SOCAL's Razor

[jnkyrdoff6]

 

Would it make you happy if instead of "baker" and "bread" I used "food producer" and "food?" When you have to quibble over such ridiculous points in a basic analogy, it becomes clear that you're not even trying to understand anyone else's point of view, you're just talking to talk.

Actually I am trying to understand your view, however it makes about as much sense as a deaf person interpreting the sounds of a person who speaks in tongues. (I know you can comprehend that).

 

You fail to realize that no such "food producer" monopoly can ever occur, at least without the aid of government. Since there will always be choices and those searching for profit, no monopoly is possible in a free market, let alone a coercive one.

 

You're not trying to understand anything. You're backpedaling furiously because you have no way of showing that your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is even remotely viable, so your whole argument has devolved into dickering over the reality of something as unreal as an analogy.

From what I've read though, this whole time you're argument has revolved around you saying it can't happen because it never has. I'm not saying a world totally devoid of government is possible, but I'm just not sure that is the best form of arguing. A few hundred years ago it was considered unnatural to be without a king. The great republican experiment was sure to fail. I suppose in some ways it has. Just as the Roman republic failed, by eventually ceding power. All I'm trying to say though is that, were I to argue that something is not possible, I would not start by saying that it is because it has never happened.

[knapplc]

From what I've read though, this whole time you're argument has revolved around you saying it can't happen because it never has. I'm not saying a world totally devoid of government is possible, but I'm just not sure that is the best form of arguing. A few hundred years ago it was considered unnatural to be without a king. The great republican experiment was sure to fail. I suppose in some ways it has. Just as the Roman republic failed, by eventually ceding power. All I'm trying to say though is that, were I to argue that something is not possible, I would not start by saying that it is because it has never happened.

 

Keep reading, because you've missed a lot, like the discussion of laws, roads, police, military, trade treaties, etc.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

You're not trying to understand anything. You're backpedaling furiously because you have no way of showing that your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is even remotely viable, so your whole argument has devolved into dickering over the reality of something as unreal as an analogy.

Backpedaling? Dickering? If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who tried to pass the analogy off as proof that without the state everything would be a monopoly, and a coercive one at that. And now that your stank has been shown as the BS it really is, you're resorting to non-arguments and diversion tactics.

 

No matter how many different ways you spell it, excuses you make to cover for it, or myths and lies you concoct to shield it; it is never ok, beneficial or moral to initiate theft and violence as a means to one's ends. And since this is true, there is no rational, moral or beneficial reason to advocate or support government. Doing so only proves how inhumane, illogical, irrational, narcissistic and truly psychotic some individual's truly are, and is merely another reason why there should never exist a tool that enables those type of people to control and rule others.

[SOCALHUSKER]

From what I've read though, this whole time you're argument has revolved around you saying it can't happen because it never has. I'm not saying a world totally devoid of government is possible, but I'm just not sure that is the best form of arguing. A few hundred years ago it was considered unnatural to be without a king. The great republican experiment was sure to fail. I suppose in some ways it has. Just as the Roman republic failed, by eventually ceding power. All I'm trying to say though is that, were I to argue that something is not possible, I would not start by saying that it is because it has never happened.

 

Keep reading, because you've missed a lot, like the discussion of laws, roads, police, military, trade treaties, etc.

 

Once again, are you implying that laws, roads, security and trade cannot exist absent a coercive monopoly that steals people s money in order to exist? If so, I'm going to need some historically-backed evidence to back that opinion of yours. BTW, maybe you can explain to me why or how free trade needs a treaty, let alone a coercive monopoly to uphold/sign it?

[knapplc]

 

You're not trying to understand anything. You're backpedaling furiously because you have no way of showing that your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is even remotely viable, so your whole argument has devolved into dickering over the reality of something as unreal as an analogy.

Backpedaling? Dickering? If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who tried to pass the analogy off as proof that without the state everything would be a monopoly, and a coercive one at that. And now that your stank has been shown as the BS it really is, you're resorting to non-arguments and diversion tactics.

 

No matter how many different ways you spell it, excuses you make to cover for it, or myths and lies you concoct to shield it; it is never ok, beneficial or moral to initiate theft and violence as a means to one's ends. And since this is true, there is no rational, moral or beneficial reason to advocate or support government. Doing so only proves how inhumane, illogical, irrational, narcissistic and truly psychotic some individual's truly are, and is merely another reason why there should never exist a tool that enables those type of people to control and rule others.

 

Because you intentionally misrepresent my stance doesn't make it my stance, any more than hippopotamus applesauce becomes your stance the more I repeat it.

 

Government isn't perfect, and nobody ever said it was. It's simply a tool, like a shovel, that does a job. How well it does its job depends on those using it. Shovels, like government, can be misused and even used violently. That doesn't make the shovel an inherently violent tool, and that's where you continue to - willfully - misunderstand. Because you refuse to see another point of view doesn't make that point of view wrong. Because you refuse to concede that an analogy can be representative without being a 1:1 comparison doesn't make that analogy incorrect. Analogies, like government, aren't perfect.

 

Your position is that, because government can be misused, it should be abolished. You ignore the fact that anarchism can also be misused, as if that somehow makes it a better societal model. As I've maintained this whole time, ANY societal model can be misused. Because there are no examples of the kind of society you're talking about, you pretend that it would be some utopia, when, as you've already conceded, avarice negates that utopia completely.

[jnkyrdoff6]

From what I've read though, this whole time you're argument has revolved around you saying it can't happen because it never has. I'm not saying a world totally devoid of government is possible, but I'm just not sure that is the best form of arguing. A few hundred years ago it was considered unnatural to be without a king. The great republican experiment was sure to fail. I suppose in some ways it has. Just as the Roman republic failed, by eventually ceding power. All I'm trying to say though is that, were I to argue that something is not possible, I would not start by saying that it is because it has never happened.

 

Keep reading, because you've missed a lot, like the discussion of laws, roads, police, military, trade treaties, etc.

I haven't missed them.

 

Your words:

 

You ask "Why is lack of government not possible" like it's a valid question. It's not. Every society in the history of man has had some form of heirarchy, some form of government. It's what humans do - they order their world. It's like asking, "Why is lack of home not possible?" Every human instinctively creates a home, whether that be a tent, a cave, a house, a stretch of sidewalk, or a palace. It's a basic human action. Failing to understand that makes me wonder if you're serious about this conversation at all.

 

Posted March 31

 

His proof lies in recorded history. There has never been a sustained culture that didn't have a form of government, or in the absence of government, chaos.

 

In fact, he has infinitely more proof that his theory is correct than you have for yours, yet you continue to hector anyone who gainsays you. The problem with your hippopotamus applesauce anarchy is that it has never existed anywhere, just like unicorns. It hasn't existed anywhere because it's simply not a feasible form of society.

 

Posted April 1st

 

I believe this is where you first started calling it a hippopotamus applesauce anarchy, a phrase you keep repeating as if to continue beating a horse. As I said, I haven't missed your other arguments. It's just that there are some that in which I think you misinterpret SOCAL, and others where I agree with either you or SOCAL, and didn't feel like chiming in. Nevertheless, it's clear to me, as long as you continue repeating that phrase, that you're trying to hammer a point home. All I'm saying is that I think arguing that point is extremely illogical.

[knapplc]

Once again, are you implying that laws, roads, security and trade cannot exist absent a coercive monopoly that steals people s money in order to exist? If so, I'm going to need some historically-backed evidence to back that opinion of yours. BTW, maybe you can explain to me why or how free trade needs a treaty, let alone a coercive monopoly to uphold/sign it?

 

Once again, your implication that government is inherently a "coercive monopoly" depends entirely on a point of view that you have neither proven the legitimacy of nor the superiority to a democratically elected government.

[carlfense]

From what I've read though, this whole time you're argument has revolved around you saying it can't happen because it never has. I'm not saying a world totally devoid of government is possible, but I'm just not sure that is the best form of arguing. A few hundred years ago it was considered unnatural to be without a king. The great republican experiment was sure to fail. I suppose in some ways it has. Just as the Roman republic failed, by eventually ceding power. All I'm trying to say though is that, were I to argue that something is not possible, I would not start by saying that it is because it has never happened.

 

Keep reading, because you've missed a lot, like the discussion of laws, roads, police, military, trade treaties, etc.

I haven't missed them.

 

Your words:

 

You ask "Why is lack of government not possible" like it's a valid question. It's not. Every society in the history of man has had some form of heirarchy, some form of government. It's what humans do - they order their world. It's like asking, "Why is lack of home not possible?" Every human instinctively creates a home, whether that be a tent, a cave, a house, a stretch of sidewalk, or a palace. It's a basic human action. Failing to understand that makes me wonder if you're serious about this conversation at all.

 

Posted March 31

 

His proof lies in recorded history. There has never been a sustained culture that didn't have a form of government, or in the absence of government, chaos.

 

In fact, he has infinitely more proof that his theory is correct than you have for yours, yet you continue to hector anyone who gainsays you. The problem with your hippopotamus applesauce anarchy is that it has never existed anywhere, just like unicorns. It hasn't existed anywhere because it's simply not a feasible form of society.

 

Posted April 1st

 

I believe this is where you first started calling it a hippopotamus applesauce anarchy, a phrase you keep repeating as if to continue beating a horse. As I said, I haven't missed your other arguments. It's just that there are some that in which I think you misinterpret SOCAL, and others where I agree with either you or SOCAL, and didn't feel like chiming in. Nevertheless, it's clear to me, as long as you continue repeating that phrase, that you're trying to hammer a point home. All I'm saying is that I think arguing that point is extremely illogical.

I believe knapplc is just showing that simply repeating something like "anarchy is hippopotamus applesauce" or "coercive monopoly based on theft and violence" does not make them true. There's certainly a dearth of facts in this discussion. Much circular logic . . . many appeals to authority . . . but little in the way of facts.

[knapplc]

jnkyrdoff6, HERE YOU GO

 

This was a discussion split off that one. I hope that answers your concerns.

[knapplc]

I believe knapplc is just showing that simply repeating something like "anarchy is hippopotamus applesauce" or "coercive monopoly based on theft and violence" does not make them true.

Bingo.

There's certainly a dearth of facts in this discussion. Much circular logic . . . many appeals to authority . . . but little in the way of facts.

True. And I'm bored because it's the off season, and I'm trying to see how long this will last. I'm betting it gets into 10+ pages.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Once again, are you implying that laws, roads, security and trade cannot exist absent a coercive monopoly that steals people s money in order to exist? If so, I'm going to need some historically-backed evidence to back that opinion of yours. BTW, maybe you can explain to me why or how free trade needs a treaty, let alone a coercive monopoly to uphold/sign it?

 

Once again, your implication that government is inherently a "coercive monopoly" depends entirely on a point of view that you have neither proven the legitimacy of nor the superiority to a democratically elected government.

No it doesn't. It is by DEFINITION a "coercive monopoly." It is funded by theft, it is not voluntary, it does not allow competition. Simply put, a coercive monopoly, that is not my point of view, those are facts.

[knapplc]

Once again, are you implying that laws, roads, security and trade cannot exist absent a coercive monopoly that steals people s money in order to exist? If so, I'm going to need some historically-backed evidence to back that opinion of yours. BTW, maybe you can explain to me why or how free trade needs a treaty, let alone a coercive monopoly to uphold/sign it?

 

Once again, your implication that government is inherently a "coercive monopoly" depends entirely on a point of view that you have neither proven the legitimacy of nor the superiority to a democratically elected government.

No it doesn't. It is by DEFINITION a "coercive monopoly." It is funded by theft, it is not voluntary, it does not allow competition. Simply put, a coercive monopoly, that is not my point of view, those are facts.

Yes, it does. I voluntarily pay my taxes. See? Voluntary. What you espouse is a point of view.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

I believe knapplc is just showing that simply repeating something like "anarchy is hippopotamus applesauce" or "coercive monopoly based on theft and violence" does not make them true. There's certainly a dearth of facts in this discussion. Much circular logic . . . many appeals to authority . . . but little in the way of facts.

Are you implying that government is not a coercive monopoly based on theft and violence? If so, how would you define it? Is it voluntary? How is it funded?

 

Also, can you give a few examples of the "much circular logic" in this discussion and what you deem to be " many appeals to authority?"

[SOCALHUSKER]

No it doesn't. It is by DEFINITION a "coercive monopoly." It is funded by theft, it is not voluntary, it does not allow competition. Simply put, a coercive monopoly, that is not my point of view, those are facts.

Yes, it does. I voluntarily pay my taxes. See? Voluntary. What you espouse is a point of view.

Really? Can you choose not to pay them? If you don't, what happens?

[knapplc]

No it doesn't. It is by DEFINITION a "coercive monopoly." It is funded by theft, it is not voluntary, it does not allow competition. Simply put, a coercive monopoly, that is not my point of view, those are facts.

Yes, it does. I voluntarily pay my taxes. See? Voluntary. What you espouse is a point of view.

Really? Can you choose not to pay them? If you don't, what happens?

The same thing that happens if I choose not to pay for the food I eat at a restaurant. Dine and Dash