this?

Not who, it's called "burden of proof".

 

[Mycroft]

Of course they don't. Erase everyone's beliefs, where have your laws gone now?

The analogy that's been presented to you before is with religion and God. If you cease believing in God, religion remains.

Not who, it's called "burden of proof".

Prove what to whom?

 

[caveman1917]

The analogy that's been presented to you before is with religion and God. If you cease believing in God, religion remains.

If you erase everyone's beliefs then religion, being a belief, does not remain.

Prove what to whom?

I was going to tell you to stop playing dumb, but you're probably not even playing. If you have a pet system to promote then it's up to you to argue its merits.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you erase everyone's beliefs

You can't. So that's not relevant.

 

[Polaris]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)



Usually adapted by morons like 9/11 truthers and then later, occutards. I'd wager 99% of them couldn't tell you who they're wearing a mask of.

I've heard some idiots even refer to it as a "V mask".

 

[Jules Galen]

I've heard some idiots even refer to it as a "V mask".

Thanks for the post! I'm starting to see the full-blown stupidity of the Guy-Fawkes Mask thing.

 

[Mycroft]

If you have a pet system to promote then it's up to you to argue its merits.

Note the key word?

I don't need to promote what already is, unless someone else wants to change it. When I want to make changes, I absolutely do argue the merits of the changes I want to make.

 

[caveman1917]

I don't need to promote what already is, unless someone else wants to change it.

Sure you do. And even if you didn't, plenty of people want to change it so you still do, by your own argument.

When I want to make changes, I absolutely do argue the merits of the changes I want to make.

No that's not how it works. If I promote a religion which is exactly the same as christianity but with "God" replaced with "Tod" then I still have a burden of proof for the entire religion and not just the "Tod" instead of "God" part.