Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Most of this is tl:dr, but I would like to chime in, if you all don't mind, especially on the topic of anarchy vs statism. While I would personally be most easily categorized as an anarchist, I don't think I could commit to such an ideology in full. Consider the geographic areas of the world that are more or less anarchic: Afghanistan, the horn of Africa, and the Amazon rain forest. The first two are distopian, primarily because of the meddling of foreign interests and governments, which leads to rampant corruption and civil war. The tribes of the Amazon live a relatively peaceful life, but because they are protected by the Brazilian government the way we protect endangered animals, sealed in a virtual bubble. In all cases, the main drawback of anarchism is the complete lack of development of infrastructure and advanced technology. With that being said, I would argue that the only favorable alternative to anarchy (or at least a loose confederation of sovereign local areas) is dictatorship. In a dictatorship, issues are resolved quickly, the rights of the ruling party (which if you are a member, then good for you) are assured, and (generally speaking) the economy is stable and grows at a vigorous rate.
A dictatorship is unacceptable to most because of the exclusion and abuse of those outside the ruling party. I don't equate statism with dictatorship, because the "state" is too general of a term. A state is a dictatorship, a monarchy, and theocracy, a democracy, or any other politically organized national unit. States are never 100% free, but our current level of civilization is simply not possible without the organization of the infrastructure and means of production made possible by the state. I just wish that we had an alternative to totalitarianism and democracy, because under either system there are groups that are undeservedly oppressed. There has to be a way to organize society towards developing dependable and efficient infrastructure and advanced technology while guaranteeing the personal freedoms of all individuals.

 

[Dak]

Knowledge, by definition, is dictated by limits. You hold up knowledge as a kind of universal maxim that, once all people attain it, will "set us free." While I'm absolutely for the enlightenment of the masses, I don't think knowledge functions this way. People might become enlightened to their oppressed situation, but this doesn't mean that after overthrowing the ruling class they will set off on a journey of uninhibited liberty. Most likely, those who lead the revolution will establish a new ruling class.

The more enlightened thing to do, in my opinion, is work toward a form of governmental system that serves/cooperates with its people more successfully than any of the systems hitherto attempted.

The problem is that once you create the monster, it works for itself. This has been documented ad nauseum throughout history. Again, I do not assert that "power does not abhor a vacuum", but merely that know statist apparatus is objectivily better than another, because they all are not only more or less slavery at inception, but will without fail become corrupt, unless they are overrun first.

Caroll Quigley documents the process quite thoroughly.

I understand your revolutionary approach, but I think that your proposed actions achieve little compared to your philosophy. You make excellent critiques of a statist apparatus, but your solution fails to address all the issues of your argument.

A more practical approach, in my opinion, would be no less revolutionary; but I cannot condone and can hardly imagine a situation where we attempt to let anarchy reign, primarily because I think we can come to a resolution without resorting to blind tribal brutism.

So I suppose, yes: I support some form of a statist regime, but not the one in power now. Unfortunately, ideology will always be a problem for as long as human beings retain the level of consciousness we now have; and as long as ideology is a problem, civilization will continue to develop and mature in a direction that tends toward hierarchical power structures that inevitably become "statist." Rather than keep batting ourselves away from this tendency, we should work toward a new conception of government and individual.

EDIT: and you should read Louis Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" if you haven't already.

The root of the problem is that the overwhelming majority of people merely shrug and accept the need for a slave master, if for no other reason than to have a more familier one than the boogeyman next door/across the ocean.

It is a question of authority and control, and there is no argument for external authority that does not stand, at it's root, on an appeal to force, which is a logical fallacy. So instead of making excuses, we should, as (at least self proclaimed) intellectuals, be attempting to spread the truth, instead of using our intellect merely to attempt to control things to our benefit at the expense of our fellow man by supporting the state in return for the crumbs it leaves.

 

[Dak]

It would be cool if it were clear (1) what exactly you mean by "individual sovereignty", and (2) how that concept is relevant to your views and the aspects of them that I take issue with. I'm not addressing something if I don't even know what the hell you're talking about, you goofball.

Why do I get the feeling that that you're just trying to avoid having to defend your views? I presented a perfectly intelligible and legitimate criticism and all you can say is "individual sovereignty, bro." Oh, I see. Well, I guess that answers all my questions!

Except I believe that you do know. The supreme authority over one's self, actions, production, etc.

The "state", in whatever form it takes, acts with illegitimate supreme authority.

 

[Einherjar86]

Caroll Quigley documents the process quite thoroughly.

I've never read him, but I might have to.

It is a question of authority and control, and there is no argument for external authority that does not stand, at it's root, on an appeal to force, which is a logical fallacy.

Why is that a logical fallacy? Someone who acts in retaliation acts with an appeal to force.

So instead of making excuses, we should, as (at least self proclaimed) intellectuals, be attempting to spread the truth, instead of using our intellect merely to attempt to control things to our benefit at the expense of our fellow man by supporting the state in return for the crumbs it leaves.

This "truth" you refer to is elusive. I don't think there is any constant, universally standing truth that we can ground our actions in. All your theory will do is trade one form of oppression/subjection for another.

Except I believe that you do know. The supreme authority over one's self, actions, production, etc.

The "state", in whatever form it takes, acts with illegitimate supreme authority.

Why is it illegitimate?

 

[Dak]

Why is that a logical fallacy? Someone who acts in retaliation acts with an appeal to force.

On the practical level, because force cannot be reasoned with. Having to cease either productivity or leisure to stop infractions on your authority is still acting under coercion until the threat is removed.

This "truth" you refer to is elusive. I don't think there is any constant, universally standing truth that we can ground our actions in. All your theory will do is trade one form of oppression/subjection for another.

The "truth" in this case is nothing ambiguous. It is, most simply, that the state has no authority beyond force, and will always eventually fail.

Why is it illegitimate?

Where does the state get it's authority?

 

[Einherjar86]

On the practical level, because force cannot be reasoned with. Having to cease either productivity or leisure to stop infractions on your authority is still acting under coercion until the threat is removed.

You won't convince me of this because you keep deploying subjective terms as well, despite the fact that you criticized me earlier for using them.

"Force" is not as easily definable as you suggest. Someone who attacks his neighbor's plot of land to steal a sheep might claim that he was merely acting in retaliation, since his neighbor wouldn't sell him the sheep as a price he could afford. They bartered, but his neighbor could not be "reasoned with" to sell the animal at a lower price.

The shepherd will certainly claim that it was his right to deny the man a lower price, and that he was attacked unjustly.

Your definition requires a universal constant to refer to, but there isn't one; "force" is a highly ambiguous term.

The "truth" in this case is nothing ambiguous. It is, most simply, that the state has no authority beyond force, and will always eventually fail.

As I've said before, under a statist authority concessions must be made. This is part of the social contract. As a logical fallacy it can still be necessary.

It's interesting to me that you use this opportunity to point out the fact that statist authority constitutes a logical fallacy when you yourself choose to ignore the fallacious nature of some of your other beliefs (i.e. on homosexuality).

 

[Dak]

You won't convince me of this because you keep deploying subjective terms as well, despite the fact that you criticized me earlier for using them.

"Force" is not as easily definable as you suggest.

Really?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force

b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain

Someone who attacks his neighbor's plot of land to steal a sheep might claim that he was merely acting in retaliation, since his neighbor wouldn't sell him the sheep as a price he could afford. They bartered, but his neighbor could not be "reasoned with" to sell the animal at a lower price.

The shepherd will certainly claim that it was his right to deny the man a lower price, and that he was attacked unjustly.

Your definition requires a universal constant to refer to, but there isn't one; "force" is a highly ambiguous term.

What legitimate claim does the aggressor have? There is no ambiguity. If you feel that specific situation must give one pause to reflect, I would love to live next door to you. I am sure it would be quite profitable.

As I've said before, under a statist authority concessions must be made. This is part of the social contract. As a logical fallacy it can still be necessary.

"Social contract". A wonderfully ambiguous, heart tugging term.

My answer, written by Rothbard

It's interesting to me that you use this opportunity to point out the fact that statist authority constitutes a logical fallacy when you yourself choose to ignore the fallacious nature of some of your other beliefs (i.e. on homosexuality).

What are my fallacious beliefs? Since you used homosexuality as an example, what are my fallacious beliefs strictly in regards to homosexuality? Although I fear this may take us quite off our current course.

So, by silence on the root of authority question, and concession otherwise that state authority is a logical fallacy, I am left to assume you have decided to abandon reason for the much easier course of submission to your chains? In grander prose, you have surrendered to the lower functioning parts of the mind, one content to with appeals to force.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

I pass by this thread and it's always a mess of sloppy shit. wtf

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think you've mistaken this thread for your pants.

 

[Einherjar86]

Really?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force

Don't even fucking try, dude. You think because the word's in the damn dictionary it's not ambiguous?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

Earlier, we were commenting on the ambiguous nature of "reason." Don't try to claim that dictionary definitions are by any means exhaustive or comprehensive.

What legitimate claim does the aggressor have? There is no ambiguity. If you feel that specific situation must give one pause to reflect, I would love to live next door to you. I am sure it would be quite profitable.

I think I gave a fine explanation of why the aggressor might have a legitimate claim; at least in his own eyes. You can say that "reason" is ambiguous, but one's person explanation of who used force isn't? I think you're being hypocritical now.

What are my fallacious beliefs? Since you used homosexuality as an example, what are my fallacious beliefs strictly in regards to homosexuality? Although I fear this may take us quite off our current course.

I won't go into it. I'm sorry I brought it up.

So, by silence on the root of authority question, and concession otherwise that state authority is a logical fallacy, I am left to assume you have decided to abandon reason for the much easier course of submission to your chains? In grander prose, you have surrendered to the lower functioning parts of the mind, one content to with appeals to force.

Go ahead and insult me. I don't think you have a practical solution to anything you claim to.

 

[Dak]

Don't even fucking try, dude. You think because the word's in the damn dictionary it's not ambiguous?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

Earlier, we were commenting on the ambiguous nature of "reason." Don't try to claim that dictionary definitions are by any means exhaustive or comprehensive.

Reason is actually not ambiguous, but it gets used in an ambiguous manner. The enemy of clear language is insincerity. To defend (logically) indefensible positions one must resort to word smithing prior to the envitable appeal to force.

I think I gave a fine explanation of why the aggressor might have a legitimate claim; at least in his own eyes. You can say that "reason" is ambiguous, but one's person explanation of who used force isn't? I think you're being hypocritical now.

Both actually used forced, as per the definition. Only one used it legitimately.

I won't go into it. I'm sorry I brought it up.

Very well.

Go ahead and insult me. I don't think you have a practical solution to anything you claim to.

My only reason for saying what I did is because I know you can reason, have an extreme capacity for logic, and are choosing to abdicate it for expediency in our world that runs on force.

"Solution" is possibly the most subjective, ambiguous word in this thread, and until you give it a definition, it is unanswerable.

Do not take my harsher rhetoric for an attack on your faculties, merely the fact you are choosing to abdicate them. While it may be considered "practical", or "prudent", it does not make it logical, or subsequently "right".

Your harsh response leads me to believe I struck a nerve, which was my intent. I know you are capable of better than what you have posted so far.

 

[Einherjar86]

Reason is actually not ambiguous, but it gets used in an ambiguous manner. The enemy of clear language is insincerity. To defend (logically) indefensible positions one must resort to word smithing prior to the envitable appeal to force.

Words are slippery things; they're hardly specific. The fact is, logical arguments are as much susceptible to signifier-slippage as illogical ones. "Force" and "Reason" work well for you in your argument; but I see you as manipulating words to your advantage.

Logic itself is your eternal reference point; but I don't even think you have a handle on how logic (as some abstract universal concept) can be a slippery term. I don't believe that Logic is empirical, because different hold different values, and thus their logic takes different forms. In my attempted refutation of your argument, I want to claim that your "logic" is more harmful to others than it is beneficial.

Both actually used forced, as per the definition. Only one used it legitimately.

Your lines are too clear-cut. People can be unreasonable in action, even if that action is not "force," as it conforms to your definition. Unwarranted force is not the only form of unreasonable action. There is a difference between physical force and cognitive force, yet your definition only takes into account the physical infringement upon another's property.

My only reason for saying what I did is because I know you can reason, have an extreme capacity for logic, and are choosing to abdicate it for expediency in our world that runs on force.

"Solution" is possibly the most subjective, ambiguous word in this thread, and until you give it a definition, it is unanswerable.

Do not take my harsher rhetoric for an attack on your faculties, merely the fact you are choosing to abdicate them. While it may be considered "practical", or "prudent", it does not make it logical, or subsequently "right".

Your harsh response leads me to believe I struck a nerve, which was my intent. I know you are capable of better than what you have posted so far.

By "solution," I intend a system that works; or, at least, a system that works better than the one we have now. Unfortunately, I don't think you've created a better system, regardless of how logically sound it is.

I don't see your logic as mutually beneficial to all members of a civilization. Your strict divisions and seemingly rational arguments do not bring a society together; they create obstructions and divisions between people, and they do away with a mediator where, as is well-documented (I think), a mediator is sometimes exactly what is needed.

So I'll bite and say that I realize I'm not being logical, and have for several posts; but I think that in any governmental system, certain concessions must be made and that these will always conflict with the definitions of an individualist logic (logic, again, being something that differs from person to person).

Essentially, Dak, I think that you've done a wonderful job of defining your own individual little cosmology; but I think you'll have trouble extending this to others. Not necessarily from your own point of view, because you'll project your logic and values onto others (because, of course, we all think others should support our values); but other people are going to challenge the logic you use, and they're going to say that you're logic conforms nicely to your values.

 

[Dak]

Words are slippery things; they're hardly specific. The fact is, logical arguments are as much susceptible to signifier-slippage as illogical ones. "Force" and "Reason" work well for you in your argument; but I see you as manipulating words to your advantage.

That is why we define terms. To remove ambiguity. That is not "manipulating" them anymore than a dictionary manipulates words.

Logic itself is your eternal reference point; but I don't even think you have a handle on how logic (as some abstract universal concept) can be a slippery term. I don't believe that Logic is empirical, because different hold different values, and thus their logic takes different forms. In my attempted refutation of your argument, I want to claim that your "logic" is more harmful to others than it is beneficial.

Logic is empirical. The values provided as foundational are not. You can logically arrive any any conclusion provided the necessary foundational statements.

You have not managed to explain how my conclusions or premises are either harmful or wrong. As far as I can tell, you have acknowledged that all authority opperates on an appeal to force, obviously absent legitimate claim.

Your lines are too clear-cut. People can be unreasonable in action, even if that action is not "force," as it conforms to your definition. Unwarranted force is not the only form of unreasonable action. There is a difference between physical force and cognitive force, yet your definition only takes into account the physical infringement upon another's property.

By what authority do you get to make the decision that another individual's non-aggressive actions are "unreasonable"? Why does it even matter if they are?

By "solution," I intend a system that works; or, at least, a system that works better than the one we have now. Unfortunately, I don't think you've created a better system, regardless of how logically sound it is.

I don't see your logic as mutually beneficial to all members of a civilization.

You are right. I have not created a system. Specifically because I am contending no system based on an appeal to force works to the benefit of all mankind. It is slavery, and will only greatly benefit the slave masters.

I don't see your logic as mutually beneficial to all members of a civilization. Your strict divisions and seemingly rational arguments do not bring a society together; they create obstructions and divisions between people, and they do away with a mediator where, as is well-documented (I think), a mediator is sometimes exactly what is needed.

Oh really? A lack of a system creates obstructions and divisions? Like national boundaries, off-limits government property, nationalized resources, multiplicity of currencies and other economic regulatory measures, militaries, walls, immigration restrictions, taxes, etc? Like those?

You are not actually advocating a mediator though. That would imply mutual consent by all parties to reach an agreement. You are advocating a person with a gun pointing it at one or both parties not doing as he wishes.

So I'll bite and say that I realize I'm not being logical, and have for several posts; but I think that in any governmental system, certain concessions must be made and that these will always conflict with the definitions of an individualist logic (logic, again, being something that differs from person to person).

Logic is unchanging. Premises are not. Again, we go back to the question of authority. Making a "concession" at gun point is agreement under duress, and is not legally binding even in this system.

If the individual cannot lay claim to authority over himself, then how can he lay claim to authority over anything else? If the reason we need a system is because humans can be "unreasonable" (which you appear to be defining as "not doing as I wish"), I hope you have some sort of god sitting around to run it, because humans in charge of any system will always become more "unreasonable" than their chattel. (This is documented throughout history to happen without fail)

Essentially, Dak, I think that you've done a wonderful job of defining your own individual little cosmology; but I think you'll have trouble extending this to others. Not necessarily from your own point of view, because you'll project your logic and values onto others (because, of course, we all think others should support our values); but other people are going to challenge the logic you use, and they're going to say that you're logic conforms nicely to your values.

As long as values aren't contradictory, logic can always conform to them. I don't need, nor am I trying, to project values or logic onto anyone. That is what the state does, at gunpoint.

 

[Einherjar86]

That is why we define terms. To remove ambiguity. That is not "manipulating" them anymore than a dictionary manipulates words.

What makes you think that once it's defined it's set in stone? What if I don't agree with your definition of "force"?

Logic is empirical. The values provided as foundational are not. You can logically arrive any any conclusion provided the necessary foundational statements.

"The laws of logic are not immune to revision."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_logic_empirical?#W.V._Quine

Furthermore, if we take into account Foucault's conception of epistemological structures, logic changes based on the structuring episteme of a particular historical period; in fact, logic usually supports the power structures in place during a particular historical period. We fool ourselves into thinking our logic is somehow separate from our values, and constituted apart from them.

You have not managed to explain how my conclusions or premises are either harmful or wrong. As far as I can tell, you have acknowledged that all authority opperates on an appeal to force, obviously absent legitimate claim.

Harmful to whom, and wrong according to whom? Not to you, certainly; but to those whom your logic doesn't apply to.

By what authority do you get to make the decision that another individual's non-aggressive actions are "unreasonable"? Why does it even matter if they are?

If a non-aggressive action is "unreasonable" to the extent that it becomes harmful to another human being, I think that constitutes as an aggressive action. Sometimes, doing nothing is doing the worst thing.

You are right. I have not created a system. Specifically because I am contending no system based on an appeal to force works to the benefit of all mankind. It is slavery, and will only greatly benefit the slave masters.

So, you're proposing a non-system that still doesn't work to the benefit of all humankind; because we can be totally free, but unhappy?

Oh really? A lack of a system creates obstructions and divisions? Like national boundaries, off-limits government property, nationalized resources, multiplicity of currencies and other economic regulatory measures, militaries, walls, immigration restrictions, taxes, etc? Like those?

When all individuals possess means of destruction and the primary mediator for exchanges and interactions becomes threat of force (which, ironically, is what happens if all citizens possess firearms), then yes: the obstruction lies in the threat to force that stamps the face of every transaction from here on out.

You are not actually advocating a mediator though. That would imply mutual consent by all parties to reach an agreement. You are advocating a person with a gun pointing it at one or both parties not doing as he wishes.

You're advocating both parties possess guns so as to ensure the proper course of the transaction; and it might even play out so that the transaction and everything goes according to "logic."

The problem lies in the fact that after the transaction is complete, people still have the guns.

In transactions such as this, guns become the mediating force. They're the insurance that guarantees one side won't blow the other away. However, this pertains only to the situation as such, to the transaction itself; it doesn't take into account the fact that the transaction is comprised of two parties that exist beyond the circumstances of the transaction. The gun removes the human from the equation, thereby making the transaction "safe."

When the exchange is completed, and both sides go on their merry way, the gun functions as a means to power. The gun only plays a safe role as a mediator during exchange, and even this is questionable.

Logic is unchanging. Premises are not. Again, we go back to the question of authority. Making a "concession" at gun point is agreement under duress, and is not legally binding even in this system.

Logic isn't immune to revision.

If the individual cannot lay claim to authority over himself, then how can he lay claim to authority over anything else? If the reason we need a system is because humans can be "unreasonable" (which you appear to be defining as "not doing as I wish"), I hope you have some sort of god sitting around to run it, because humans in charge of any system will always become more "unreasonable" than their chattel. (This is documented throughout history to happen without fail)

And yet, many people seem to be happy being slaves, as you claim we all are under this awful state apparatus (which, don't get me wrong, I'm frustrated with probably just as much as you). My point is: do you claim that this is a false happiness, or a false contentment? Can human beings feel happy, and yet not truly be?

You would claim that there's an ideal of happiness that can only be attained through anarchy; through the absence of government influence.

I would argue that human beings can be perfectly happy under a system that maintains the threat of force, if the populace can maintain an equally quantifiable and vigilant threat of force itself (which is the traditional republican dream; that a citizenry can overthrow its government and establish a new one).

As long as values aren't contradictory, logic can always conform to them.

And logic will, therefore, differ among human beings.

 

[Draehl]

My universal constant is that this level of nitpickery is quite the waste of time. Good day.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ein never lets up. I think he should change his name to Advocatus Diaboli.

 

[Dak]

What makes you think that once it's defined it's set in stone? What if I don't agree with your definition of "force"?

Well then we are still stuck at agreeing to terms then.

"The laws of logic are not immune to revision."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_logic_empirical?#W.V._Quine

Furthermore, if we take into account Foucault's conception of epistemological structures, logic changes based on the structuring episteme of a particular historical period; in fact, logic usually supports the power structures in place during a particular historical period. We fool ourselves into thinking our logic is somehow separate from our values, and constituted apart from them.

I think we are getting wrapped in semantics here for sure. I basically said as much originally.

Harmful to whom, and wrong according to whom? Not to you, certainly; but to those whom your logic doesn't apply to.

But what is the definition of harmful? We cannot create and institute a system to prevent something we cannot mutually define.

If a non-aggressive action is "unreasonable" to the extent that it becomes harmful to another human being, I think that constitutes as an aggressive action. Sometimes, doing nothing is doing the worst thing.

We still haven't defined harmful, and there is no such thing as conscious non-action. Choosing to do nothing is an action.

So, you're proposing a non-system that still doesn't work to the benefit of all humankind; because we can be totally free, but unhappy?

Who is unhappy? Why are they unhappy? What is happiness? Since no system gauruntees that everyone will be "happy", what else can we use to universally judge by?

Plantation slavery certainly made the owners happy, the slave traders happy, the buyers of goods made through forced labor happy. It is no different with any other form of slavery. Are the slaves happy? I'm sure some were content.

Let's use a current example. Why is NATO in Libya? In Afghanistan? In Iraq? Did the majority of people request help? Did we save lives? What about the people who supported Mao? Support Ghaddafi? Supported British Imperialism? The Crusades? What about the billions of Muslims?

Since you have already agreed to abdicate logic to pursue a system which meet's your own conceived notions of a "happy existence". I doubt the billions of Muslims would agree with your ideas, or many Americans, and so on and so on. So if we abdicate logic we are left with force. Might makes right. Which means we best jump on the strongest bandwagon before we get rolled under it, and can pat ourselves on the back for being so "smart".

When all individuals possess means of destruction and the primary mediator for exchanges and interactions becomes threat of force (which, ironically, is what happens if all citizens possess firearms), then yes: the obstruction lies in the threat to force that stamps the face of every transaction from here on out.

Um, every transaction already takes place under threat of force. The force is just coming from the state instead of you.

You're advocating both parties possess guns so as to ensure the proper course of the transaction; and it might even play out so that the transaction and everything goes according to "logic."

The problem lies in the fact that after the transaction is complete, people still have the guns.

And? You don't find it a problem that the state perpetually has guns (or swords, etc.)

In transactions such as this, guns become the mediating force. They're the insurance that guarantees one side won't blow the other away. However, this pertains only to the situation as such, to the transaction itself; it doesn't take into account the fact that the transaction is comprised of two parties that exist beyond the circumstances of the transaction. The gun removes the human from the equation, thereby making the transaction "safe."

They are already the mediating force. Merely the wielder is different. When the wielder is the state, and not the individual, it will use it to protect the state, not the people. This is why we have a penal system and not one of restitution. The loss of the victim does not matter, merely the loss of productivity to the state.

When the exchange is completed, and both sides go on their merry way, the gun functions as a means to power. The gun only plays a safe role as a mediator during exchange, and even this is questionable.

Which is why no one in their right mind would abdicate the power to someone else.

And yet, many people seem to be happy being slaves, as you claim we all are under this awful state apparatus (which, don't get me wrong, I'm frustrated with probably just as much as you). My point is: do you claim that this is a false happiness, or a false contentment? Can human beings feel happy, and yet not truly be?

As of right now many people do not realize they are slaves. Propaganda is a wonderful thing. Granted, many people are more than happy to "trade their birthright for a pot of porrage". But that only hands over a claim to their person and labor. Not to the earth.

You would claim that there's an ideal of happiness that can only be attained through anarchy; through the absence of government influence.

I would argue that human beings can be perfectly happy under a system that maintains the threat of force, if the populace can maintain an equally quantifiable and vigilant threat of force itself (which is the traditional republican dream; that a citizenry can overthrow its government and establish a new one).

And logic will, therefore, differ among human beings.

The United States was set up this way, and the United States vs Confederate States war completely destroyed the original concept of participation by consent.

Even in anarchy peace is held by threat of force. Again, it is a question of authority. Who gets to hold the gun?

By your logic, the best possible system would be a theocratic totalitarian world dictatorship.

 

[Einherjar86]

By my definition, the best possible system hasn't been invented yet.

I'm just of the opinion that we should come up with adaptations of state-run systems rather than non-systems.

And I think that people's happiness should be taken into account. I feel that a lot of people would be unhappy in your ideal world because they wouldn't have the skills necessary to survive (or survive easily).

 

[Dak]

By my definition, the best possible system hasn't been invented yet.

Invented? Or implemented?

I'm just of the opinion that we should come up with adaptations of state-run systems rather than non-systems.

And I think that people's happiness should be taken into account. I feel that a lot of people would be unhappy in your ideal world because they wouldn't have the skills necessary to survive (or survive easily).

Yes, I will readily agree that we could not just instantly dissolve all controlling systems without having absolute chaos (not to be confused with anarchy).

As I stated before, the first step towards any goal is education. So if people were educated that anarchy is the only means to pursue their own personal definition of happiness without pursuing it at the expense of their fellow man, eventually support for the state would collapse on it's own.

This requires those capable of educating to do so. Of course the state, in it's own interest, seeks to monopolize education towards it's own ends, and buys out budding intellectuals.

 

[Einherjar86]

As I stated before, the first step towards any goal is education. So if people were educated that anarchy is the only means to pursue their own personal definition of happiness without pursuing it at the expense of their fellow man, eventually support for the state would collapse on it's own.

Hypothetically, though: if people were happy paying a bit of extra money each year to contribute to the happiness of others, and didn't complain about it like many of us do now (even me), would it really be so bad if certain people sacrifice a bit more for the happiness of others?

I realize I'm speaking of a utopian ideal; but if welfare was regulated so as to procure the minimal amount of money from people (so minimal, in fact, as to be nearly negligible and not a source of discomfort or unhappiness), and they were still happy giving a bit extra, I don't see a huge problem with that system.