What causes the absence of trespass? What prevents the person with a machine gun from ruling the person with a knife? How can you argue that freedom doesn't imply trespass? Clearly you spent a minute on your position. Did you spend two?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Not trespassing causes the absence of trespass. A better question would be, what is trespass, and is it ever excusable?
What is government if not a man with a machine gun ruling a man with a knife? Hell, in some parts of the world, knives are even "illegal."
Peaceful, productive society exists in spite of government, not because of it. Government is a parasite. It requires a host upon which it can feed. Propaganda to justify its predation is the sedative it injects to lull the victim into ignoring it.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
I started replying in good faith, but I stopped and deleted it after the third paragraph.
I'll leave it this way. I agree with you that parasites should be eradicated and maximizing freedom is desirable. Beyond that it is difficult to bridge our concept framings and I consider most things you said to be substantially incorrect in relation to generative positions.
Do you think it is fair to say you, yourself have no intention of improving the theory of 'anarchy' and are proceeding directly to implementing it via persuading others?
I am not sure what you are asking. Anarchy means not imposing upon others, and resisting imposition by others. The philosophocal aspect requires consistent analysis based on universal and reciprocal principles. Modern politics is all about double standards to justify trespass.
I agree that modern politics are corrupt.
It sounds like you cast anarchy into the golden rule with an explicitly emphasized trespass clause...the game theory Tit for Tat strategy. It is a sound strategy, but it drops off significantly in meta competition - i.e. it primarily only dominates at lowers complexity scales.
Be aware that groups acting on a higher abstraction layer use lower abstraction players as pawns. Grandmasters effectively move the pieces of novices for them because they have a higher abstraction of time as it is applied to that system.
It is clear that anarchy will not displace the parasite it intends. Instead, the parasite will use anarchy to weaken actually viable threats operating near its abstraction.
I mention this because we each equally despise this parasite and I feel you would not willingly aid its goals. Quite simply, this is not a simple thing and treating it as such places you as a black pawn on the board (ironically because white declines to trespass against you)
Groups don't exist as some kind of gestalt entity. Society and the economy are an aggregate of numerous interpersonal interactions and exchanges. there is no reason the moral and rational principles of individual action and interaction cannot be extrapolated to a larger scale. You are trying to create a justification for trespass based on an imaginary idea.
A gestalt is precisely what a group exists as. Making an attempt at modeling the gestalt does not nullify or disprove the gestalt. You are attempting to use trees to disprove forests. Multiplication has no value, only addition. Nonsense.
Your reasoning is backwards. The issue isn't justification for trespass - which is only a convenience to the strong and an excuse for the weak, the issue is that the weak are powerless to prevent it.
Anarchy is common in history and it survives until some group arises and dominates it. It holds the same position in evolution that bacteria hold vs multicellular organisms. It isn't precise to say lower complexity organisms are inferior - it would be more correct to say they have fewer capabilities.
Why can't you recognize the organic complexity of cooperative society, and believe the lies by government that destruction and coercion are necessary or bemeficial? Society exists in a state of anarchy all around us, and my argument is against the interventions by government that umpede our progress and prosperity.
Do you need a government goon with a gun to force you to be civilized?