The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

My Treatise on Liberty

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Logician
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 30th, 2017, 12:23 pm

My Treatise on Liberty

Post by Logician » January 12th, 2019, 1:10 pm

Hi everyone. This is my very first post on this forum, so please bear with me. Thanks.

This will be a lengthy post, because I'm going to do my best at substantiating my claims. Though - English is not my native language.
However I will also do my best at making this post as short or precise as possible, though this will inevitably lead to lack of sourcing and other stuff neccessary for propper arguments, so feel free to ask in-depth questions. I will try and answer the best I can.

I know this is a politics philosophy, and my post will be about political philosophy, but first I'll try to find some meaningful definitions upon which I will found my main basic political-philosophical opinions.

-----------

Why Liberty

It is my opinion that Liberty - especially Personal Freedom (in contrast to or a neccesssity for - economic freedom) is the most important aspect of life.

We are all humans but we are also unique individuals. We have different skills/abilities and different weaknesses. Some are physically strong, others are mentally weak, others are disabled but capable of contributing to society in one way or the other.

What I'm trying to say is that Liberty is a neccessity for humans to strive and find the meaning in their own life -
the pursue of happiness so to speak.

What makes sense in your life - for you - may not neccessarily make sense for someone else.

The question about Liberty is all about the meaning of life, and I believe that the meaning of life only makes sense from a relative point of view - depending on the individual in question and the environment in which (s)he lives.

Types of Liberties

In my opinion, there are two sets of Liberties from which all other liberties exists:

Personal and Economic Freedom.

I'll start with the latter:

Economic freedom has to do with paying as few taxes as possible, and allowed to spend your money on whatever you so choose.
To earn your money in any (legal) way you so choose. You also have the responsibility of not getting in debt amongst other responsibilities.

To earn or loan money - or inherit, is all about economic freedom.

However, many economically liberal nations are rarely liberal. Take Singapore. Or China. Both countries are economically liberal, but lacks Personal Liberty.

For what is all the the money worth, if you can spend it on whatever you like - but you cannot use the stuff as you so choose (even without harming others or limiting the freedom of others)?

This is why I believe the Economic Freedom is the lesser freedom. The Personal Freedom is the most important. It has to do with the right to free speech. The right to assembly. The right to search any book you so choose and hold the political leanings and opinions you want. And the right to live your life as you so choose.

Of course all this without harming or limiting the liberties of others.

How to achieve Liberty

But Liberty cannot be achieved through anarchy. For with anarchy the strongest or best adapted species will decide the rights and liberties of lesser species. This is why we need a civilization. A State.

Without the State to protect the liberties, those who already own lands and ressources will be stronger and outcompete the weak, leaving the weak with little to no other options than becoming indebted to their benefactors. This is a humiliating and liberty-depriving situation.

A State should protect anyone from harm from others and also open the possibilities for as many people as possible to make their own way of life to pursue their own happiness.

This is why states offer education, and some welfare states even offer health care partly or wholly financed through taxes, so that anyone can have a chance of getting an education, or recieve health care when they get sick.

They limit the economic freedoms to enhance (some) personal freedoms - through heavy taxation.

But this is a small price of economic freedom to ehnance the personal liberty for the (vast) majority.

But I think we can do better than that:

Welfare Benefits - like unemployment benefits, disability benefits etc. often come with the requirements of work.

At first it might seem "fair" that people work in return for benefits. But the fact is that they are only becoming indebted to the state - the benefactors. The State then decides what job they should take, and how much they should work. Their only alternative is to say "No Thanks" and die of hunger and thirst.

This is not about liberty. Work-requirements is equivalent of slavery. You probably already heard the phrase "wage slavery" - employees working not because the chose to do so to get extra money to sweeten their life, but out of neccessity and thus becoming indedbted to their employers who can do almost anything to them only limited by the state regulations on the labor laws.

This is why I think that to achieve Personal Freedom we need Unconditional Basic Income (UBI), one which is levelled according to the income. This does not mean any citizen gets this UBI, but anyone who don't earn their own money or earn below the limit (whatever that might be - the limit as well as the rate - is beyond this topic) recieve this benefit without the requirement of work.

It may not be high. It should still grant you incentive to get out of the UBI and work for a living. But this time it is on YOUR conditions. Your life - your choice.

It may be that people will start a business of their own. Without the UBI anyone trying to start their own business will have to ask the bank for loans for the project - unless they're born with a silverspoon.

With UBI you take fewer risks with starting your own business. If it fails, you always have the UBI to fall back on.

You will always be guaranteed a minimum income in your own search for Liberty and The Meaning of Life.

Many great minds of science and philosophy either had a huge fortune or were lucky that they had benefactors that allowed them their studies and liberties.

Why not give everyone this oppoturnity - from the bottom up?

Along with having UBI instead of "workfare"-benefits, we also need to abolish other work-duties - like Conscription.
Conscription certainly is Forced Labor. It has nothing to do with liberty.

If you country is threatened by a superpower that is going to enslave you/your people it is equivalent to an oxymoron of enslaving people to the army to avoid... enslavement.

If liberty is truely threatened any able-bodied person will do what it takes to help defend the country - without being forced to it. It also raise the morale of the soldiers to have their freedom - and fight for it rather than fighting because of threat of punishment from their own state.

---

I hope you enjoy reading this "Treatise" - small whatever it may be, and it could probably do better, but I hope to get the premises right and get some useful response.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 13th, 2019, 4:24 pm

Logician wrote:
January 12th, 2019, 1:10 pm
Hi everyone. This is my very first post on this forum, so please bear with me. Thanks.

This will be a lengthy post, because I'm going to do my best at substantiating my claims. Though - English is not my native language.
However I will also do my best at making this post as short or precise as possible, though this will inevitably lead to lack of sourcing and other stuff neccessary for propper arguments, so feel free to ask in-depth questions. I will try and answer the best I can.

I know this is a politics philosophy, and my post will be about political philosophy, but first I'll try to find some meaningful definitions upon which I will found my main basic political-philosophical opinions.

-----------

Why Liberty

It is my opinion that Liberty - especially Personal Freedom (in contrast to or a neccesssity for - economic freedom) is the most important aspect of life.

We are all humans but we are also unique individuals. We have different skills/abilities and different weaknesses. Some are physically strong, others are mentally weak, others are disabled but capable of contributing to society in one way or the other.

What I'm trying to say is that Liberty is a neccessity for humans to strive and find the meaning in their own life -
the pursue of happiness so to speak.

What makes sense in your life - for you - may not neccessarily make sense for someone else.

The question about Liberty is all about the meaning of life, and I believe that the meaning of life only makes sense from a relative point of view - depending on the individual in question and the environment in which (s)he lives.

Types of Liberties

In my opinion, there are two sets of Liberties from which all other liberties exists:

Personal and Economic Freedom.

I'll start with the latter:

Economic freedom has to do with paying as few taxes as possible, and allowed to spend your money on whatever you so choose.
To earn your money in any (legal) way you so choose. You also have the responsibility of not getting in debt amongst other responsibilities.

To earn or loan money - or inherit, is all about economic freedom.

However, many economically liberal nations are rarely liberal. Take Singapore. Or China. Both countries are economically liberal, but lacks Personal Liberty.

For what is all the the money worth, if you can spend it on whatever you like - but you cannot use the stuff as you so choose (even without harming others or limiting the freedom of others)?

This is why I believe the Economic Freedom is the lesser freedom. The Personal Freedom is the most important. It has to do with the right to free speech. The right to assembly. The right to search any book you so choose and hold the political leanings and opinions you want. And the right to live your life as you so choose.

Of course all this without harming or limiting the liberties of others.

How to achieve Liberty

But Liberty cannot be achieved through anarchy. For with anarchy the strongest or best adapted species will decide the rights and liberties of lesser species. This is why we need a civilization. A State.

Without the State to protect the liberties, those who already own lands and ressources will be stronger and outcompete the weak, leaving the weak with little to no other options than becoming indebted to their benefactors. This is a humiliating and liberty-depriving situation.

A State should protect anyone from harm from others and also open the possibilities for as many people as possible to make their own way of life to pursue their own happiness.

This is why states offer education, and some welfare states even offer health care partly or wholly financed through taxes, so that anyone can have a chance of getting an education, or recieve health care when they get sick.

They limit the economic freedoms to enhance (some) personal freedoms - through heavy taxation.

But this is a small price of economic freedom to ehnance the personal liberty for the (vast) majority.

But I think we can do better than that:

Welfare Benefits - like unemployment benefits, disability benefits etc. often come with the requirements of work.

At first it might seem "fair" that people work in return for benefits. But the fact is that they are only becoming indebted to the state - the benefactors. The State then decides what job they should take, and how much they should work. Their only alternative is to say "No Thanks" and die of hunger and thirst.

This is not about liberty. Work-requirements is equivalent of slavery. You probably already heard the phrase "wage slavery" - employees working not because the chose to do so to get extra money to sweeten their life, but out of neccessity and thus becoming indedbted to their employers who can do almost anything to them only limited by the state regulations on the labor laws.

This is why I think that to achieve Personal Freedom we need Unconditional Basic Income (UBI), one which is levelled according to the income. This does not mean any citizen gets this UBI, but anyone who don't earn their own money or earn below the limit (whatever that might be - the limit as well as the rate - is beyond this topic) recieve this benefit without the requirement of work.

It may not be high. It should still grant you incentive to get out of the UBI and work for a living. But this time it is on YOUR conditions. Your life - your choice.

It may be that people will start a business of their own. Without the UBI anyone trying to start their own business will have to ask the bank for loans for the project - unless they're born with a silverspoon.

With UBI you take fewer risks with starting your own business. If it fails, you always have the UBI to fall back on.

You will always be guaranteed a minimum income in your own search for Liberty and The Meaning of Life.

Many great minds of science and philosophy either had a huge fortune or were lucky that they had benefactors that allowed them their studies and liberties.

Why not give everyone this oppoturnity - from the bottom up?

Along with having UBI instead of "workfare"-benefits, we also need to abolish other work-duties - like Conscription.
Conscription certainly is Forced Labor. It has nothing to do with liberty.

If you country is threatened by a superpower that is going to enslave you/your people it is equivalent to an oxymoron of enslaving people to the army to avoid... enslavement.

If liberty is truely threatened any able-bodied person will do what it takes to help defend the country - without being forced to it. It also raise the morale of the soldiers to have their freedom - and fight for it rather than fighting because of threat of punishment from their own state.

---

I hope you enjoy reading this "Treatise" - small whatever it may be, and it could probably do better, but I hope to get the premises right and get some useful response.
Have you read much by John Locke?

He would most certainly agree with you about all this.

I think Aristotle would agree too, since he states that some lives are not worth living, such as that of an abused slave.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 13th, 2019, 4:27 pm

Logician wrote:
January 12th, 2019, 1:10 pm
Hi everyone. This is my very first post on this forum, so please bear with me. Thanks.

This will be a lengthy post, because I'm going to do my best at substantiating my claims. Though - English is not my native language.
However I will also do my best at making this post as short or precise as possible, though this will inevitably lead to lack of sourcing and other stuff neccessary for propper arguments, so feel free to ask in-depth questions. I will try and answer the best I can.

I know this is a politics philosophy, and my post will be about political philosophy, but first I'll try to find some meaningful definitions upon which I will found my main basic political-philosophical opinions.

-----------

Why Liberty

It is my opinion that Liberty - especially Personal Freedom (in contrast to or a neccesssity for - economic freedom) is the most important aspect of life.

We are all humans but we are also unique individuals. We have different skills/abilities and different weaknesses. Some are physically strong, others are mentally weak, others are disabled but capable of contributing to society in one way or the other.

What I'm trying to say is that Liberty is a neccessity for humans to strive and find the meaning in their own life -
the pursue of happiness so to speak.

What makes sense in your life - for you - may not neccessarily make sense for someone else.

The question about Liberty is all about the meaning of life, and I believe that the meaning of life only makes sense from a relative point of view - depending on the individual in question and the environment in which (s)he lives.

Types of Liberties

In my opinion, there are two sets of Liberties from which all other liberties exists:

Personal and Economic Freedom.

I'll start with the latter:

Economic freedom has to do with paying as few taxes as possible, and allowed to spend your money on whatever you so choose.
To earn your money in any (legal) way you so choose. You also have the responsibility of not getting in debt amongst other responsibilities.

To earn or loan money - or inherit, is all about economic freedom.

However, many economically liberal nations are rarely liberal. Take Singapore. Or China. Both countries are economically liberal, but lacks Personal Liberty.

For what is all the the money worth, if you can spend it on whatever you like - but you cannot use the stuff as you so choose (even without harming others or limiting the freedom of others)?

This is why I believe the Economic Freedom is the lesser freedom. The Personal Freedom is the most important. It has to do with the right to free speech. The right to assembly. The right to search any book you so choose and hold the political leanings and opinions you want. And the right to live your life as you so choose.

Of course all this without harming or limiting the liberties of others.

How to achieve Liberty

But Liberty cannot be achieved through anarchy. For with anarchy the strongest or best adapted species will decide the rights and liberties of lesser species. This is why we need a civilization. A State.

Without the State to protect the liberties, those who already own lands and ressources will be stronger and outcompete the weak, leaving the weak with little to no other options than becoming indebted to their benefactors. This is a humiliating and liberty-depriving situation.

A State should protect anyone from harm from others and also open the possibilities for as many people as possible to make their own way of life to pursue their own happiness.

This is why states offer education, and some welfare states even offer health care partly or wholly financed through taxes, so that anyone can have a chance of getting an education, or recieve health care when they get sick.

They limit the economic freedoms to enhance (some) personal freedoms - through heavy taxation.

But this is a small price of economic freedom to ehnance the personal liberty for the (vast) majority.

But I think we can do better than that:

Welfare Benefits - like unemployment benefits, disability benefits etc. often come with the requirements of work.

At first it might seem "fair" that people work in return for benefits. But the fact is that they are only becoming indebted to the state - the benefactors. The State then decides what job they should take, and how much they should work. Their only alternative is to say "No Thanks" and die of hunger and thirst.

This is not about liberty. Work-requirements is equivalent of slavery. You probably already heard the phrase "wage slavery" - employees working not because the chose to do so to get extra money to sweeten their life, but out of neccessity and thus becoming indedbted to their employers who can do almost anything to them only limited by the state regulations on the labor laws.

This is why I think that to achieve Personal Freedom we need Unconditional Basic Income (UBI), one which is levelled according to the income. This does not mean any citizen gets this UBI, but anyone who don't earn their own money or earn below the limit (whatever that might be - the limit as well as the rate - is beyond this topic) recieve this benefit without the requirement of work.

It may not be high. It should still grant you incentive to get out of the UBI and work for a living. But this time it is on YOUR conditions. Your life - your choice.

It may be that people will start a business of their own. Without the UBI anyone trying to start their own business will have to ask the bank for loans for the project - unless they're born with a silverspoon.

With UBI you take fewer risks with starting your own business. If it fails, you always have the UBI to fall back on.

You will always be guaranteed a minimum income in your own search for Liberty and The Meaning of Life.

Many great minds of science and philosophy either had a huge fortune or were lucky that they had benefactors that allowed them their studies and liberties.

Why not give everyone this oppoturnity - from the bottom up?

Along with having UBI instead of "workfare"-benefits, we also need to abolish other work-duties - like Conscription.
Conscription certainly is Forced Labor. It has nothing to do with liberty.

If you country is threatened by a superpower that is going to enslave you/your people it is equivalent to an oxymoron of enslaving people to the army to avoid... enslavement.

If liberty is truely threatened any able-bodied person will do what it takes to help defend the country - without being forced to it. It also raise the morale of the soldiers to have their freedom - and fight for it rather than fighting because of threat of punishment from their own state.

---

I hope you enjoy reading this "Treatise" - small whatever it may be, and it could probably do better, but I hope to get the premises right and get some useful response.
I don't believe that either Aristotle or Locke would agree with you about the anarchy part.

Anarchy just creates a jungle of violence.

Much resources and time must then be wasted on maintaining personal safety.

Therefore anarchy is inefficient and massively so.

Therefore your anarchy would lead to political entropy and your political system would be undermined by clans and tribes uniting to defeat the anarchy.

And then you would simply be back on page one with government of the people by the people for the people.

Q.E.D.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 13th, 2019, 4:29 pm

Human's most basic needs, prioritized:

1 - oxygen

2 - warmth

3 - shelter

4 - water

5 - sleep

6 - food

7 - safety

8 - purposefulness

9 - resources

10 - companionship

11 - stable government.

User avatar
Logician
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 30th, 2017, 12:23 pm

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by Logician » January 13th, 2019, 4:57 pm

h_k_s wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 4:27 pm
I don't believe that either Aristotle or Locke would agree with you about the anarchy part.

Anarchy just creates a jungle of violence.

Much resources and time must then be wasted on maintaining personal safety.

Therefore anarchy is inefficient and massively so.

Therefore your anarchy would lead to political entropy and your political system would be undermined by clans and tribes uniting to defeat the anarchy.

And then you would simply be back on page one with government of the people by the people for the people.

Q.E.D.
I never defended anarchy, quite the contrary.
I explicitly stated that:
But Liberty cannot be achieved through anarchy. For with anarchy the strongest or best adapted species will decide the rights and liberties of lesser species. This is why we need a civilization. A State.
In other words: I said anarchy is bad, and anarchy is not freedom.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 13th, 2019, 6:22 pm

Ok I see. Guess I read that too fast.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3329
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by LuckyR » January 15th, 2019, 5:17 am

h_k_s wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 4:29 pm
Human's most basic needs, prioritized:

1 - oxygen

2 - warmth

3 - shelter

4 - water

5 - sleep

6 - food

7 - safety

8 - purposefulness

9 - resources

10 - companionship

11 - stable government.
What? No sex and exercise?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 16th, 2019, 7:49 pm

LuckyR wrote:
January 15th, 2019, 5:17 am
h_k_s wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 4:29 pm
Human's most basic needs, prioritized:

1 - oxygen

2 - warmth

3 - shelter

4 - water

5 - sleep

6 - food

7 - safety

8 - purposefulness

9 - resources

10 - companionship

11 - stable government.
What? No sex and exercise?
Good point.

But you don't need exercise or sex to live.

Exercise helps and it makes you a better hunter. But look at all the couch-potato Millennial nerds that don't exercise at all -- just play video games in their virtual worlds.

And sex is an act driven by lust. If you can corral a female (or member of the opposite sex -- heck these days trans and same-sex sex is also quite common) then you can have sex. But it is mostly a diversion from the more important things like the 11 items listed supra.

Of course Mother Nature always gets her way with males and females of all species.

But still, a good point.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3329
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by LuckyR » January 18th, 2019, 2:54 am

The restraint to avoid all of the snarky double entendres really taxed my resources...
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 93
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by Arjen » January 21st, 2019, 4:36 am

h_k_s wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 4:27 pm
I don't believe that either Aristotle or Locke would agree with you about the anarchy part.
Anarchy just creates a jungle of violence.
Much resources and time must then be wasted on maintaining personal safety.
Therefore anarchy is inefficient and massively so.
Therefore your anarchy would lead to political entropy and your political system would be undermined by clans and tribes uniting to defeat the anarchy.
And then you would simply be back on page one with government of the people by the people for the people.
Q.E.D.
I don't want to stray from the original topic too much, but I think that you are describing democracy here....
In an anarchistic situation there is no state, after all. And in democracy, people to support electable leaders.

Anarchy is something that I think you don't really understand, to be completely honest.
I will explain my position.

Personally, I have always felt the weight of our system pressing down on society. Given the fact that a system is always a representation of reality created by one or more humans, that same system is also limited by the understanding of said human(s). Therefore, in any system, in order to function properly, one must follow those limitations, or be deemed incorrect, stupid or crazy when knowing better. In this way all systems limit themselves and all beings in it; changing the normal order where the best and brightest would shine. The shortcomings normally can be overthrown by decades of hard work, but we all know that there are always more things to learn, therefore any system will always hold down the best and brightest. Typically systems also hold down the dumbest, so mediocre people are promoted. Which is strange.

I think formally speaking, anarchy can be viewed in different perspectives or scales. Capitalism can be seen as an economic anarchy, the old American frontier as a legal anarchy and polygamy as a social anarchy, for example. The question is to what scale and in what form anarchy is present, to determine if it is wanted or not. In nature, there is already some order and the human order is created especially to change the order that is forced upon us by nature. From that perspective, I think Pjotr Kropotkin is quite right in his thought that there is order in nature and anarchy in social structures (he is a Siberian philosopher and biologist). He uses the example of wolves. When packs meet eachother in the wild, there are rules of engagement, while inside the pack, the wolves fight deadly fights over social ranking. Inside the system, there is anarchy. Outside of it, there is order.

Ok, apologies if I deviated too much from the topic. If someone wants to discuss this further, maybe we should open a new topic?

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 23rd, 2019, 12:59 pm

Arjen wrote:
January 21st, 2019, 4:36 am
h_k_s wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 4:27 pm
I don't believe that either Aristotle or Locke would agree with you about the anarchy part.
Anarchy just creates a jungle of violence.
Much resources and time must then be wasted on maintaining personal safety.
Therefore anarchy is inefficient and massively so.
Therefore your anarchy would lead to political entropy and your political system would be undermined by clans and tribes uniting to defeat the anarchy.
And then you would simply be back on page one with government of the people by the people for the people.
Q.E.D.
I don't want to stray from the original topic too much, but I think that you are describing democracy here....
In an anarchistic situation there is no state, after all. And in democracy, people to support electable leaders.

Anarchy is something that I think you don't really understand, to be completely honest.
I will explain my position.

Personally, I have always felt the weight of our system pressing down on society. Given the fact that a system is always a representation of reality created by one or more humans, that same system is also limited by the understanding of said human(s). Therefore, in any system, in order to function properly, one must follow those limitations, or be deemed incorrect, stupid or crazy when knowing better. In this way all systems limit themselves and all beings in it; changing the normal order where the best and brightest would shine. The shortcomings normally can be overthrown by decades of hard work, but we all know that there are always more things to learn, therefore any system will always hold down the best and brightest. Typically systems also hold down the dumbest, so mediocre people are promoted. Which is strange.

I think formally speaking, anarchy can be viewed in different perspectives or scales. Capitalism can be seen as an economic anarchy, the old American frontier as a legal anarchy and polygamy as a social anarchy, for example. The question is to what scale and in what form anarchy is present, to determine if it is wanted or not. In nature, there is already some order and the human order is created especially to change the order that is forced upon us by nature. From that perspective, I think Pjotr Kropotkin is quite right in his thought that there is order in nature and anarchy in social structures (he is a Siberian philosopher and biologist). He uses the example of wolves. When packs meet eachother in the wild, there are rules of engagement, while inside the pack, the wolves fight deadly fights over social ranking. Inside the system, there is anarchy. Outside of it, there is order.

Ok, apologies if I deviated too much from the topic. If someone wants to discuss this further, maybe we should open a new topic?
Anarchy is anarchy. It is a Greek word that means no ruler. In other words, there is no ruler. Chaos rules.

Anarchy can never last long because people will unite and form some kind of government or else a warlord will evolve and force it upon them. Either way anarchy dies. Anarchy is unstable.

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 93
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by Arjen » January 23rd, 2019, 4:13 pm

h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2019, 12:59 pm
Anarchy is anarchy. It is a Greek word that means no ruler. In other words, there is no ruler. Chaos rules.

Anarchy can never last long because people will unite and form some kind of government or else a warlord will evolve and force it upon them. Either way anarchy dies. Anarchy is unstable.
I understand how the word was formed and used, but I am suggesting that it was made up due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what it referred to.
There are many examples of people uniting without a ruler. I especially liked Owen's Home Colonies. It is about shareholders that own a piece of land and work together to be self-supporting. Anyway, let us not go offtopic any further.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 23rd, 2019, 11:38 pm

Arjen wrote:
January 23rd, 2019, 4:13 pm
h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2019, 12:59 pm
Anarchy is anarchy. It is a Greek word that means no ruler. In other words, there is no ruler. Chaos rules.

Anarchy can never last long because people will unite and form some kind of government or else a warlord will evolve and force it upon them. Either way anarchy dies. Anarchy is unstable.
I understand how the word was formed and used, but I am suggesting that it was made up due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what it referred to.
There are many examples of people uniting without a ruler. I especially liked Owen's Home Colonies. It is about shareholders that own a piece of land and work together to be self-supporting. Anyway, let us not go offtopic any further.
Shareholders are a democracy. They vote. That's not anarchy.

You are mis-defining the issue and as such defining it away.

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 93
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by Arjen » January 24th, 2019, 4:12 am

h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2019, 11:38 pm
Shareholders are a democracy. They vote. That's not anarchy.

You are mis-defining the issue and as such defining it away.
I am not.
It is a internationally accepted example of anarchism. The absence of a governing body makes it that. Everyone just discusses issues at hand, coming together to help each other at times and at other times are forced to solve things alone. It is without shape and form, making it anarchy.

Anyway, let's go back to the original topic.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: My Treatise on Liberty

Post by h_k_s » January 24th, 2019, 6:35 am

Arjen wrote:
January 24th, 2019, 4:12 am
h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2019, 11:38 pm
Shareholders are a democracy. They vote. That's not anarchy.

You are mis-defining the issue and as such defining it away.
I am not.
It is a internationally accepted example of anarchism. The absence of a governing body makes it that. Everyone just discusses issues at hand, coming together to help each other at times and at other times are forced to solve things alone. It is without shape and form, making it anarchy.

Anyway, let's go back to the original topic.
Populorum fallacy = "internationally accepted". These ghosts are just ghosts.

In philosophy you must use deduction, induction, rational thought, and thinking. Not ghosts.

Post Reply