So Gene,
didn't even want to try and touch Johnson's post which more formally expounded some of the arguments I was also making, eh?Your cherry-picking is beginning to lead me to believe that you are, in fact, not discussing in good-faith nor making every attempt to:
- Be intellectually honest by acknowledging the logical conclusions that some of your arguments bring about.
- Interpreting a post in the best-possible favor of the person you are discussing the topic with. (i.e. - "Whenever there is doubt, give them the benefit of yours.")
If you check dictionary.com and see the first meaning of "anarchy" I think you will find that your statement is in error.
1. a state of society without government or law.
Ooo ooo... let's see what else the dictionary says about 'anarchy':
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
So -
You have been found guilty of selective interpretation to suit your argument in bad faith, as I am fairly sure in my readings of your posts throughout this BBS is that you will interpret Anarchy as #3 when it suits your needs ("Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer,
et al), but have apparently decided to use interpretation #1 because it doesn't open your argument up for the rebuttal I'm
about to make.Classy.
Two people agreeing that there is no "authority" (or "government") does not create a "government" nor create a "law".
Fail, Gene: "The law is there is no law."
Notice:
- This constitutes an agreement - This *is* a form of governance; the individuals participating in the agreement have, by their acceptance of anarchy, implicitly recognize and adhere to the limitation of: "there is no law," or if we take a more appropriate interpretation of 'Anarchy,' for the liberty-minded, "there is no law over others; the only law is 'natural law'."
i.e. the NAP, etc...
- Through the agreement, the recognition of individual authority is created and recognized. - If, for the making your argument the best possible, i.e. a "voluntarist" style of Anarchy, then each person realized that they have authority over themselves (abstract synthesis), and that their authority does not overstep or usurp the authority of another individual (behavioral compliance of the abstract principle).
governance: There are rules as a result of abstract synthesis and behavioral compliance - even insofar that the individual/group recognizes that the only rules that are applicable are those that one applies to himself and no other.
I maintain that we are currently in a state of society without "law".
I want you to make note that you said this, because I'm going to step you through how this is going lead undermining some of your points and assertations regarding "authority" in a bit.
If you don't believe me, try to have some of these "politicians" prosecuted for the "violations" of their written (fictitious) laws. They are quite immune because they are "in" on the secret that there really is no law, no "authority". Only force by those who want to take against those whom they can violate. The past criminal in chief "W" was immune and the current criminal in chief "O" are aware of this fact. They will continue to cooperate with each other in order to keep the charade going.
Fail; strawman.
You have been found guilty of intentionally (once again) side-stepping my entire point, attempting to change the context of point and mis-interpreting to suit your purposes as well as playing the game of 'bad analogy.'Let's look at what I said again:
Oh, and by the way - once you have a community of more than one individual who agrees/believes in a "Lack of government" (Anarchy) - you have in fact created an agreed upon system of governance (i.e. "the rule is there are no rules") and thus making Anarchy once again - an abstract concept as there have now been accepted and agreed upon "limits."
So.
"Anarchy" can never be a "government" because those who acknowledge anarchy, by their acknowledgment of it, accept that there can be no "authority" over others... And then we're back to the fact that fiction "government" and fiction "authority" are symbiotic.
edit:
I'll assume my color coding is a result of improper reading - and thus retract my first portion of this section's response to give you be benefit of the doubt.My points above cover this already. Circular, Superfluous and therefore irrelevant unless to illustrate that the
Law of the Jungle is reality and that one should oppress others as it is the only objectively proven way - through you numerous unsolicited examples of "today's government" - to ensure the maximum benefit of the individual and those he/she cares about.
I respectfully "clap out" of this thread - 2 violations of arguing in Bad Faith are enough for me, and therefore I exercise my right to abstention.
This will be my final post on any matters in this thread dealing with
Abstract concepts as fiction. I will of course read and consider any response you may have, but I will not indulge in a discussion I no longer believe is being conducted in good faith.
この授業はすごく興味深かったです。あなたは私に喋ったありがとうございました。