Topic: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working? - page 13. (Read 17188 times)

Quote from: MoonShadow on May 28, 2013, 03:58:37 PM

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary. You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true. Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther. Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society? Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True. But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.

Which, in turn, was greatly influenced by the old Swiss Confederacy, as well as the Five Tribes Confederation. (http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/) I'm sure that you are used to being the smartest guy in the room, but you would be wise to not present your viewpoints with such confidence lacking support. There is much that certain members of this strange forum in this little backwater of the Internet will teach you if prompted. How they are prompted will determine if those lessons come soft or hard.

Are we talking about the same bill of rights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Opps! I just got caught with my own pants down. You were referring to the English bill of rights!

Well, even then those idesa din't just spring up suddenly, they were largely deveopled over generations alongside common law, which itself developed due to a general lack of interest or interference from the monarch or the noble class.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:46:03 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on May 28, 2013, 03:42:51 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:49:01 PM

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary. You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true. Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther. Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society? Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True. But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.

Which, in turn, was greatly influenced by the old Swiss Confederacy, as well as the Five Tribes Confederation. (http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/) I'm sure that you are used to being the smartest guy in the room, but you would be wise to not present your viewpoints with such confidence lacking support. There is much that certain members of this strange forum in this little backwater of the Internet will teach you if prompted. How they are prompted will determine if those lessons come soft or hard.

Are we talking about the same bill of rights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Either way its off topic to historical examples of anarchism so I'm out of the thread.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

That distant rumbling sound you hear is me banging my head on a desk. Sorry Angry

Apology accepted.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:46:03 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on May 28, 2013, 03:42:51 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on May 28, 2013, 03:48:04 PM

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary. You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true. Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther. Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society? Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True. But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.

Which, in turn, was greatly influenced by the old Swiss Confederacy, as well as the Five Tribes Confederation. (http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/) I'm sure that you are used to being the smartest guy in the room, but you would be wise to not present your viewpoints with such confidence lacking support. There is much that certain members of this strange forum in this little backwater of the Internet will teach you if prompted. How they are prompted will determine if those lessons come soft or hard.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:36:48 PM

Quote from: wdmw on May 28, 2013, 03:34:53 PM

..snip...

Incorrect. This isn't about my feelings. This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition. Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

You think the Danes are wrong then? That your definition of freedom is better than theirs?

Be careful here. Mild trolling is tolerated here, if the content has redeeming value. But if you're just trying to stoke a semantic argument (one greater than the one that, largely because of you, has already be burning in this thread) I may decide to intervene. To some degree, it matters how entertaining you are.

What? At least I'm an honest mod.

Fair point - and it turns out I was the one misread the quote so a lot of heat but little light generated. I'll leave your thread in peace - if there is a way to delete the bits between me and myrkul without excessive work on your part go for it.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on May 28, 2013, 03:44:47 PM

Quote from: myrkul on May 28, 2013, 03:25:21 PM

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows."

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:36:48 PM

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it.

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.

No, it was what leads a society to remain voluntary.

"What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"

That distant rumbling sound you hear is me banging my head on a desk. Sorry Angry

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: wdmw on May 28, 2013, 03:34:53 PM

..snip...

Incorrect. This isn't about my feelings. This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition. Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

You think the Danes are wrong then? That your definition of freedom is better than theirs?

Be careful here. Mild trolling is tolerated here, if the content has redeeming value. But if you're just trying to stoke a semantic argument (one greater than the one that, largely because of you, has already be burning in this thread) I may decide to intervene. To some degree, it matters how entertaining you are.

What? At least I'm an honest mod.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: MoonShadow on May 28, 2013, 03:42:51 PM

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary. You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true. Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther. Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society? Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True. But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on May 28, 2013, 03:25:21 PM

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows."

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it.

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.

No, it was what leads a society to remain voluntary.

"What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: wdmw on May 28, 2013, 03:34:53 PM

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary. You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true. Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther. Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society? Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

EDIT: That particular book is part of my kids' homeschooling curriculum, for kindergarten.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

..snip...

Incorrect. This isn't about my feelings. This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition. Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

You think the Danes are wrong then? That your definition of freedom is better than theirs?

wdmw

full member

Activity: 199

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:31:41 PM

Quote from: wdmw on May 28, 2013, 03:21:56 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:06:30 PM

Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

I agree that freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.

I do not agree that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

The difference between those two statements is the difference in definition I was pointing out earlier in this thread.

Gotcha. So you personally don't feel that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

Incorrect. This isn't about my feelings. This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition. Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: wdmw on May 28, 2013, 03:21:56 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 03:06:30 PM

Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

I agree that freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.

I do not agree that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

The difference between those two statements is the difference in definition I was pointing out earlier in this thread.

Gotcha. So you personally don't feel that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on May 28, 2013, 03:25:21 PM

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows."

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

Quote from: MoonShadow on May 28, 2013, 03:23:50 PM

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it.

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary. You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.

I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 28, 2013, 02:41:08 PM

I sort of like it too. Especially if we are moving to a society where machines remove the need for most workers.

That's been the case for over 100 years. The funny thing about using machines to replace workers, is that those workers always seem to find some other useful skill for which to spend their time. Just stop and think about how much more work you would have to do every day without a flush toilet.

True. 100 years ago there was no manicure profession.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows."

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question: