Kam wrote:However, in the case of the latter, if someone sits down on your lawn, for instance, I don't think its suitable and justified to use force against them.
Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. Our difference of opinion is moralistic and irreconcilable at this point in the argument.
I believe a person has a right to something he has produced with his labor, as well as the property that he lives on. People simply can't be allowed to come tromping through my house or making racket outside of it any time they want, since it is "the people's property." If there was no government backing my private property, I would back it myself. In other words, it wouldn't matter if it was anarchy or not I would defend that property.
Now I have a question for you. You have mentioned that you must have some kind of blueprint for your ideas about society, so I am asking you what your blueprint says about possession turning into property in an anarchist society? In other words, what would prevent a social anarchist society of communes and cooperatives from evolving into an individualistic anarchist society such as anarcho-capitalism?
I basically want to know this. How is it that without any authority your society will have the results which you have asserted on this forum on several occasions. What mechanisms in your "blueprint" convince you that these guarantees and predictions will indeed come about?
Kam wrote:No matter how much you attempt to digress this arguement into an arguement against anarchism
There is no longer any argument possible. We have reached this point:
It is acceptable to have the state defend property rights for individuals.or
It is not acceptable to have the state defend property rights for individuals.These are both ultimatum statements and can't be debated any further, it's now just a matter of moral opinion.
Kam wrote:How do you expect to legitimize your libertarian philosophy if you cannot even lay-out a blueprint for the desired milieu?
The pieces will fall where they may. All we propose is a republic respecting certain laws, whatever happens after that is out of our hands. Similarly, after the destruction of the state or the existing authority by an anarchist revolution, the pieces will fall where they will, and it is out of your hands, and mine, or anyone else's.
Kam wrote:but only by using scientific principles and empirical analysis
Such as? I must have not noticed you relying on these in your arguments before. Can you show me some examples of empirical analysis or empirical evidence backing your assertions, please?
Kam wrote:You may think that, because you desire less of a change, you're automatically not utopian. Therefore, by that logic, I am utopian because I advocate much more proportionate degrees of change. That is bullshit. No offence.
I call your idea of this society Utopian because I don't believe it could ever be achieved, and I am still very confused about how you come to these conclusions about how people will act--people that you don't even know and have never met. What if a revolution never even occurs, Kam? The whole idea is a complete assumption of nonexistent variables.
On the other hand, the Libertarians at least present the actual legislative and poltical changes they want to occur. We have an agenda, a plan of action if we should ever come to power.
What do you have? You have a blueprint that is built on nothing in reality and only theoretical assumptions. Like I said, the entire thing is a total fantasy spawned from the popular movement of youthful idealism called punk rock.
Kam wrote:At least, when we abide by scientific principles, it'll take more than mere postulation to discredit an arguement.
I have yet to see you employ any
scientific principles in your blueprint for this anarchist society.
Kam wrote:Yes, there are millions of "what if's" but if a philosophy is to be considered as credible, it has to make sense of its program by laying-out a blueprint for the society and answering common questions with the use of scientific reasoning.
Wrong. Marxism laid out a seemingly perfect plan for a perfect society. By this reasoning it is perhaps the most credible blueprint for society ever devised. Why then, has it failed so miserably in every country that has attempted to achieve at least some version of Marxism?
Millions of people died in dozens of revolutions and for what? For nothing, that's what. No permanent or worthwhile change occured, even though the plan was seemingly perfect. The Marxists didn't calculate into their plan the same thing you aren't calculating into yours, natural law, reality, and above all else,
human behavior.
No matter how much you want a society to be a certain way, if it is not compatible with the way humans are behaving, there is nothing you can do about it. Your system will fail. Thus we have Marxism, thus we have anarchism. Both have been attempted several times, both have failed every time.
Your theoretical society would fail in no time if its implementation were ever attempted, because human nature is to strongly opposed to many of the foundational premises of your society.
The fact that the current state of societies is so far polarized from that of your ideal society is evidence enough of this point.
Kam wrote:What would precipitate such desire to defend a given land mass?
History, my friend...history. It should be frighteningly obvious that humans have a tendancy to want to aquire more than just possessions, they have, through all time, aquired
property. Why do you think we have so many government across the world protecting private property in the first place. If the popular masses were truly so vehemently opposed to it then I doubt it would have ever existed, and if it did, at least not for a very long period of time (certainly not as long as it has, which is basically all of civilized human history).
Kam wrote:Forsooth, your guesses are garbage since their entire basis is founded upon presupposition.
Kam, I hate to break this to you, but your entire blueprint for this entire society is based upon presuppositions, therefore mine are just as valid as yours.
Kam wrote:However, my basis has more scientific substantiation and reasoning, therefore more reliant.
Scientific substantiation? Such as...? The society that you propose doesn't exist, and never has, and never will. How is that scientific? How is that empirical?
Kam wrote:To epitomize your logic, I'm going to presuppose that libertarianism will prompt a hostile takeover from a species transcending our galaxy. If a society becomes more autonomous and desirable, spectator alien species will invade our society due to its desirability. But hey, my guess is as good as yours.
Let's leave the alien invasion out of the picture until we finish the arguments based in reality, thanks.
Kam wrote:In retrospect, past anarchist movements have functioned without any major theoretical problems.
Yeah...except for their ultimate and miserable failure!
Kam wrote:The problem, however, is that a single national movement cannot overpower global imperialist forces.
And there's a reason that there hasn't been a global movement for anarchism, Kam. I'll let you think about that...