I only had a chance for a quick read of both, but here’s my take.
Carleas, I know you can’t answer me right now…but here’s my question after reading your post. Is cooperation foundational or is dominance (as OG seems to imply)? And even if dominance is, does that preclude the need for government, even as you’ve defined it?
And I think OG contradicts himself to some degree. He critcizes government as an ‘ideal’ and not reality (even though the ‘reality’ behind govt as Carleas justifies it is the ability of humans to form social agreements). But he builds a case on the presumption that ‘human nature is not chaos and disorder’ – which is an ideal. And not even true. Human nature certainly contains chaos and disorder. Just as human nature contains the ability to form social agreements, which is a foundation of Carleas’ argument.
Anyway, I like being a commentator rather than a debater…it’s a lot easier.
I’ve read the first two posts of the debate, and some of Tab’s. I thought Carleas was setting up to graciously let ILO win defending some sort of “ground up” self-government… then OG comes in and says, since ‘ideal government’ is a pipe dream, reality is just in varying degrees of anarchy, which I thought was a genius move… and I won’t comment on Tab’s 'cause he obviously doesn’t want me to.
I wish it was actually “and may the better conclusion win”… I wish the aim of debate was not just to sharpen one’s skills, but to get at the truth. I wish the teams were united in that way, rather than pitted against eachother. The way debate is structured is almost ad hominem without ever uttering the first word.
Ichthus, I agree that a debate is not productive in the way that cooperative discussions are, but I don’t think it’s trying to be. It’s all for sport, and so it really is all about sharpening one’s skills and proving them sharper than someone else’s. I think a cooperative discussion is important, but debates are set up intentionally to avoid agreement. Sports are like that game you play when you’re little, where the floor is lava: you take some premise and pretend that you have to achieve a task within an artificial bound. Similarly in debate, specifically a debate where you don’t know what side you’ll be taking, you’re pretending for the time being that you believe x, and discussing accordingly. Since your opponent is pretending to believe ~x, you’re bound to have a more confrontational discussion.
It’s not without merit, though. Defending a position you disagree with is good in legitimate discussions for being able to see things from the perspective of the people you’re discussing with. It also gives you experience attacking your own beliefs, which helps identify gaps in your own logic.
Perhaps a good idea for a furure debate would be one where you and someone you disagree with work together to find a middle ground you can both accept, and a handful of judges will decide whether you succeeded, or you leave it to votes by the masses to see if your solution is widely acceptible. Coopetition, I think they call it.
Tab’s post - what does one say about it, is it too boring for a comment? Maybe, but I’ll go ahead anyway, and offer my condolences to whoever is next up for ILO. Let us hope it is Gamer because he will fall asleep reading it and miss the posting deadline. Let’s hope it is not SIATD because he will go research every use of authority Tab employed.
Well, I liked the bit about the military using small units, because it greatly helps ILO’s straw-man understanding of government(the example implies that government is incapable of largescale group organization, as it points out that even the most disciplined persons in the most denounced power structures governments have to offer are incapable of cohesion). Which, intended or not, was genius. It will emboldened them in their pursuit of the claim that government is supposed to be some kind of well defined and unerring power structure, which infact is not and has never been the case. And the next ILP person can dispatch their entire critique of archy with a single paragraph about government being a series of bargains between rational actors, and governments true “power” lying in bureaucracy. Which means they will have wasted their first two posts and lost the debate.
I seriously doubt that was Tab’s strategy though, just as I doubt it was his strategy to be so boring that the next ILO person will become overzealous and will go for the kill without realizing he’s been baited.
However, I ultimately wish to give tab the benefit of the doubt and see this as intended rather than an accident, but his critique of anarchy is working on lines that OG dismissed, and greatly detracts from the brilliance of how boring and contradictory his post was. He matched ILO’s straw-man understanding of government with his own straw-man understanding of anarchy, and both teams are talking past each other at this point.
He, in conjunction with Carleas, as set the next ILP person to win this debate in a single paragraph. Do our hopes ride on Smears or Xunzian? Either way, I just hope you are all working together and what I have outlined as Tab’s brilliance is not his idiocy.
Tab, unless the whole debate has already been written… isn’t it all commentary? I kinda like the play-by-play and strategy discussion. Reminds me of play-by-play sports commentary and election coverage.
Carleas–I think we could sharpen our skills with “may the best conclusion win” – depending on what skills are being sharpened. I’m all for taking a position I don’t actually (in reality) support… I do it all the time, for all the good reasons you gave. But, if it is confrontation you want, then cut out the ‘pretending’… but if it is the truth… ‘pretending’ works. That sounds odd out of context. You sound like you’re mocking me, using the word ‘coopetition’. But, say I take a position that contradicts my beliefs, and an atheist (equally matched to my skills or lack thereof) takes a position in line with my beliefs, and we ‘compete’ to see who is wielding the superior conclusion, or to give the other a chance to see their arguments and the others’ arguments from a different perspective (to grow their understanding)? There will probably be some holes revealed in the arguments on each side that will need repairing, which will in the end make the arguments stronger. If one argument has too many holes, it may not survive the battle. All the while, we have both been on the same side, fighting for truth. Brothers-in-arms. We don’t want to be better than the other–we want to improve our understanding simultaneously.
Here’s a question perhaps already asked/answered. Isn’t self-government still government? Seems there needs to be an agreement on what is meant by “government” and what is meant by “anarchy” in order for there really to be a discussion here.
And – is the discussion “are we in a state of anarchy, or are we being governed?” or is the question “which is better–to be in a state of anarchy, or to be governed?” Thus, the importance of definitions.
I think the only good form of government is one which protects negative rights and ensures positive ones–never “lording it over” anyone; only disciplining with the motivation of restoring to social cohesion those who threaten others’ (including their own) rights. That would chain into a discussion of rights (naturalism vs. legal positivism). Either way it would seem to fit in with anarchy, unless anarchy is defined as the complete absence of social cooperation.
Thanks for semi-giving me the benfit of the doubt on the boredom front, but no, the absolute bore-factor of my post was actually worse than unintentional, I actually thought I was writing with reasonable verve.
I think I may be getting old, both figuratively and literally.
Nah, that’s the same mistake economists make, in bolstering their predictions of risk by dubbing everyone ‘rational’ and “acting to optimize their own interests” in any given situation. Enabling them, conveniently but falsely, to cancel out human vaguery.
Though I’ll agree that like religion, a government facilitates society simply by providing an ossified structure for people to operate around and build on in everyday life - and observe that also like religion it functions equally well in the absence of a real, tangible foundation. A framework everyone holds as real and unchallengable is enough. Like a bank, operating just fine so long as everyone doesn’t try to withdraw their money all at the same time, a social system will stand happily on nothing but fresh air, just so long as most people don’t look down and notice.
I’d go on and draw parallels with phase transitions and meta-stable states, but you’d drop off and accuse me of being a boring cunt again.
You have indeed outlined my idiocy, and I remain idiotic, for at some deep level, I obviously still do not get wtf evryone thinks anarchy is, that I do not.
C’mon Pav, when people pat you on the back and say “Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re boring” you’ve gotta suspect the worst. I mean, it’s right up there with “size isn’t everything”.
Tab’s (a.k.a. Herb’s) humor always cracks me up (minus the woman-bashing, etc.), for whatever it’s worth. Didn’t think what I read so far was boring, but still haven’t been able to read his whole post.
Anarchists are always reactive, and have to be understood in terms of their critique of government. It’s hard to tell what critique OG was employing because, well, he had to hold his craziness in abeyance to even make that post. My best guess is that the angle he’s critiquing government from leads ILO’s anarchy to be a reaction against absurd power structures and the controlling nature of misinformation and decadent customs. Anarchy becomes truth or enlightenment for ILO because government is a mythological ideal which only works because the masses are ignorant of who is actually in power, and this ignorance is the result of overt manipulation. Communist and conspiracy elements must be at work, and both see government and power structures as fundamentally absurd abortions that don’t exist, but are simply maintained by a mass delusion. Hence, anarchy is a return to what is just and true for ILO, it’s positive determinations are not concrete organizational structures, but revelation and the dissolution of illusion.
The concrete results of anarchy don’t matter to ILO, as they are arguing from moral righteousness, not from pragmatism or utility. In fact, for ILO, Pragmatism and utility lead to consumerism and open oneself up to wide scale manipulation and an inescapable fallenness. To ILO, ILP is arguing for untruth, and as such if you win the point, you lose the match all the more.
SIATD’s post? Well, he denounced OG’s post while saying that he did not, which should be points off for ILO, but this was necessary because it prevents them from being led to the inevitable self-destruction that OG’s specious understanding of archy would bring. More than that though, he contradicts OG’s post by making anarchy an ideal rather than the real. If they both didn’t use the term “anarchy” how would one know that they are arguing for the same thing?
This massive discontinuity must not be focused on though, ILP needs to point it out, and then choose one of ILO’s contradictory understandings of anarchy to argue against while keeping in mind that ILP has already won if it doesn’t self-destruct.
Now we get to see my first post play out.
-edit-
Bizarrely SIATD has been offered the chance to edit his post. Perhaps my critique should be removed untill he can no longer modify his post? - I’ll leave it up to the moderators.
SIATD has informed me (via proxy) that he does not intend to edi his post.
The reason SIATD would have been permitted to edit his post is because he was not allotted the appropriate 48 hours (per the rules) to make his post. As a result, I allotted him the time he had remaining of that forty-eight hours to edit if he so chose. He did not choose to do so and waived that right.
Pav, my man, you have to learn to take some things in stride. Your reasons were obvious and no reasonable person would seriously criticize you for it You are doing a fine job, keep up the good work, and thank you for the debate/endless entertainment.
