Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

gecko · Mar 7, 2004, 03:08 pm

ive seen this repeated protest by anarchists that anrchy isnt bad or that anarchy doesnt mean chaos
but really what does it mean tehn?

lets thinnk a bit on it....

Dictionary
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
an·ar·chy
1.Absence of any form of political authority.
2.Political disorder and confusion.
3.Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

ok sounds good so far

an - no/none/negative
arch- ruler/rules/organization

so we have

no (an) - ruler (rules/organization/order)(archy)

the absence of order IS chaos

as much as out esteem antistatists would like us believe
there is no middle form between order and no order

entropy is the scientific word for the process of going from having energy (order) to not having energy (chaos)
maximum entropy is known as death to us silly organisms
thus to be anarchist is really anti-life

thats just my two cents what the hell do i know? :(

Mar 7, 2004, 04:23 pm

Nice strawman. Nothing in anarchy prohibits or works against order, or organization. That was your addition so as to make the position appear easier to attack.

But even so, you do not follow your own strawman creation, but rather simply STIPULATE that anarchy is chaos. Never mind reality, never mind reason; instead put your own ideology above both then claim that reality and reason are mistaken.

The absence of government in no way necessitates chaos, and you have not offered anything to even begin to demonstrate that it might, much less that the advocacy of freedom necessitates chaos.

A cornerstone of honest civil intellectual discussions is the ability and willingness to take the positions of others seriously, treat them critically but HONESTLY, and to exhibit a general respect for persons as well as reason.

Mathieu · Mar 7, 2004, 04:33 pm

You would have to be honest yourself ... But hey, who care about you :).

Gecko makes a point, earth entropy would certainly get higher in an anarchist system, simply because it would take more information to describe the whole system . So it's entropy is higher, hence it would be more chaotic ...

I just did you a scientific prove that it would be more chaotic... Will you say that even that is non-sense ?

LOL

Certainly not, cause it would contradict that in your head every little thing you say is truth... Grow up man !

I just prove you something with logic using formal definition ...

You see what it give when you do that ?

Think about it ...

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 04:34 pm

the strongest would play dictator of the neighborhood...

and it wasn't a strawman, it is the definition of the term

Mathieu · Mar 7, 2004, 04:36 pm

Let me make a prediction on your answer ...

Nice straw man (probably cause you like to say to to dodge answers)

Then I'm not honest, I am not interrest in discussion (cause you like to project your own personnality on people ,very common and very basic in psychology )

followed by whatever absurd logic wich will fit you opinion ...

Have fun !

Mar 7, 2004, 04:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Gecko makes a point, earth entropy would certainly get higher in an anarchist system, simply because it would take more information to describe the whole system . So it's entropy is higher, hence it would be more chaotic ...

I just did you a scientific prove that it would be more chaotic... Will you say that even that is non-sense ? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Where did you do this scientific proof? It did not appear in your post.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
and it wasn't a strawman, it is the definition of the term<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Two problems with this assertion.

1. Gecko did not even stick to the definition, but rather added characteristics to make it easier to attack, thus creating a strawman.

2. Dictionaries are necessarily unreliable in capturing a specific notion. What the dictionary offered in this case was ALL uses of the word. Now since the assumption that anarchy is chaos is prevelant, it appears as part of the dictionary definition (even so there is no doubt that Gek had to search for a while to find such a definition). So with this assumption, which is not inherently part of anarchy, being added in prior to the examination, the entire argument becomes question begging. In other words the argument never stood a chance of being well reasoned, or leading to a true conclusion.

So we can clearly see that in two separate ways this was a strawman creation, which as we all also know is not only intellectual dishonest, it causes the strawman itself to be of no value.

Mar 7, 2004, 04:41 pm

Mat,

By all means have any and all of my posts verified by any logican of your choosing. I have nothing to fear.

Nice personal attack btw. Why not address the issues in a mature manner common to all intellecual discussions? What have you to fear?

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 05:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)

Two problems with this assertion.

1. Gecko did not even stick to the definition, but rather added characteristics to make it easier to attack, thus creating a strawman.

***no, he added additional premises and tried to construct a sound and valid argument... the definition of anarchy is correct, not a strawman

2. Dictionaries are necessarily unreliable in capturing a specific notion.

:rolleyes: necessarily unreliable?

What the dictionary offered in this case was ALL uses of the word. Now since the assumption that anarchy is chaos is prevelant, it appears as part of the dictionary definition (even so there is no doubt that Gek had to search for a while to find such a definition).

no, he didn't... didn't have to search for more than half a second, take some time and read the whole definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy
--------------------------------
So with this assumption, which is not inherently part of anarchy, being added in prior to the examination, the entire argument becomes question begging.

:rolleyes: there was no assumption added... his conclusion to be anarchist is to be anti life is not involved in the definition of anarchy

--------------------------------

In other words the argument never stood a chance of being well reasoned, or leading to a true conclusion.

:rolleyes: no, the argument does not fail, it is both sound and valid

So we can clearly see that in two separate ways this was a strawman creation, which as we all also know is not only intellectual dishonest, it causes the strawman itself to be of no value.

********no, there was no strawman created, nor did he beg the question

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mar 7, 2004, 05:17 pm

Impenitent,

Um.. you just stated denials, but offered nothing to support them. Of course the arguments that geck offered remain unsound, they are based on false assumptions as I have conclusively proven.

BTW just so not pretense at all can survive, Gexk added: "no (an) - ruler (rules/organization/order)(archy)"

Notice where anarchy merely means no government, geck added the notion of no organization, and no order, neither of which accurately describes or are necessary to anarchy. This is the second step of the strawman.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
as much as out esteem antistatists would like us believe
there is no middle form between order and no order<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is a false dichotomoy as well as a strawman. No one here has taken this position contrary to gecks claims. But even if they had, the fact is that there are an infinite number of degrees of order:disorder ratio. Furthermore, geck is equivocating here with the word "order" he uses it to mean political regimes, but then also to mean any and all forms of order or organization. The two are not identical. Political regimes are but one form of organization, they do not encompass all possibilities, nor even anything but a small fraction.

To add yet another step on this strawman parade, geck adds the notion of entropy, which has nothing to do with anarchy, but geck pretends that entropy is anarchy, not even bothering to equivocate, but rather to simply stipulate.

So with false premises, mischaracterizations, strawmen, equivocation, and other logical fallacies, there is no hope of this argument being informative of anything other than Geck himself, and it is impossible for it to be reasoned or sound.

But by all means do not take my word for it, anyone familiar with reason can verify these objective facts.

tusaki · Mar 7, 2004, 05:39 pm

The entire point with anarchism, is that it looks good on paper and is something you can dream about. But just like with the original teachings of Karl Marx, reality is probably (note: probably) something quite different.

Lightbearer, like I said in another post, you are quite sound with logical arguments and quite literate in the ways of argumentation techniques. But, you fail to debate over the real reasoning behind an argument and your own argumentation suffers from the lack of compassion or understanding of the other side's (if you can even speak of such a thing) issues with anarchy. I'm not saying you should feel the same way as other people, but you should at least show you understand what they mean to say. Usually, your posts consists of a technical analysis and a structural decomposition of other people's sentences, without regards to other's position or arguments as a whole. If you really want people to understand your position, you should start from their point of view and 'guide' them towards your conclusions. Most of your posts consist of "what you say is false, wrong, unbased" followed or mixed with a dosis of anarchist rhetoric like "slavery, theft, death, evil".

But, back to the topic. The funny thing is, we have a system which more or less works for most people. And we will probably agree it is better than the systems which existed before and it is better than most systems in the rest of the world. You can see that most people are reluctant to give up on something which seemingly works. Everything I've said so far is of course debatable, but this probably is what most people feel. They'll have some issues with this or that little thing, but most are happy with the structures which exist in their life. I also think this is the reason why most people aren't really interested in politics besides what they see at the 6 o'clock news. As long as things in their life get done, as long as there is food, no threat from war and probably some leisure for them, they just don’t care. So, compared with the revolutions and chaos of the past, we are probably doing quite well so far, as indifference seems to be an indication of how well a social structure works. I can see why some people think of anarchy as a viable alternative, but since it's so radical I don't think it is realistic to think it will ever become a reality. (for better or for worse)

I believe the basic concept behind a government is sound and that a democracy, as an ideology, is the best form of governance. I think a population needs some form of order and a set of laws which are enforced. A restraint, if you will, to prevent anyone from within that system to act in an undesirable manner. If you have issues with a current system, I think it is better to change that system from within, rather than try to attack it from outside.

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 7, 2004, 05:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
the strongest would play dictator of the neighborhood...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The colonists shoot the police and soldiers of their lawful "government" abolishing their rule in America. Welcome to anarchy.

The US steals the land of the rightful inhabitants of America. Welcome to anarchy.

The US violently compels states to remain in a union. Welcome to anarchy.

The US invades Cuba and the Philippines. Welcome to anarchy.

The US invades Europe. Welcome to anarchy.

The US invades Korea. Welcome to anarchy.

The US invades Vietnam: Welcome to anarchy.

Kent State massacre: Welcome to anarchy.

The US overthrows Allende in Chile. Welcome to anarchy.

The US invades Grenada: Welcome to anarchy

Waco massacre: Welcome to anarchy.

The US invades Haiti: Welcome to anarchy.

The US invades Iraq: Welcome to anarchy.

The war on drugs: Welcome to anarchy

The income tax: Welcome to anarchy.

The US railorads Martha Stewart. Welcome to anarchy.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
and it wasn't a strawman, it is the definition of the term<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Dictionary definition 1 a: -- absence of government

If "government" is all that crap above (and all the crap done by other "governments" around the world) and more, then it is indistinguishable from anarchy.

--Jackney Sneeb

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 05:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Impenitent,

Um.. you just stated denials, but offered nothing to support them. Of course the arguments that geck offered remain unsound, they are based on false assumptions as I have conclusively proven.

:rolleyes: no, the premises are true and you have not proven them false... the argument is sound... your conclusion is incorrect

BTW just so not pretense at all can survive, Gexk added: "no (an) - ruler (rules/organization/order)(archy)"

Notice where anarchy merely means no government, geck added the notion of no organization, and no order,
---------------
:rolleyes: no, he did not "add" this to the definition, it is in the definition

neither of which accurately describes or are necessary to anarchy.

**** yes, both are in the definition

This is the second step of the strawman.

********* it is not a strawman, it is the definition

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
as much as out esteem antistatists would like us believe
there is no middle form between order and no order<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is a false dichotomoy as well as a strawman.

:rolleyes: no, there is nothing false about it, nor is it a strawman

No one here has taken this position contrary to gecks claims.

:rolleyes: you have

But even if they had, the fact is that there are an infinite number of degrees of order:disorder ratio.

**** not logically... it is A or it is ~A

Furthermore, geck is equivocating here with the word "order" he uses it to mean political regimes, but then also to mean any and all forms of order or organization. The two are not identical. Political regimes are but one form of organization, they do not encompass all possibilities, nor even anything but a small fraction.

To add yet another step on this strawman parade, geck adds the notion of entropy, which has nothing to do with anarchy, but geck pretends that entropy is anarchy, not even bothering to equivocate, but rather to simply stipulate.

****no, his claim was entropy is chaos and maximum entropy is death

So with false premises, mischaracterizations, strawmen, equivocation, and other logical fallacies, there is no hope of this argument being informative of anything other than Geck himself, and it is impossible for it to be reasoned or sound.

But by all means do not take my word for it, anyone familiar with reason can verify these objective facts.

**** I'll make this logic 101 simple for you

P1 anarchy is absense of order -true All A is O
P2 absense of order is chaos -true All O is C

c anarchy is chaos -true All A is C

P3 chaos is death -true All C is D
:. anarchy is death -true All A is D

sound and valid... I'd show you on a venn diagram as well but you probably haven't gotten to that chapter yet...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 7, 2004, 05:51 pm

Here's the diference between anarchy and anarchism:

Anarchy is the absence of "government."

Anarchism is the philosophy that advocates life without a state, or abolishing the state.

Some people assert that the world already is in a state of anarchy (the absence of "government," i.e., the agency with the right to rule); that the state is a gang of lawyers and thugs running a protection racket; that "government" is a euphemism for that gang -- that the belief in "government is a delusion by which the gang can convince some people that the gang is legitimate.

I am one of them.

--Jackney Sneeb

Mathieu · Mar 7, 2004, 05:54 pm

oh and you feel alone and you came here to look for some friend ?

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 7, 2004, 08:07 pm

Who ever says that anarchy = chaos is wrong.

Anarchy is simply an existance without a state.

Chaos is where everyone has gone mad and starting rioting/looting/killing.

One of the biggest media/state supporter myths is that Anarchy implies Chaos. It's simply not true.

Perhaps in the first little bit you would have some chaotic groups...but they would eventually die down as people realized they needed to defend themselves instead of depending on the state to do it.

Mathieu · Mar 7, 2004, 09:58 pm

Well chaos is also the apparent disorder emerging from a determinist system or phenomena.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 7, 2004, 11:56 pm

Ok...

it's not anarchy

Mar 8, 2004, 12:19 am

Tusaki,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I'm not saying you should feel the same way as other people, but you should at least show you understand what they mean to say. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I offer to everyone the exact same respect that is found in all honest civil, intellectual discussions. I take what is said at face value and do not try to read minds, or presume to know what is in the heart of any other. I simply take them at their words. This is not a lack of compassion, it is respect. I am not going to insult anyone by presuming to know what they intended to say, as if I could know better than they. They choose their words and I accept that these were their choices.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Usually, your posts consists of a technical analysis and a structural decomposition of other people's sentences, without regards to other's position or arguments as a whole. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am not sure if this is dishonest of you, or if you are simply quite confused as to the facts. I clearly take the arguments as a whole, and I leave off any structural decomposition of other people's sentences. Could you cite any instance where I commented on the structure of anyone's sentence at all? Where are the cases of corrections of spelling, or grammar? Despite some pretty atrocious spelling and worse grammar, I have not made a single comment regarding such structural composition.
Instead I have focused on the arguments themselves. I have noted the problems with the positions taken. I have cited the specific errors that prevent a given argument from being a refutation. And unlike many of those who have responded, I have not made any of this personal, nor brought in insults, personal attacks or criticisms, nor ad hominems.

As for the dismissal of the facts as rhetoric, well there really is not much to say concerning that is there? Each of my statements has been carefully proven, by objective standards. So you can dismiss the facts as rhetoric, or you (and others of course) could cease the nonsensical personality crap, and attempts to dissect me as a person, and simply deal with the issues. There is more than a little irony that in this post where you spend the entire time trying to criticize me for traits not possessed or with presumed knowledge that you do not and could not have, that you would in that criticism suggest that I have not focused on the issues.

I can see why some people think of anarchy as a viable alternative, but since it's so radical I don't think it is realistic to think it will ever become a reality. (for better or for worse)

Again with the offhand dismissals. There is nothing radical about peaceful and voluntary association. There is nothing radical about not stealing from your neighbors or having another do it for you. There is nothing radical about suggesting that violence against innocents is wrong. There is nothing radical about personal responsibility.

So before you dismiss freedom entirely, before you slap a convenient label on it so that you do not have to think about it, maybe you ought to consider it for a moment.

Re: the tired old “change it from within rhetoric” Would you join the KKK to change their views and actions? Would you endorse child molestors (aka the church) in order to change the behavior? Would you give your time, money and appearance of legitimacy to thugs in the alley in order to change them from within?
Is there any line that you would not cross in following this suggestion of yours? If so, then why that line and not a firm principle instead?

What is so wrong with striving for freedom anyway? Why is this idea so fear inducing that at least a vocal minority have taken it upon themselves to offer criticism, not of the issues, but of individuals, or in the worse cases simple insults and personal attacks? I realize that you cannot answer for anyone else, but perhaps you would answer the question for yourself, just to appease my curiosity.

Mar 8, 2004, 12:24 am

Imp,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But even if they had, the fact is that there are an infinite number of degrees of order:disorder ratio.

**** not logically... it is A or it is ~A<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Since the entirety of your post was once again restatement of already refuted assumptions, I am simply ignoring it, making an exception for the above comment only because it is so incredibly absurd.

What you have offered is known as a false dichotomy. And yes this is another logical fallacy. Look in the general discussion threads for links to sites which will explain in detail the logical fallacies.

As for your repeated assumptions that unsound emoting is sound reasoning, I encourage you to seek out any logician of your choosing and have the thread evaluated. You will find that in fact I have been extremely generous.

And before you presume your own omniscience, you really ought to know a bit about the individual you are trying to insult. Not only are all of the fallacies that I noted existent as I have noted them, but your "lesson" would be laughed at by any intro to logic student. I know, because I have taught the class at one of the largest universities in the US. Damn that reality and reason spoiling your fun again!

gecko · Mar 8, 2004, 03:39 am

why is the belief that anarchy is chaos a myth?
time and time again you point out how statism is murder/extortion/threats that is also a myth

you take a government action you distil it to its most extreme condition and claim all government is like that

Mar 7, 2004, 03:08 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	ive seen this repeated protest by anarchists that anrchy isnt bad or that anarchy doesnt mean chaos but really what does it mean tehn? lets thinnk a bit on it.... Dictionary </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by an·ar·chy 1.Absence of any form of political authority. 2.Political disorder and confusion. 3.Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ok sounds good so far an - no/none/negative arch- ruler/rules/organization so we have no (an) - ruler (rules/organization/order)(archy) the absence of order IS chaos as much as out esteem antistatists would like us believe there is no middle form between order and no order entropy is the scientific word for the process of going from having energy (order) to not having energy (chaos) maximum entropy is known as death to us silly organisms thus to be anarchist is really anti-life thats just my two cents what the hell do i know? :(

Mar 7, 2004, 04:34 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	the strongest would play dictator of the neighborhood... and it wasn't a strawman, it is the definition of the term "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 04:39 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Gecko makes a point, earth entropy would certainly get higher in an anarchist system, simply because it would take more information to describe the whole system . So it's entropy is higher, hence it would be more chaotic ... I just did you a scientific prove that it would be more chaotic... Will you say that even that is non-sense ? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Where did you do this scientific proof? It did not appear in your post. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by and it wasn't a strawman, it is the definition of the term<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Two problems with this assertion. 1. Gecko did not even stick to the definition, but rather added characteristics to make it easier to attack, thus creating a strawman. 2. Dictionaries are necessarily unreliable in capturing a specific notion. What the dictionary offered in this case was ALL uses of the word. Now since the assumption that anarchy is chaos is prevelant, it appears as part of the dictionary definition (even so there is no doubt that Gek had to search for a while to find such a definition). So with this assumption, which is not inherently part of anarchy, being added in prior to the examination, the entire argument becomes question begging. In other words the argument never stood a chance of being well reasoned, or leading to a true conclusion. So we can clearly see that in two separate ways this was a strawman creation, which as we all also know is not only intellectual dishonest, it causes the strawman itself to be of no value.

Mar 7, 2004, 05:05 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Two problems with this assertion. 1. Gecko did not even stick to the definition, but rather added characteristics to make it easier to attack, thus creating a strawman. *no, he added additional premises and tried to construct a sound and valid argument... the definition of anarchy is correct, not a strawman 2. Dictionaries are necessarily unreliable in capturing a specific notion. :rolleyes: necessarily unreliable? What the dictionary offered in this case was ALL uses of the word. Now since the assumption that anarchy is chaos is prevelant, it appears as part of the dictionary definition (even so there is no doubt that Gek had to search for a while to find such a definition). no, he didn't... didn't have to search for more than half a second, take some time and read the whole definition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy -------------------------------- So with this assumption, which is not inherently part of anarchy, being added in prior to the examination, the entire argument becomes question begging. :rolleyes: there was no assumption added... his conclusion to be anarchist is to be anti life is not involved in the definition of anarchy -------------------------------- In other words the argument never stood a chance of being well reasoned, or leading to a true conclusion. :rolleyes: no, the argument does not fail, it is both sound and valid So we can clearly see that in two separate ways this was a strawman creation, which as we all also know is not only intellectual dishonest, it causes the strawman itself to be of no value. ******no, there was no strawman created, nor did he beg the question <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 05:17 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Impenitent, Um.. you just stated denials, but offered nothing to support them. Of course the arguments that geck offered remain unsound, they are based on false assumptions as I have conclusively proven. BTW just so not pretense at all can survive, Gexk added: "no (an) - ruler (rules/organization/order)(archy)" Notice where anarchy merely means no government, geck added the notion of no organization, and no order, neither of which accurately describes or are necessary to anarchy. This is the second step of the strawman. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by as much as out esteem antistatists would like us believe there is no middle form between order and no order<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is a false dichotomoy as well as a strawman. No one here has taken this position contrary to gecks claims. But even if they had, the fact is that there are an infinite number of degrees of order:disorder ratio. Furthermore, geck is equivocating here with the word "order" he uses it to mean political regimes, but then also to mean any and all forms of order or organization. The two are not identical. Political regimes are but one form of organization, they do not encompass all possibilities, nor even anything but a small fraction. To add yet another step on this strawman parade, geck adds the notion of entropy, which has nothing to do with anarchy, but geck pretends that entropy is anarchy, not even bothering to equivocate, but rather to simply stipulate. So with false premises, mischaracterizations, strawmen, equivocation, and other logical fallacies, there is no hope of this argument being informative of anything other than Geck himself, and it is impossible for it to be reasoned or sound. But by all means do not take my word for it, anyone familiar with reason can verify these objective facts.

Mar 7, 2004, 04:23 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Nice strawman. Nothing in anarchy prohibits or works against order, or organization. That was your addition so as to make the position appear easier to attack. But even so, you do not follow your own strawman creation, but rather simply STIPULATE that anarchy is chaos. Never mind reality, never mind reason; instead put your own ideology above both then claim that reality and reason are mistaken. The absence of government in no way necessitates chaos, and you have not offered anything to even begin to demonstrate that it might, much less that the advocacy of freedom necessitates chaos. A cornerstone of honest civil intellectual discussions is the ability and willingness to take the positions of others seriously, treat them critically but HONESTLY, and to exhibit a general respect for persons as well as reason.

Mar 7, 2004, 04:33 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	You would have to be honest yourself ... But hey, who care about you :). Gecko makes a point, earth entropy would certainly get higher in an anarchist system, simply because it would take more information to describe the whole system . So it's entropy is higher, hence it would be more chaotic ... I just did you a scientific prove that it would be more chaotic... Will you say that even that is non-sense ? LOL Certainly not, cause it would contradict that in your head every little thing you say is truth... Grow up man ! I just prove you something with logic using formal definition ... You see what it give when you do that ? Think about it ...

Mar 7, 2004, 04:36 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Let me make a prediction on your answer ... Nice straw man (probably cause you like to say to to dodge answers) Then I'm not honest, I am not interrest in discussion (cause you like to project your own personnality on people ,very common and very basic in psychology ) followed by whatever absurd logic wich will fit you opinion ... Have fun !

Mar 7, 2004, 04:41 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Mat, By all means have any and all of my posts verified by any logican of your choosing. I have nothing to fear. Nice personal attack btw. Why not address the issues in a mature manner common to all intellecual discussions? What have you to fear?

Mar 7, 2004, 05:39 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	The entire point with anarchism, is that it looks good on paper and is something you can dream about. But just like with the original teachings of Karl Marx, reality is probably (note: probably) something quite different. Lightbearer, like I said in another post, you are quite sound with logical arguments and quite literate in the ways of argumentation techniques. But, you fail to debate over the real reasoning behind an argument and your own argumentation suffers from the lack of compassion or understanding of the other side's (if you can even speak of such a thing) issues with anarchy. I'm not saying you should feel the same way as other people, but you should at least show you understand what they mean to say. Usually, your posts consists of a technical analysis and a structural decomposition of other people's sentences, without regards to other's position or arguments as a whole. If you really want people to understand your position, you should start from their point of view and 'guide' them towards your conclusions. Most of your posts consist of "what you say is false, wrong, unbased" followed or mixed with a dosis of anarchist rhetoric like "slavery, theft, death, evil". But, back to the topic. The funny thing is, we have a system which more or less works for most people. And we will probably agree it is better than the systems which existed before and it is better than most systems in the rest of the world. You can see that most people are reluctant to give up on something which seemingly works. Everything I've said so far is of course debatable, but this probably is what most people feel. They'll have some issues with this or that little thing, but most are happy with the structures which exist in their life. I also think this is the reason why most people aren't really interested in politics besides what they see at the 6 o'clock news. As long as things in their life get done, as long as there is food, no threat from war and probably some leisure for them, they just don’t care. So, compared with the revolutions and chaos of the past, we are probably doing quite well so far, as indifference seems to be an indication of how well a social structure works. I can see why some people think of anarchy as a viable alternative, but since it's so radical I don't think it is realistic to think it will ever become a reality. (for better or for worse) I believe the basic concept behind a government is sound and that a democracy, as an ideology, is the best form of governance. I think a population needs some form of order and a set of laws which are enforced. A restraint, if you will, to prevent anyone from within that system to act in an undesirable manner. If you have issues with a current system, I think it is better to change that system from within, rather than try to attack it from outside. Hope & Dream

Mar 7, 2004, 05:42 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) the strongest would play dictator of the neighborhood...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The colonists shoot the police and soldiers of their lawful "government" abolishing their rule in America. Welcome to anarchy. The US steals the land of the rightful inhabitants of America. Welcome to anarchy. The US violently compels states to remain in a union. Welcome to anarchy. The US invades Cuba and the Philippines. Welcome to anarchy. The US invades Europe. Welcome to anarchy. The US invades Korea. Welcome to anarchy. The US invades Vietnam: Welcome to anarchy. Kent State massacre: Welcome to anarchy. The US overthrows Allende in Chile. Welcome to anarchy. The US invades Grenada: Welcome to anarchy Waco massacre: Welcome to anarchy. The US invades Haiti: Welcome to anarchy. The US invades Iraq: Welcome to anarchy. The war on drugs: Welcome to anarchy The income tax: Welcome to anarchy. The US railorads Martha Stewart. Welcome to anarchy. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by and it wasn't a strawman, it is the definition of the term<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Dictionary definition 1 a: -- absence of government If "government" is all that crap above (and all the crap done by other "governments" around the world) and more, then it is indistinguishable from anarchy. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 7, 2004, 05:45 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Impenitent, Um.. you just stated denials, but offered nothing to support them. Of course the arguments that geck offered remain unsound, they are based on false assumptions as I have conclusively proven. :rolleyes: no, the premises are true and you have not proven them false... the argument is sound... your conclusion is incorrect BTW just so not pretense at all can survive, Gexk added: "no (an) - ruler (rules/organization/order)(archy)" Notice where anarchy merely means no government, geck added the notion of no organization, and no order, --------------- :rolleyes: no, he did not "add" this to the definition, it is in the definition neither of which accurately describes or are necessary to anarchy. ** yes, both are in the definition This is the second step of the strawman. ***** it is not a strawman, it is the definition </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by as much as out esteem antistatists would like us believe there is no middle form between order and no order<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is a false dichotomoy as well as a strawman. :rolleyes: no, there is nothing false about it, nor is it a strawman No one here has taken this position contrary to gecks claims. :rolleyes: you have But even if they had, the fact is that there are an infinite number of degrees of order:disorder ratio. not logically... it is A or it is ~A Furthermore, geck is equivocating here with the word "order" he uses it to mean political regimes, but then also to mean any and all forms of order or organization. The two are not identical. Political regimes are but one form of organization, they do not encompass all possibilities, nor even anything but a small fraction. To add yet another step on this strawman parade, geck adds the notion of entropy, which has nothing to do with anarchy, but geck pretends that entropy is anarchy, not even bothering to equivocate, but rather to simply stipulate. no, his claim was entropy is chaos and maximum entropy is death So with false premises, mischaracterizations, strawmen, equivocation, and other logical fallacies, there is no hope of this argument being informative of anything other than Geck himself, and it is impossible for it to be reasoned or sound. But by all means do not take my word for it, anyone familiar with reason can verify these objective facts. ** I'll make this logic 101 simple for you P1 anarchy is absense of order -true All A is O P2 absense of order is chaos -true All O is C c anarchy is chaos -true All A is C P3 chaos is death -true All C is D :. anarchy is death -true All A is D sound and valid... I'd show you on a venn diagram as well but you probably haven't gotten to that chapter yet... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 05:51 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	Here's the diference between anarchy and anarchism: Anarchy is the absence of "government." Anarchism is the philosophy that advocates life without a state, or abolishing the state. Some people assert that the world already is in a state of anarchy (the absence of "government," i.e., the agency with the right to rule); that the state is a gang of lawyers and thugs running a protection racket; that "government" is a euphemism for that gang -- that the belief in "government is a delusion by which the gang can convince some people that the gang is legitimate. I am one of them. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 7, 2004, 05:54 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	oh and you feel alone and you came here to look for some friend ?

Mar 7, 2004, 08:07 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Who ever says that anarchy = chaos is wrong. Anarchy is simply an existance without a state. Chaos is where everyone has gone mad and starting rioting/looting/killing. One of the biggest media/state supporter myths is that Anarchy implies Chaos. It's simply not true. Perhaps in the first little bit you would have some chaotic groups...but they would eventually die down as people realized they needed to defend themselves instead of depending on the state to do it.

Mar 7, 2004, 09:58 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Well chaos is also the apparent disorder emerging from a determinist system or phenomena.

Mar 7, 2004, 11:56 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Ok... it's not anarchy

Mar 8, 2004, 12:19 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Tusaki, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I'm not saying you should feel the same way as other people, but you should at least show you understand what they mean to say. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I offer to everyone the exact same respect that is found in all honest civil, intellectual discussions. I take what is said at face value and do not try to read minds, or presume to know what is in the heart of any other. I simply take them at their words. This is not a lack of compassion, it is respect. I am not going to insult anyone by presuming to know what they intended to say, as if I could know better than they. They choose their words and I accept that these were their choices. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Usually, your posts consists of a technical analysis and a structural decomposition of other people's sentences, without regards to other's position or arguments as a whole. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am not sure if this is dishonest of you, or if you are simply quite confused as to the facts. I clearly take the arguments as a whole, and I leave off any structural decomposition of other people's sentences. Could you cite any instance where I commented on the structure of anyone's sentence at all? Where are the cases of corrections of spelling, or grammar? Despite some pretty atrocious spelling and worse grammar, I have not made a single comment regarding such structural composition. Instead I have focused on the arguments themselves. I have noted the problems with the positions taken. I have cited the specific errors that prevent a given argument from being a refutation. And unlike many of those who have responded, I have not made any of this personal, nor brought in insults, personal attacks or criticisms, nor ad hominems. As for the dismissal of the facts as rhetoric, well there really is not much to say concerning that is there? Each of my statements has been carefully proven, by objective standards. So you can dismiss the facts as rhetoric, or you (and others of course) could cease the nonsensical personality crap, and attempts to dissect me as a person, and simply deal with the issues. There is more than a little irony that in this post where you spend the entire time trying to criticize me for traits not possessed or with presumed knowledge that you do not and could not have, that you would in that criticism suggest that I have not focused on the issues. I can see why some people think of anarchy as a viable alternative, but since it's so radical I don't think it is realistic to think it will ever become a reality. (for better or for worse) Again with the offhand dismissals. There is nothing radical about peaceful and voluntary association. There is nothing radical about not stealing from your neighbors or having another do it for you. There is nothing radical about suggesting that violence against innocents is wrong. There is nothing radical about personal responsibility. So before you dismiss freedom entirely, before you slap a convenient label on it so that you do not have to think about it, maybe you ought to consider it for a moment. Re: the tired old “change it from within rhetoric” Would you join the KKK to change their views and actions? Would you endorse child molestors (aka the church) in order to change the behavior? Would you give your time, money and appearance of legitimacy to thugs in the alley in order to change them from within? Is there any line that you would not cross in following this suggestion of yours? If so, then why that line and not a firm principle instead? What is so wrong with striving for freedom anyway? Why is this idea so fear inducing that at least a vocal minority have taken it upon themselves to offer criticism, not of the issues, but of individuals, or in the worse cases simple insults and personal attacks? I realize that you cannot answer for anyone else, but perhaps you would answer the question for yourself, just to appease my curiosity.

Mar 8, 2004, 12:24 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Imp, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But even if they had, the fact is that there are an infinite number of degrees of order:disorder ratio. **** not logically... it is A or it is ~A<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Since the entirety of your post was once again restatement of already refuted assumptions, I am simply ignoring it, making an exception for the above comment only because it is so incredibly absurd. What you have offered is known as a false dichotomy. And yes this is another logical fallacy. Look in the general discussion threads for links to sites which will explain in detail the logical fallacies. As for your repeated assumptions that unsound emoting is sound reasoning, I encourage you to seek out any logician of your choosing and have the thread evaluated. You will find that in fact I have been extremely generous. And before you presume your own omniscience, you really ought to know a bit about the individual you are trying to insult. Not only are all of the fallacies that I noted existent as I have noted them, but your "lesson" would be laughed at by any intro to logic student. I know, because I have taught the class at one of the largest universities in the US. Damn that reality and reason spoiling your fun again!

Mar 8, 2004, 03:39 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	why is the belief that anarchy is chaos a myth? time and time again you point out how statism is murder/extortion/threats that is also a myth you take a government action you distil it to its most extreme condition and claim all government is like that