I don’t think he (SIATD) treated it so much as an Ideal as arguing that it would be more efficacious. It is hard to discern this because his proof was a historical narrative, which proves nothing, and an appeal to individual ingenuity which means very little. That he didn’t give much in the way of concrete examples wasn’t very impressive either.
Yes, you saw through his historical diversion too. Underpinning this historical narrative is an ideal understanding of both archy and anarchy. However, his historical narrative, as historical narratives often do, gives the illusion of concrete determinations of both, but really all he is doing is cherry-picking overarching principles to be accepted in order to make his conclusion more tenable. And what a brilliant conclusion it was.
His entire post seems to build up to and exhaust itself in this quote. I originally thought that he just failed to pull the trigger, but as you pointed out it seems that he had no trigger to pull.
Question… (haven’t had time to read everything right now except the latest post in the debate thread)…
Xunzian has made gvt about domination.
But backing things up a bit.
Self-protection. Anarchists are pro-self-defense, are they not? How does it play out in the cooperative pockets or whatever you’d call the non-governed (as in non-dominated, according to Xunzian) anarchist organizational structures? And how does such self-protection differ from government (archy)? Isn’t that the main point of government–to protect the rights of all participants? Couldn’t there be an overlap (as I mentioned earlier) which makes certain governments to be “anarchist” governments, in that they do not “dominate” over anyone unless they threaten the rights of its participants? [And, if such domination is not allowed by anarchists, then they are defenseless, no?]
So it was, the giants who fancied themselves too clever for logic and too noble for reason exiled themselves out of the land of the philosopher. With dreams of humanity and hopes of comradery the swarm overran ILO, and that is where they waited. They nursed their young with pseudo-science and quips and the lost souls finally came to fancy themselves found. Emboldened by each other in this way, they laid in wait for 2 long years. For 2 long years they developed their value system, isolated from the outside world. For 2 years they developed what they once believed to be their humanity. They cultivated their resentment under the guise of an enlightened human condition, and talk of cooperation became the perfume that covered up the stench of a rotten psychology. Discussions of logic and petty arguments became what they thought was a dialogue of life.
This is how ILO existed until their resentment and anger was buried under 1 million words and 1000 agreements. Until they agreed to betray their ideal and expose their resentment for the chance to destroy the philosophers that they exiled themselves from so long ago. So a battle raged, a human battle that ILO had made itself too crazy to endure. A battle whose champion exposed ILO’s inhumanity, and revealed it’s dialogue on life to be demonstration of sad passions.
With one powerful blow it came that Xunzian taught ILO what was, what is, and what shall be.
A nicely written piece, Sitt - worthy of being an extract from any good book… 
To Whom It May Concern,
ILP has indicated that they do not wish to win by forfeit. As a result, ILO has 48 hours from this moment to find a replacement teammate and then another 24 hours to complete their third post. Obviously, they would not want the new teammate to have the closing post as opposed to Gamer and one cannot possibly blame them.
It is your decision as to what you like to do, but while ILO is aggressively searching out a new teammate (who will remain on the ILO team for the remainder of all three debates) I would encourage all who wish to participate to go to ILoveOpinions.com and volunteer to represent their team if you promise to be fair and debate to the best extent of your abilities.
Sittlichkeit, I don’t know how you would be received by ILO, but I would consider you a prime candidate to represent them.
Dear ILO, hurry the fuck up.
I will argue on behalf of ILO if they will have me.
My understanding is SS has been replaced by W.C., but I could be wrong.
Still have the self-protection question above (Would there be no law? A return to the wild west days?), and…
–how are they organized?
Hahaha, ILO’s getting demolished. Hooray for the triumph of the concrete over the styrofoam.
Smears was obviously using little, bite-size words. How nice.
I still haven’t read the whole debate yet, but I have week after next off.
I can’t wait to see how ILO replies.
Especially to this part:
I went to the movies the other night w/ my man and my mom-in-law (Gran Turino) (sp?) and in the previews I noticed there’s a Watchmen movie coming out. Who watches the watchmen? I say that just in case ILO is thinking of arguing that “watchmen” do not equal “government” (if what is being governed against is social chaos/disorder). [Tangent: Is Smears a thinly veiled Ozymandias fan (assuming I’m remembering the graphic novel correctly)?]
Trying to apply this debate to langauge (meme) and physics (not quantum?; not naturalistic fallacy?) is interesting… can also apply it to the individual… as far as the conscience being the ‘governor’ of each individual within a society… it is through the staff of ideas that watchmen guide the flock… but His ‘sheep hear My voice’ and are not obliged to allow bad memes to filter in through their governing consciences… so it’s like a sort of ‘checks and balances’ thing… not static… but not chaotic… and I think we (at least in the U.S., on our own soil) see its fruit today… though with much room for improvement (bailing out those responsible for ‘the fleecing of the flock’ with no accountability, for example) (not that I’m interested in going in to that).
Anybody want to translate Gamer for me?
He said, “If you’re going to lose while debating in favor of anarchy, screw up the order of language and at least get points for thematic style.”
That’s the moral I got out of it, anyway.
And he seems to think the sort of folks who would debate in favor of the ‘ideals’ of anarchy, are those who feel oppressed… but aren’t (he thinks ‘ideals’ are … only conceived by people of leisure). His heart wasn’t in this one, iow.
ILO at least deserves an ‘honorable’ mention.
This whole discussion could’ve been so much more. I’m not feeling optimistic about the remaining debates.
Funnily enough, I understand every word of his post - I’m not sure if that’s a good thing though. 
Gamer’s post was an anarchist’s version of a debate. Both he and Smears managed to channel that free-wheeling spirit that is anarchy. Very meta.
Oh, and when is debate the second?
After the judging of debate the first, probably start sometime next week.
Fuck ILO and Fuck ILP, Gamer wins in grand style.
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
As you all may be aware I will adopt an avatar in commemoration of the first ILP v. ILO Debate. In the event that ILP wins, I will make my avatar the scales of justice, or something along those lines, and if ILO wins, I will adopt an anarchy emblem as my avatar (Namely Gamer’s) This will remain my avatar until the conclusion of all debates.
I would also like to announce that next year for ILO v. ILP Debate Competition 2010 that I will not be judging the debate, nor will I have anything to do with the organization thereof. I will be volunteering to represent the side that wins the second debate in this competition.
Thank you for your kind attention.