This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Obama a socialist?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You're lumping potential claim and actual claim into one. I have a doll in my hand and a gun in the other. You want the doll but don't have a gun. I have an actual claim on the doll, you have a potential claim on the doll. I > you in relation to claiming the doll.
That's why true anarchy is only theoretical. You will never be able to have a situation where everyone has equal control over everyone else, otherwise someone will rule over someone else, and it will no longer be an anarchy.
No one's ruling over anyone. If we both have a claim to the doll, but only one can actually have it, it falls to the laws of probability. The guy with a gun has something like a 99% probability of actualizing his claim, the guy without a gun has a 1% chance.
Anarchy is the absence of state. Not the absence of natural power/selection.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm just trying to figure out how much/how closely one would link Obama to Marx and Lenin?
That is the point right?
Not really. It isn't that I want to compare Obama to a failed political leader. My intention is not to mock the man. I just disagree that his economic policies are in the best interest of the american middle class. In my opinion, state run economics, if the government is elected, is socialist. I agree that socialism exists outside of government, as in the case of anarchy, but that doesnt mean they never co exist either. That's all I'm saying. That's it. Not that Obama is a crazy commie, or that hes a fascius nazi, or anything crazy like that. I think the economic policy would be best left to the market. Some companies fail, in this example. People point out the failed companies as a failure of capitolism. I think it is great that some companies fail. I think that is one of its strengths. But this is all speculative conjecture. This is just my opinion.
I would appreciate if people would take my opinion at face value, and try no to read into it and apply more to it than I have stated.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, that's why I'm saying you are saying that there are no rules. You said you can't control anything, and controlling something is ruling it. Therefore, you are saying there is no rule in any system, because there is no control.
I say something about anarchy, and therefore I'm saying it about everything else?
What?
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Guess you should properly define the anarchy you are talking about, because anarchy as it is defined means without a ruler. Also, it depends on how you define "state". Plenty of "states" are simply one guy leading a band of troops that is more powerful than any other troops in the region, and that is classified as a dictatorship, but I wouldn't say there is a government.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But there is a thid guy who put poison in the first two guys' coffee cups. Everyone else has a 0% chance of ending up with the doll.
Just to complicate things. This sort of chain could go on forever.
This is why I have the hardest time arguing with you. You say things as if to rebuttal my point, but really all you're doing is supporting it.
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, that's why I'm saying you are saying that there are no rules. You said you can't control anything, and controlling something is ruling it. Therefore, you are saying there is no rule in any system, because there is no control.
I say something about anarchy, and therefore I'm saying it about everything else?
What?
You said you can't control something else. Period. Additionally, rule in built on control. I see no conditionals involved. Nothing can be controlled, nothing can be ruled.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Guess you should properly define the anarchy you are talking about, because anarchy as it is defined means without a ruler. Also, it depends on how you define "state". Plenty of "states" are simply one guy leading a band of troops that is more powerful than any other troops in the region, and that is classified as a dictatorship, but I wouldn't say there is a government.
Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any constituted authority.
A state of disorder due to lack of government or control.
That's how I'm using it, and how most other people use it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, that's why I'm saying you are saying that there are no rules. You said you can't control anything, and controlling something is ruling it. Therefore, you are saying there is no rule in any system, because there is no control.
I say something about anarchy, and therefore I'm saying it about everything else?
What?
You said you can't control something else.
No I didn't. You can't control anything
in anarchy
.
Post by
TheMediator
Your second link confirms what I said. You are NOT using that way. There is no lack of control in a society where might makes right.
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, that's why I'm saying you are saying that there are no rules. You said you can't control anything, and controlling something is ruling it. Therefore, you are saying there is no rule in any system, because there is no control.
I say something about anarchy, and therefore I'm saying it about everything else?
What?
You said you can't control something else.
No I didn't. You can't control anything
in anarchy
.
No one's ruling over anyone. If we both have a claim to the doll, but only one can actually have it, it falls to the laws of probability. The guy with a gun has something like a 99% probability of actualizing his claim, the guy without a gun has a 1% chance.
I don't see the word anarchy there anywhere. Additionally, regardless of political system, it comes down to who can protect their stuff, the only difference is that in one government system or another, there is a different probability for each person due to others intervening in the conflict for different reasons, but you still have the situation that one person can claim it with different likelihoods.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No one's ruling over anyone. If we both have a claim to the doll, but only one can actually have it, it falls to the laws of probability. The guy with a gun has something like a 99% probability of actualizing his claim, the guy without a gun has a 1% chance.
I don't see the word anarchy there anywhere. Additionally, regardless of political system, it comes down to who can protect their stuff, the only difference is that in one government system or another, there is a different probability for each person due to others intervening in the conflict for different reasons, but you still have the situation that one person can claim it with different likelihoods.
You have a nasty habit of not paying attention to context. I've been discussing anarchy for some pages now. And if you actually look at
what
I was replying to, oh look! Anarchy!
If argument from authority is the weakest kind of arguement, I don't even want to know what that makes an argument from a made-up authority.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
HSR I dont mean to play word games, and I am not attempting to refute anything, but I meant to point out that the state of anarchy is vastly more complex than any scenario we want to throw around. I guess I also meant to refute the value you placed on the gun/tank.
Obviously it is more complex that two guys and 1 doll. Do you really want to spend 2-3 hours coming up with a scenario that covers all possible people and motives? It's pointless because the simple example works fine.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Agreed. Many many figures in government are to blame for the erroneous allocation of currency. However, can you agree that this does not alleviate or lessen the blame of any one of them individually?
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.