AC question

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
To use an analogy, we can see that if everyone decided to shoot other people in the head, the world would degenerate into absolute chaos.


[/ QUOTE ]

^^ So far, so good on being a fair analogy.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, we should forcibly disarm everyone.


[/ QUOTE ]

^^ Oops....here's where you get off track....more like "Therefore, we should forcibly disarm those who shoot people in the head."

[ QUOTE ]

Because obviously, if you have a gun, you're going to shoot someone in the head

[/ QUOTE ]

^^ More like: "If you go around shooting people in the head, you should probably be disarmed."


[ QUOTE ]

AMIRITE?


[/ QUOTE ]
^^ ITZNOW.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
You left out the "process" part. My assertion is that force is essential to the conflict resolution process.

It obviously isn't employed in each and every conflict ever resolved, but it is part of the process, and the option exists, whether you realize it or not, and whether or not the people involved even realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly there is always the option of using force to resolve a conflict (no one is denying this). But the Law Merchant is an excellent historical example of an entire system of dispute resolution that was a) done without any sort of State approval and b) did not rely on any force to solve disputes.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell can you ask someone to "stick to it" if you don't even know what it is???


[/ QUOTE ]

Because you've zigged and zagged so many times, it's hard keeping track of how many times it has changed....pick one already and let's stick to it... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
Pointing out that you're trying to wiggle out of answering the *intended* question on a technicality (what some people might call "semantical lawyering") is "flying off the handle."

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked "Might makes right?", and I replied "Practically."

But if you want to call a direct, one word, simple response as "wiggling and semantical lawyering"....so much so...next time I'll make it even simpler, maybe post a picture or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have anything more to add here. I think the record speaks for itself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

#2: Anytime someone disagrees with you, try to make them look like a crazy, emotional basket-case.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, other than your semantical nits and rampant use of strawmen...what have we actually disagreed on of any actual substance?

We actually share similar views on many things, but your too busy focusing on irrelevant semantics to notice.

And I never said you were a crazy basket case, I said you were a huge douchebag..... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could actually explain why my analogies are bad, or what arguments I'm using that are strawmen.

Or you could just continue with the ad hominem and the smug little smileys.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, conflicts DO get resolved *even* in situations where there is NO OPTION for either party to use force (and both parties are aware of that).


[/ QUOTE ]

That's great that in some examples they are able to resolve their conflict through agreement.

But, I wasn't addressing the cases where agreement works.

What if one of the parties refuses any agreement, and neither party has the option of force...how is the conflict resolved?

Are you telling me that it isn't allowed to happen, and they HAVE to agree, in the abscence of an option of force, in order to resolve their conflict? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Or are you telling me that the conflict just doesn't get resolved?


[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, it cannot be essential to conflict resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the "process" part. My assertion is that force is essential to the conflict resolution <u>process</u>.

It obviously isn't employed in each and every conflict ever resolved, but it is part of the process, and the option exists, whether you realize it or not, and whether or not the people involved even realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What process???? You say that like there's one sigular process that's used for dispute resolution. There isn't. Either that, or you're on some semantical nitpick, which can't possibly be the case.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What if one of the parties refuses any agreement, and neither party has the option of force...how is the conflict resolved?

Are you telling me that it isn't allowed to happen, and they HAVE to agree, in the abscence of an option of force, in order to resolve their conflict?

Or are you telling me that the conflict just doesn't get resolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that using force guarantees a "resolution"?


[ QUOTE ]
It obviously isn't employed in each and every conflict ever resolved, but it is part of the process, and the option exists, whether you realize it or not, and whether or not the people involved even realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there are cases where force is not only not used, it's not even an option to begin with.

Businesses, for example, have no capability to "go to war" with each other, especially in international disputes where there is no clear litigation jurisdiction. Yet disputes get resolved.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To use an analogy, we can see that if everyone decided to shoot other people in the head, the world would degenerate into absolute chaos.


[/ QUOTE ]

^^ So far, so good on being a fair analogy.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, we should forcibly disarm everyone.


[/ QUOTE ]

^^ Oops....here's where you get off track....more like "Therefore, we should forcibly disarm those who shoot people in the head."

[/ QUOTE ]

But that would be a BAD analogy since the analogy we're trying to draw is to an argument that analogies should not be used - not that *bad* analogies should not be used.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because obviously, if you have a gun, you're going to shoot someone in the head

[/ QUOTE ]

^^ More like: "If you go around shooting people in the head, you should probably be disarmed."

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would then agree that the request to stop using analogies is invalid, and the complaining party should actually demonstrate that disputed analogies are actually "bad" (instead of just asserting)?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell can you ask someone to "stick to it" if you don't even know what it is???


[/ QUOTE ]

Because you've zigged and zagged so many times, it's hard keeping track of how many times it has changed....pick one already and let's stick to it... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
Pointing out that you're trying to wiggle out of answering the *intended* question on a technicality (what some people might call "semantical lawyering") is "flying off the handle."

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked "Might makes right?", and I replied "Practically."

But if you want to call a direct, one word, simple response as "wiggling and semantical lawyering"....so much so...next time I'll make it even simpler, maybe post a picture or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have anything more to add here. I think the record speaks for itself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

#2: Anytime someone disagrees with you, try to make them look like a crazy, emotional basket-case.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, other than your semantical nits and rampant use of strawmen...what have we actually disagreed on of any actual substance?

We actually share similar views on many things, but your too busy focusing on irrelevant semantics to notice.

And I never said you were a crazy basket case, I said you were a huge douchebag..... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could actually explain why my analogies are bad, or what arguments I'm using that are strawmen.

Or you could just continue with the ad hominem and the smug little smileys.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn might be a man of few words, but he is certainly not stupid [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You left out the "process" part. My assertion is that force is essential to the conflict resolution process.

It obviously isn't employed in each and every conflict ever resolved, but it is part of the process, and the option exists, whether you realize it or not, and whether or not the people involved even realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly there is always the option of using force to resolve a conflict (no one is denying this). But the Law Merchant is an excellent historical example of an entire system of dispute resolution that was a) done without any sort of State approval and b) did not rely on any force to solve disputes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in the hell is this argument that force may sometimes be used/is used in dispute resolution going anyway?????


Is mr force going to make an assertion connected to 'force is part of the dispute resolution process, or at least potentially is' connected to this thread and AC at some point or not?

...or maybe he got tazered by some cops on a college campus last night for refusing to leave the library.... and is not available for comment.

... or maybe he is one of the latest victims of slaughter in the world at the hands of government and is not around any longer.

[tame_deuces]

It doesn't really matter anyway. There is nothing inherently wrong with force, imprisonment, police etc. even from an AC point of view. Actually it is most likely that a large part of self-formed communities in an AC setting (if it were to go into effect now) would be democracies, and employ police force and formal rules.

AC isn't a stance against the modern democracy, taxation or the legal system or whatnot, at least as far as I understand. It is a stance against the state. , which is an inherently different thing.

So you are left with the two premises that AC opposes:

1. The state is a monopoly. (Other market competitors are forcefully oppressed).
2. The state isn't based on voluntarist behavior. (Citizens of the state didn't sign the contract).

If I am wrong here, then some AC supporter come and tell me right away. If AC is some big opposition towards the principles of democratic organization or similar, then I have misunderstood the whole thing.

[foal]

I'm responding kinda late, but...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We live in a state and the vast majority of people think states are a good thing. It is ACists who have to do the convincing, not the other way around. Fair or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
The jews lived in a state where the majority stood behind Hitler and his ideas and thoguth that his ideals were good. It was the burden of hte jews to convince the Nazi's, not the other way around. Fair or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was there a point here?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We live in a state and the vast majority of people think states are a good thing. It is ACists who have to do the convincing, not the other way around. Fair or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Might makes right?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.. I'm describing the reality of a specific situation.

I'm baffled at the responses I got. Do you actually disagree with me? You act as if I was making some sort of esoteric argument, when I was making a simple statement of fact.