Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Morality is an anthropological artifact, a label for evolved group norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have meaning apart from human society.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And, historically, moral codes have always been birthed and defined according to the behaviors that society enforced through violent coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Prove all of those assertions or just admit that they are only axioms in the non-theistic philosophy that you adhere to.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Occam's Razor
------------------
2. QED

I mean, are you serious? You think the burden of proof is on someone who doesn't assert arbitrary metaphysical idealisms?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your correct. Most people also favour some form of egalitarian reform, universal healthcare, etc. but thanks to private powers manipulation of government and the nature of the constitution the democratic opinion of the majority is inept without major pubblic stuggle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think wins this struggle when you give all the guns to one institution in society? Those people with the money and resources to manipulate the political process and the media.

So you guys can continue to claim that we need government to do this or that but understand that the ultimate consequence is that government is going to get controlled by those with money. Its irrational to claim we need government and then complain when your social programs get co-opted by interests that care nothing about the poor and only care about their monopolistic control of society. Its the natural consequence of the structure you want for society.

But mabey you could elaborate on exactly which point I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing my point. I am notreally a statist or pro- (any) government. However, if the only valid argument against the government that ACists can make is criticizing the coerced distribution of wealth by the gov't then we have a problem.

If only they had a pittance of Bakunin's insight we get somewhere;

"The State is the organized authority, domination, and power of the possessing classes over the masses the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest. This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its supreme duty and its greatest virtue Thus, to offend, to oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to assassinate or enslave one's fellowman is ordinarily regarded as a crime. In public life, on the other hand, from the standpoint of patriotism, when these things are done for the greater glory of the State, for the preservation or the extension of its power, it is all transformed into duty and virtue This explains why the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries---statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors---if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows. There is no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so terrible: "for reasons of state."

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way is a company that receives special tax incentives an example of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, it isnt an example of Anarcho-anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. It is a valid example of anarcho-syndicalistic principle, which is a very different ideology from anarcho-capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It cant be anarcho anything because it is receiving subsidies from a GOVERNMENT

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is perfect. Only fanatic idealists think they can make stuff work perfectly by the book. Its still a good example. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The world runs on morality. Most people pay their taxes because they think it's good to do so. Either that or fear but the guns can only intimidate so many without the underlying false morality they are nothing. Why do you think the government comes up with all this bulls**t about the poor and the environment and blah blah blah if they could just say we've got nukes give us your cash now. Convincing people that taxation is evil is the best thing anyone can do for the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I agree with you, I just find it fascinating that you ACists have no problem with enforcing this morality on others (saying without this morality we are screwed). To others who attempt the same, you refuse it on general principle.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The world runs on morality. Most people pay their taxes because they think it's good to do so. Either that or fear but the guns can only intimidate so many without the underlying false morality they are nothing. Why do you think the government comes up with all this bulls**t about the poor and the environment and blah blah blah if they could just say we've got nukes give us your cash now. Convincing people that taxation is evil is the best thing anyone can do for the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I agree with you, I just find it fascinating that you ACists have no problem with enforcing this morality on others (saying without this morality we are screwed). To others who attempt the same, you refuse it on general principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not enforcing morality, I'm just asking people to enact their own stated morality. If you say stealing is wrong act as if stealing is wrong. If statists and governments just said we're bigger and stronger than you so give us your money then I wouldn't have a problem with the message (though obviously I'd disagree with the action) but the fact that they moralize but don't live up to their own stated morals is the real problem. stealing is wrong, it is moral pay your taxes. Logically only one of these statements can be true. I just want people to pick a side and declare themselves honestly. Is the initiation of violence good or bad? If it bad it's bad for everyone if it's good it's good for everyone there are no special classes of people.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not enforcing morality, I'm just asking people to enact their own stated morality. If you say stealing is wrong act as if stealing is wrong. If statists and governments just said we're bigger and stronger than you so give us your money then I wouldn't have a problem with the message (though obviously I'd disagree with the action) but the fact that they moralize but don't live up to their own stated morals is the real problem. stealing is wrong, it is moral pay your taxes. Logically only one of these statements can be true. I just want people to pick a side and declare themselves honestly. Is the initiation of violence good or bad? If it bad it's bad for everyone if it's good it's good for everyone there are no special classes of people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously have no problem whatsoever with the initiation of violence in punishment of certain actions. Anybody who disagrees is a fool.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not enforcing morality, I'm just asking people to enact their own stated morality. If you say stealing is wrong act as if stealing is wrong. If statists and governments just said we're bigger and stronger than you so give us your money then I wouldn't have a problem with the message (though obviously I'd disagree with the action) but the fact that they moralize but don't live up to their own stated morals is the real problem. stealing is wrong, it is moral pay your taxes. Logically only one of these statements can be true. I just want people to pick a side and declare themselves honestly. Is the initiation of violence good or bad? If it bad it's bad for everyone if it's good it's good for everyone there are no special classes of people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously have no problem whatsoever with the initiation of violence in punishment of certain actions. Anybody who disagrees is a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's in punishment for actions it's not initiation doucy?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not enforcing morality, I'm just asking people to enact their own stated morality. If you say stealing is wrong act as if stealing is wrong. If statists and governments just said we're bigger and stronger than you so give us your money then I wouldn't have a problem with the message (though obviously I'd disagree with the action) but the fact that they moralize but don't live up to their own stated morals is the real problem. stealing is wrong, it is moral pay your taxes. Logically only one of these statements can be true. I just want people to pick a side and declare themselves honestly. Is the initiation of violence good or bad? If it bad it's bad for everyone if it's good it's good for everyone there are no special classes of people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously have no problem whatsoever with the initiation of violence in punishment of certain actions. Anybody who disagrees is a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's in punishment for actions it's not initiation doucy?

[/ QUOTE ]

What sort of actions qualify for being met with violence then? And if you say "violent", I'd like you to define it.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not enforcing morality, I'm just asking people to enact their own stated morality. If you say stealing is wrong act as if stealing is wrong. If statists and governments just said we're bigger and stronger than you so give us your money then I wouldn't have a problem with the message (though obviously I'd disagree with the action) but the fact that they moralize but don't live up to their own stated morals is the real problem. stealing is wrong, it is moral pay your taxes. Logically only one of these statements can be true. I just want people to pick a side and declare themselves honestly. Is the initiation of violence good or bad? If it bad it's bad for everyone if it's good it's good for everyone there are no special classes of people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously have no problem whatsoever with the initiation of violence in punishment of certain actions. Anybody who disagrees is a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's in punishment for actions it's not initiation doucy?

[/ QUOTE ]

What sort of actions qualify for being met with violence then? And if you say "violent", I'd like you to define it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not really my decision, and I absolutly agree that there are fringe cases and grey areas that are horribly complicated and where there is no clear answer. But I think that if we all agreed that say murder theft and rape (whoever performs them) are wrong and therefore can be legitimately stopped with violence we'd be in a far better place than we are now.

If you're genuinely interested in this admittedly complex area I'd recommend giving this book a try. This guy has thought about these issues a great deal more than me and can probably give you a more satisfactory answer.


Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]

That's not really my decision, and I absolutly agree that there are fringe cases and grey areas that are horribly complicated and where there is no clear answer. But I think that if we all agreed that say murder theft and rape (whoever performs them) are wrong and therefore can be legitimately stopped with violence we'd be in a far better place than we are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say rape is always wrong, murder almost always wrong, theft mostly wrong. I understand that some might agree.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are there property rights in the sort of anarchism that Chomsky describes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. In fact, individual rights aren't recognized at all, and you would be just a drone in the Borg.

The closest example of the practical manifestation of Chomsky's political "philosophy" is the former Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the late 1970's -- which Chomsky, not surprisingly, supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any shame about being an outright liar?
Chomsky didn't support the KR, and the KR was absolutely not a libertarian socialist group.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, if the only valid argument against the government that ACists can make is criticizing the coerced distribution of wealth by the gov't then we have a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

No its not the only arguement ACists make. It just that most people that are worth arguing already get how brutal and immoral state sponsored wars are. It the false morality of the welfare state that can be hard for people to see at times, so this is what most people are going to argue about.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus, go away. Everyone here is well equipped at doing google searches and can realise for themselves that Chosmy did not support the Cambodian genocide- or deny it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just used google, and yes, he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just freely giving away any remnants of credibility you may have had with posts like this.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your correct. Most people also favour some form of egalitarian reform, universal healthcare, etc. but thanks to private powers manipulation of government and the nature of the constitution the democratic opinion of the majority is inept without major pubblic stuggle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think wins this struggle when you give all the guns to one institution in society? Those people with the money and resources to manipulate the political process and the media.

So you guys can continue to claim that we need government to do this or that but understand that the ultimate consequence is that government is going to get controlled by those with money. Its irrational to claim we need government and then complain when your social programs get co-opted by interests that care nothing about the poor and only care about their monopolistic control of society. Its the natural consequence of the structure you want for society.

But mabey you could elaborate on exactly which point I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe government is beneficial when citizens are vigilant about remembering what the phrase "public servant" means. Servant, not master.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your correct. Most people also favour some form of egalitarian reform, universal healthcare, etc. but thanks to private powers manipulation of government and the nature of the constitution the democratic opinion of the majority is inept without major pubblic stuggle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think wins this struggle when you give all the guns to one institution in society? Those people with the money and resources to manipulate the political process and the media.

So you guys can continue to claim that we need government to do this or that but understand that the ultimate consequence is that government is going to get controlled by those with money. Its irrational to claim we need government and then complain when your social programs get co-opted by interests that care nothing about the poor and only care about their monopolistic control of society. Its the natural consequence of the structure you want for society.

But mabey you could elaborate on exactly which point I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe government is beneficial when citizens are vigilant about remembering what the phrase "public servant" means. Servant, not master.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're a utopian dreamer.