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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyway, I’m gonna judge this sucker tonight - just to put the two of them out of their all too ILP’ian “what the fuck is up with this nothing happening shit anyway…?” misery.
