Score one for the Anarchists

[Mycroft]

Sure you do.

Why?

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

Change what, exactly?

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.

Well, I think the Christian would tell you that you have it right except for the name, and they would probably let you pass on the name because God goes by many names, so you might as well add "Todd" to the list.

But why not use a real world example. If you really believe this, how come it's so hard to get you to argue for your anarchist beliefs?


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

Why?

Because belief systems don't propagate themselves. Besides, it's what you do, irrespective of whether you should.

Change what, exactly?

It's irrelevant, and your burden of proof isn't even contingent on anyone proposing something different from your pet system in the first place. But if you are somehow under the impression that it is relevant, try this as an answer: everything.

Well, I think the Christian would tell you

Who cares what the Christian world would tell you?

But why not use a real world example. If you really believe this, how come it's so hard to get you to argue for your anarchist beliefs?

Thanks for proving my point in my response to HLafordlaes, it can be established that you are the one with a pet system to promote as well as approaching it as a dogma, given your refusal to argue for it and delusional impression that it is up to other people to argue for any change they'd want to make to it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well this thread has derailed but let's be honest the 'system' is flawed as hell. Trying to argue for it is one thing but assuming it's right because it exists is another. I'm all for a little bit of rage against the machine at this point.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm all for a little bit of rage against the machine at this point.

 

[Mycroft]

Because belief systems don't propagate themselves.

They kind of do, actually. They also change and evolve over time.

Besides, it's what you do, irrespective of whether you should.

In what way do I do this?

It's irrelevant, and your burden of proof isn't even contingent on anyone proposing something different from your pet system in the first place. But if you are somehow under the impression that it is relevant, try this as an answer: everything.

You assert that people want to change it but can't identify what changes or even what "it" is, and somehow I'm supposed to debate something unknown before an unknow entity..?

Who cares what the Christian world would tell you?

Most likely someone who wanted to create a religion identical to Christianity in every way except what you call the deity. Your analogy, remember?

Thanks for proving my point in my response to HLafordlaes, it can be established that you are the one with a pet system to promote as well as approaching it as a dogma, given your refusal to argue for it and delusional impression that it is up to other people to argue for any change they'd want to make to it.

Your conclusions don't follow from your assertions, and your assertions are unfounded. Also, you failed to answer the question.

 

[caveman1917]

They kind of do, actually.

No they don't. Children aren't born with yours or anyone else's belief system. People need to promote belief systems for them to propagate.

In what way do I do this?

Create, as they occur, a thread for every injury or death caused by Trojka/IMF/related policies. In each such thread denounce the event and proclaim something like "doesn't it make you ache to live in a world of their creation?".

Create, as they occur, a thread every time when that "police" gang employs violence against some FAI/CCF/related person, and deplore that this gang did not rather, say, stood outside this person's home with signs saying "your policies are hurting people" or something.

Then ask that question again.

You assert that people want to change it but can't identify what changes

I just identified it: "everything".

or even what "it" is

The system you promote, ie the status quo minus a couple of changes you might like to make to it.

Most likely someone who wanted to create a religion identical to Christianity in every way except what you call the deity. Your analogy, remember?

I remember my analogy. So you now accept all tenets of christianity except for his name being God or Tod? After all, that's the only change I want to make to a belief system for which I can point to some people who already believe it, so it's all I should argue, no?

Your conclusions don't follow from your assertions, and your assertions are unfounded. Also, you failed to answer the question.

 

[Mycroft]

No they don't. Children aren't born with yours or anyone else's belief system. People need to promote belief systems for them to propagate.

Right, and what prompts a person to pass along a belief system? They hold that belief system. You might consider being less rigid in your use of language?

Create, as they occur, a thread for every injury or death caused by Trojka/IMF/related policies… <snip>

Create, as they occur, a thread every time when that "police" gang employs violence against some FAI/CCF/related person…<snip>.

I’m not going to do that, but if I did I’m pretty sure my takeaway would be that people who collectively deny the existence of laws might have a very hard time in exactly the ways you just described. I fail to see how documenting this would prove my promotion of anything. I will remind you that pointing out the stupidity of Anarchists isn’t the same thing as promoting whatever they’re against. In the real world, things are more nuanced than that.

Then ask that question again.

Would you answer it? For whatever reason you seem very reluctant to provide direct answers. Ever.

I just identified it: "everything".

Since that doesn’t make your ideas clear, and since “everything” included the entire universe the vast majority of which has nothing to do with our discussion, maybe some examples would be in order?

The system you promote, ie the status quo minus a couple of changes you might like to make to it.

:yawn: What system do I promote?

I remember my analogy.

Good, it seemed you had forgotten it. I hope everything is okay.

So you now accept all tenets of christianity except for his name being God or Tod?

Curious. Could you identify the specific statement I made that leads you to believe that?

After all, that's the only change I want to make to a belief system for which I can point to some people who already believe it, so it's all I should argue, no?

It depends on what you want. Do you want to start a new religion? That would probably do it. Do you want to convince everyone in the world? I don’t think anything would do that. Do you want to convince me personally? I’ve never seen someone else’s religious convictions as reason for me to share them.

Do I need to lead you through your unfounded assertions and demonstrate that your conclusions don’t follow?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

/sarcasm

I'm glad you cleared that up for us.

 

[caveman1917]

Since that doesn’t make your ideas clear, and since “everything” included the entire universe the vast majority of which has nothing to do with our discussion, maybe some examples would be in order?

Of the status quo? Sure. For instance, given that you've brought up the subject in your OP, suppose someone walks into a supermarket and takes what they need - they'd get attacked by your "police" gang while they're ranting about something called "shoplifting". A clear initiation of violence, so it seems a good place for you to start, given your earlier appeals to something called "non-violence".

 

[Mycroft]

Of the status quo? Sure. For instance, given that you've brought up the subject in your OP, suppose someone walks into a supermarket and takes what they need - they'd get attacked by your "police" gang while they're ranting about something called "shoplifting". A clear initiation of violence, so it seems a good place for you to start, given your earlier appeals to something called "non-violence".

That's weird because I go into supermarkets and take what I need all the time, and I have never had violence with police over it. I disagree that police violently interfering with shopping is a part of the status quo.

What part of this am I supposed to defend? The existence of markets? The existence of police? I think the existence of markets is a good thing because they are useful in distributing goods to people who want and need them.

What next?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

That's weird because I go into supermarkets and take what I need all the time, and I have never had violence with police over it.

That's odd. Is there anything else you might be doing other than going to supermarkets and taking what you need? You're not handing over money to some random person there to bribe them into not calling that gang to attack you, are you?

 

[Mycroft]

That's odd. Is there anything else you might be doing other than going to supermarkets and taking what you need? You're not handing over money to some random person there to bribe them into not calling that gang to attack you, are you?

Random person?

No, the cashier handles it.

So the issue is the person isn't willing to exchange money for the goods he wants?

 

[caveman1917]

Random person?

Yes. Anyway, your counter-claim having been refuted, now argue the merit of the attacks by your gang upon people who go to the storage facilities to take what they need.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes. Anyway, your counter-claim having been refuted,now argue the merit of the attacks by your gang upon people who go to the storage facilities to take what they need.

Counter claim?

I don't "bribe" anyone when I take my merchandise. It's a novel idea, though.

Has the supermarket become a "storage facility" now?

I think if the person taking what he needs is able to pay for it, then he should do so. If he's not able to pay for it, then he should be directed to a "storage facility" that does not require payment.

I don't think he should be attacked.

Overall I support the systems that allow and encourage the existence of supermarkets because they solve the problems of distribution which are far more difficult to solve than the "problem" of obtaining the money needed to use them.

However, I'm not closed-minded. If you have a better idea, I encourage you to do the work to make it a reality.

I'll also suggest that if you want to make a supermarket that doesn't require shoppers to trade money for goods, do it! There will be a lot of problems to work out, primarily how to pay your employees and how to restock your merchandise, but I stand ready to applaud your success when you figure it out.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

Counter claim?

Yes, your claim that it isn't part of the status quo that when someone goes to the supermarket and takes what they need that they get attacked by your gang.

I don't "bribe" anyone when I take my merchandise.

Sure you do.

Has the supermarket become a "storage facility" now?

That's what it is. A physical structure (a building) where goods are stored.

I don't think he should be attacked.

Yet he is. I know you really don't like empirical evidence, but you can easily test this for yourself. Go try it, and this time don't bribe people into not sending the gang to attack you. See what happens and report back.

By now you have already expressed two different general principles by which you should oppose that gang's actions:

- "Non-violence", the gang is clearly the initiator of violence.

- Solving the problem of distribution of things to people who need them, which the gang interferes with by attacking people when they take what they need from a nearby storage facility.

However, I'm not closed-minded. If you have a better idea, I encourage you to do the work to make it a reality.

You're really not very good with this burden of proof thing, are you?

Do you promote that a person taking what they need from a storage facility should be attacked by a gang? If yes, go ahead and make your case.

If no, you apparently promote that said person should be "directed towards" another storage facility. You don't really say how exactly, so I'll just consider it as some person standing at the nearby facility pointing towards another facility. If so, feel free to go ahead and make your case. Here are already two things to consider:

- It would be irrational for someone to go to another storage facility, further away, just because at the nearby facility some random dude is performing some sort of pointing ritual.

- It is globally inefficient not to distribute goods in the facility most nearby the people who need them.

Irrational, inefficient, and mainly consisting of some random dude performing some ritual... Your belief system is off to a good start.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, your claim that it isn't part of the status quo that when someone goes to the supermarket and takes what they need that they get attacked by your gang.

It’s been my experience, which may be different for people who are unwilling to pay for their goods.

Sure you do.

No. Purchasing is not the same as bribery.

That's what it is. A physical structure (a building) where goods are stored.

Ah, so you’ve grasped the concept that sometimes the same thing can have more than one noun that labels it. Good.

At the same time previously you used the term “supermarket”, and selling things is part of the definition of “market” including supermarkets.

su·per·mar·ket
ˈso͞opərˌmärkət/
noun
1. a large self-service store selling foods and household goods.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=supermarket

Solving the problem of distribution of things to people who need them, which the gang interferes with by attacking people when they take what they need from a nearby storage facility.

If the system is designed to work with money, then I disagree

You're really not very good with this burden of proof thing, are you?

I’m good enough to be amused by your efforts to shift the burden of proof.

Do you promote that a person taking what they need from a storage facility should be attacked by a gang? If yes, go ahead and make your case.

Referring the person to a facility where he is allowed to take goods without paying shouldn’t require a “gang” to attack anyone.

At the same time, if it were my business and it were a choice between attacking him and letting him go with a small amount of stolen merchandise, I’d let him go. I’d notify the police and not allow him back in the store again, but I don’t see that attacking him makes anything better. I might reconsider that if I have so many thieves that it threatens the business.

If no, you apparently promote that said person should be "directed towards" another storage facility. You don't really say how exactly, so I'll just consider it as some person standing at the nearby facility pointing towards another facility. If so, feel free to go ahead and make your case. Here are already two things to consider:

Since much better methods of communication are available, that would be silly. You are amusing.

It would be irrational for someone to go to another storage facility, further away, just because at the nearby facility some random dude is performing some sort of pointing ritual.

It’s perfectly rational if the “facility” he is at does not permit the taking of goods without payment. Since facilities that allow taking without paying are available, he should be directed to one. Also, who says the other facility is further away? For all you know it’s across the street. Some of these facilities will even package their goods and leave them on people’s doorsteps.

It is globally inefficient not to distribute goods in the facility most nearby the people who need them.

What is your proof for that statement? I would say that it’s inefficient to try to force a facility that was created by one economic model to attempt to function on a different economic model. The problems of resupply, compensating your laborers, and meeting other expenses were solved by the first economic model. If those problems are not solved by the new economic model, the “supermarket” will be a dark and empty building within weeks. Then it wouldn’t be a benefit to anyone. That’s not efficient at all.

Irrational, inefficient, and mainly consisting of some random dude performing some ritual... Your belief system is off to a good start.

If you squint your eyes and only look at it from a certain angle in dim lighting...yeah. In the light of day with open eyes, no.

 

[sadhatter]

Another person makes something, I want that thing, I know if I take that thing they get no benefit, logically I would then decide to offer them something for the thing I want.

I don't see how any reasonable person could not understand that premise. No one is bribing anyone, every person of average intellect knows that if you want something from someone you either trade or fight, it's binary unless someone wants to give something away.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My boy?

First line in your sig.

@Jules:
I found intriguing your trying to nail down a definition of anarchist.
It occurs to me that nailing down a discrete definition of principles is the opposite of what an anarchist would ever do, unlike the fascist who is trying to impose a certain sort of order to/on things.
An anarchist is better defined by what he/she's against, which in terms of social order amounts to ... everything... in the extreme case.

 

[caveman1917]

No. Purchasing is not the same as bribery.

Yes it is.

I’m good enough to be amused by your efforts to shift the burden of proof.

I'm not shifting any burden of proof.

It’s perfectly rational if the “facility” he is at does not permit the taking of goods without payment.

No it isn't. It would be rational for him to ignore the people promoting the belief about it not being "permitted" to take goods without "payment", and to just take what he needs anyway.

What is your proof for that statement?

Physics.

Which one is more energy efficient? Have the goods transported to the nearby facility and taken there by the people who need them, or have them transported to a further-away facility and have people transport themselves there individually to take what they need?

Assume that a person is 100 kg and the good 1 kg. Assume that it is equally efficient to transport the good to either facility (suppose it comes in batch by truck from some much-further-away central distribution facility). Nearby and further-away here mean relative to the location of the people who need the goods.

If you squint your eyes and only look at it from a certain angle in dim lighting...yeah. In the light of day with open eyes, no.

You really don't need to squint your eyes to see what pile of crap that belief system you promote is. Let's walk through it. Suppose a rational person has a need for a good and goes to the closest facility which stocks it. There they meet you.

Person: *takes good* and thereby fulfills need.

You: "You must go to this other facility which is further away to take this good."

Person: "Who the hell are you?"

You: "I'm the manager. I solve the problem of distributing goods to people who need them."

Person: "Well you seem to be doing a crappy job. It incurs less of a cost if you simply call in for more such goods to be transported to your facility rather than me individually fetching them from a further-away facility. I'll just ignore you."

You: "If you ignore me then I'm calling a gang to attack you."

Person: "Wow, not only are you incompetent at your task of distributing goods to people who need them, you've apparently got some serious attention-seeking issues as well."

You: "You can of course always hand me over some money so that I won't do that..."

Person: "Ah, a bribe, how unexpected."

You: "Well I like to call it a 'purchase' rather than a 'bribe'".

Person: "Right, gotcha, nudge nudge wink wink."

Why should you be manager of the facility, if you're so crappy at the task of distributing goods to people who need them, and can find nothing better to hide your incompetence behind than taking bribes and calling upon gangs to attack people who ignore your incompetent "management"?

 

[caveman1917]

Another person makes something, I want that thing.

The facility owner/manager makes everything there? Wow! Thinking about the things in my local supermarket and the rate at which they are taken, that must be one hell of a job he is doing. Just wow!