Government v. Anarchism

Use this forum to suggest topics, and to find others to debate with.

Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:15 am

My proposition is to pit the idea that a society would benefit more by having no government against the idea that it would benefit more by having government.

Government being understood as an entity that that has the possibility to dictate and enforce rules. I don't think government is a controversial term anyway.

I want to refute the idea of government as we know it, but I am ok with the use of non-existant/never-before-proposed theoretical forms of government.

If a more regular user is interested, maybe he can suggest judges.

I would want to defend Anarchism.

5 posts with three-day intervals sounds good to me but I am open to suggestions.

I think it is a generous offer, seeing as there is no one specific form of government that you would have to defend. However, I am confident in my position.

How 'bout it?
Last edited by Pezerocles on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:21 am

If you look through the Debates, you'll see an ILO v. ILP Debate involving substantially the same thing. I'm sure you'll find someone to take you up on this, though. I would volunteer to Judge regardless of who the other participant is.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:24 am

PavlovianModel146 wrote:If you look through the Debates, you'll see an ILO v. ILP Debate involving substantially the same thing.


Well, I figure the subject is so broad that you could do a hundred debates on it and not repeat one.

PavlovianModel146 wrote: I would volunteer to Judge regardless of who the other participant is.


If nothing changes I'm taking you up on that. I read your debate with tabular on Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism and I think I would trust you as a judge.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:24 am

I would challenge lack of government on the grounds that anarchy is not sustainable unless depending entirely upon a perfect human race adhering flawlessly to a universal moral code, and even then, whether or not it would be, by definition, anarchy is plagued by dubiousness. In short, I would challenge that anarchy, in its conceptual foundations, is not feasible.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:57 am

Sounds good to me.

So you're interested? If you think my proposition isn't specific enough, you can *ahem* propose one you like better.

What do you think of the terms?

Pav has already volunteered to be one of the judges. I would beg Tabular to be a second one. Or we can follow the trend and leave it to the people.

whaddayathink?
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:57 am

Btw, love the name.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby aletheia » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:14 pm

Agreed. It would need to be avoided that anarchy means a complete absence of governing structures. Anarchy would need to mean a minimum or least sufficiency of such structures. It can easily be established that "pure" anarchy is impossible since humans are social creatures and would naturally form new ad hoc governing groups as soon as they were faced with their total lack - particularly if we are dealing with competition for resources, which is almost certainly the case. Debating anarchy in the conditions of either absence of competition for resources or absence of human inability to come to perfect agreement on morals, expectations and behavioral regulatory norms is in effect to margnialize the debate into a total obscurity of blatantly unrealistic and extremely exceptional, impossible conditions.

I assume the debator would like to focus as much as possible on arguing for and within a general reference to the actual characteristics of humanity and conditions of life on earth, at least as much as possible...
'The daemonic genius is the only thing capable of surviving the odds of existence versus no existence... because of what it empirically tolerates though fundamentally defying it, the deepest existence is satyrical. The grin on a primordial sailor, grim to all things human, his enjoyment in the uncertainty. He knows himself by this very factor. Valuing the uncertainty of the universe as an extension of oneself - this sailor is the primordial being.' [Source]


Before The Light philosophy forum
 
User avatar
aletheia
Thinker
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: Ethos Anthropos Daimon.

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:35 pm

pezermeregild wrote:Sounds good to me.

So you're interested? If you think my proposition isn't specific enough, you can *ahem* propose one you like better.

What do you think of the terms?

Pav has already volunteered to be one of the judges. I would beg Tabular to be a second one. Or we can follow the trend and leave it to the people.

whaddayathink?


My involvement, as Aletheia points out, depends entirely upon the definitions employed.

I have no issue with five posts separated by 72 hours (I assume the pitch/bat format).
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:36 pm

pezermeregild wrote:Btw, love the name.

Love the avatar.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:32 pm

I would define a governing structure (and yes, I would argue for no governing structers) as one where orders and/or rules are given and compulsory to anybody residing in a specific geographical location, minus any exceptions explicitly stated, however the orders/rules are arrived at. Also, the purpose of a governing structure is to govern, so rule/order drafting must be its principal aim.

Compulsory meaning that there is some system in place designed to make sure.

For example, a school is not a governing structure because governing is not its principal aim.

I think any format will do... freestyle if you will. Intellectual honesty is the only restriction. Unless you insist on any other format.

Also, if you're arguments are mind-blowing enough, I'd agree and shift; at which point I guess you'd win by default. I'm doing this more for the philosophical exploration than the sport. I assure you, however, that it will be tough to achieve that.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby aletheia » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:34 pm

So government then is the power of force to compel obedience? Do you distinguish between various types of compulsions? Is an agrarian collective of 1000 people who all choose to follow common rules about sharing land, materials and wealth a "government" in your eyes, or does a "government" have to include possibility for physical restraint and active deployment of weaponry against those who choose not to obey? Is one leader of ten different family farms, the other farms agreeing on the wisdom of the one, a government? The leader exists to make rules for others to follow, right?

My point is this: to consider society itself, in any minimal form at all, is to also conceive of at least a functional minimum of governance. So with anarchy are you arguing that there would be NO society, no collective or communal relations at all? How does the possibility for ANY society appear toyou, in the total absence of all "orders or rules that are compulsory"? For that matter, what does "compulsory" even mean, to you? To me, compulsory includes a wide range from total police force through force of law and threat down to incentive to remain part of a collective group and continue to enjoy the fruits of that membership without being excluded or marginalized from it.
'The daemonic genius is the only thing capable of surviving the odds of existence versus no existence... because of what it empirically tolerates though fundamentally defying it, the deepest existence is satyrical. The grin on a primordial sailor, grim to all things human, his enjoyment in the uncertainty. He knows himself by this very factor. Valuing the uncertainty of the universe as an extension of oneself - this sailor is the primordial being.' [Source]


Before The Light philosophy forum
 
User avatar
aletheia
Thinker
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: Ethos Anthropos Daimon.

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:53 pm

aletheia wrote:So government then is the power of force to compel obedience? Do you distinguish between various types of compulsions? Is an agrarian collective of 1000 people who all choose to follow common rules about sharing land, materials and wealth a "government" in your eyes, or does a "government" have to include possibility for physical restraint and active deployment of weaponry against those who choose not to obey? Is one leader of ten different family farms, the other farms agreeing on the wisdom of the one, a government? The leader exists to make rules for others to follow, right?


I think the definitions I gave pretty much cover all that.

It's starting to sound like you want to debate... :shock:
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:30 pm

Aletheia, I'm not sure we're supposed to do this part of the debate here. I think we agree on terms of debate and definitions.


Pezermeregild and Pavlovian (where/if applicable)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions (by pezermeregild, parentheses/brackets are my interpretations where noted)
Governing Structure/Government: where orders and/or rules are given and compulsory (the presence of a system to ensure cooperation/subordination [my interpretation of pezermeregild's definition of compulsory]) to anybody residing in a specific geographical location, minus any exceptions explicitly stated, however the orders/rules are arrived at.*

Anarchy: Absence of governing structure/government as defined above.

*Also, the purpose of a governing structure is to govern, so rule/order drafting must be its principal aim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though I find the sentence noted with an asterisk to be dubious, as I find such drafting to be a means rather than an end (the end being an ideal society and/or social structure, whether in a utilitarian or egoist sense), but I nonetheless feel I could present a convincing argument with the definitions as you've presented them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Format
I'm not sure about what you mean by "freestyle". I am also of the opinion that intellectual honesty is not enforceable/distinguishable. As such, I can only state my intention of always maintaining intellectual honesty, but I cannot present verification.

That said, I think the Starchild Debate had an agreeable overall format.

I'm not sure how these things are supposed to proceed. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:33 pm

pezermeregild wrote:I think the definitions I gave pretty much cover all that.

It's starting to sound like you want to debate... :shock:

Indeed it does. I haven't engaged in one of these debates as of yet, so I'm not sure of the protocol...
Paaaav, help? :-?
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:42 pm

Ok, starchild skull-format sounds good.

As soon as pavlov agrees to judge and sets up the debate page, I think we can start.

I think pavlov should flip a coin and the winner decide who starts.

And if alatheia wants to join the debate as a second pro-government poster, I'm cool with that.
Last edited by Pezerocles on Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:27 am

pezermeregild wrote:Well, I figure the subject is so broad that you could do a hundred debates on it and not repeat one.


You're right.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:
If nothing changes I'm taking you up on that. I read your debate with tabular on Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism and I think I would trust you as a judge.


Thanks for the compliment! I got my ass kicked!
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 am

I can start the Debate Thread and give you guys the necessary permissions later tonight.

The Starchild-Skull format it is. I will post the Debate thread with the definitions and Rules and everything like that...

Flipping the coin now...Petermeregild is Heads, MathisaCircle is tails...


Best of Three: Tails: 2-0

MathisaCircle may decide who posts first.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:38 am

The necessary permissions have been granted. The Thread is in the main Chamber of Debate:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=177109

SIDE NOTE: I doubt if either of you would PM me, but just for the record, any PM's sent to me by either of the Debate Participants will be ignored until the conclusion of the Debate.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:06 am

PavlovianModel146 wrote:Best of Three: Tails: 2-0

MathisaCircle may decide who posts first.

Perez may post first.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Tab » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:25 pm

Hey kiddos, I don't mind a quick come-back for the purposes of judgement. Me and Pav will be impartial, unbiased and all those other things beginning with im, or un. Good luck everyone, mind your grammar and capitalization. :wink:
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:59 pm

To make sure, I wait 72 hours before posting my opening statement, right?
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby Pezerocles » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:49 pm

No, I think 72 hours is your time limit for posting.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:29 am

Alright, but if I am reprimanded for it, I'm holding you personally responsible. :D
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:53 am

72 hours is the time limit for posting.

Tab and myself are presently working on getting a third Judge.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Government v. Anarchism

Postby _________ » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:30 am

So what's going on with this thing?
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Next

Return to Challenges



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users