Support NeoGAF

[SquiddyCracker]

So if Wal-Mart seized control of your town, imposed all sorts of rules on you, it'd be great if one of these conditions were met:
1. You were born after this happened.
b. You get a single irrelevant vote that won't ever do anything.

It would be acceptable, because that is essentially Wal-mart forming their own country.
You could always hope that some other country invades Wal-Martistan in case shit sucks, or just leave the place.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So then government is unnecessary.

because that follows how?

 

[benjipwns]

It would be acceptable, because that is essentially Wal-mart forming their own country.
You could always hope that some other country invades Wal-Martistan in case shit sucks, or just leave the place.

So what's the hangup about corporations getting to rule when you're all arguing in favor of it?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

So what's the hangup about corporations getting to rule when you're all arguing in favor of it?

Because a corporation isn't yet a nation, that's the difference.
They subvert the democratic process, completely bypassing through bribes.

 

[benjipwns]

Because a corporation isn't yet a nation, that's the difference.
They subvert the democratic process, completely bypassing through bribes.

All nation states are corporations. And they all subvert the democratic process.

What's wrong with introducing the more democratic global system of competing corporations into the American or other system? That it might hurt your favorite corporation?

 

[Piecake]

What's wrong with introducing the more democratic global system of competing corporations into the American or other system? That it might hurt your favorite corporation?

How exactly do you picture this working out? I am curious to have this explained further

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Jesus Christ this thread is even worse than usual.

>_<

we're in the state of nature, we need some government. but just make sure benjipwns consents to all decisions

Why wouldn't your vote do anything? If Walmart became the democratic government, what would be the difference between it and the current government? (Walmart removed the hypen and lowercased the M, FYI.)

Mind you, taking this hypothetical literally, this wouldn't necessarily be unobjectionable just because Walmart established a democracy in the town. There might be issues about the scope of society in play, i.e., a majority of local residents might want to be joined to the larger society that Walmart apparently used force to exclude.

This made me lol

 

[empty vessel]

So if Wal-Mart seized control of your town, imposed all sorts of rules on you, it'd be great if one of these conditions were met:
1. You were born after this happened.
b. You get a single irrelevant vote that won't ever do anything.

Why wouldn't your vote do anything? If Walmart became the democratic government, what would be the difference between it and the current government? (Walmart removed the hypen and lowercased the M, FYI.)

Mind you, taking this hypothetical literally, this wouldn't necessarily be unobjectionable just because Walmart established a democracy in the town. There might be issues about the scope of society in play, i.e., a majority of local residents might want to be joined to the larger society that Walmart apparently used force to exclude.

Jesus Christ this thread is even worse than usual.

>_<

But at least we're not talking about electoral politics. The real gutter.

 

[benjipwns]

How exactly do you picture this working out? I am curious to have this explained further

How do things usually work out when monopolies are replaced by competition?

Why wouldn't your vote do anything? If Walmart became the democratic government, what would be the difference between it and the current government?

Nothing. That's why your vote wouldn't do anything.

(Walmart removed the hypen and lowercased the M, FYI.)

Now this is something I truly refuse to recognize, especially that stupid star thing.

we're in the state of nature, we need some government. but just make sure benjipwns consents to all decisionsl

Well, if we want democratic governance, then we should all be consenting, no?

And I think you're confusing my lack of recognition of legitimacy for a lack of recognition of power.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

How do things usually work out when monopolies are replaced by competition?


Nothing. That's why your vote wouldn't do anything.


Now this is something I truly refuse to recognize, especially that stupid star thing.


Well, if we want democratic governance, then we should all be consenting, no?

And I think you're confusing my lack of recognition of legitimacy for a lack of recognition of power.

But your vote is doing something, it always is.

 

[Metaphoreus]

the real world distinction on who the check is address to.

I don't think there's much more to discuss tbh you don't think donations or IE are corruption.

I don't think all donations are corrupt or corrupting. I couldn't have been more clear on this point.

But if you don't want to talk to me about this subject because I disagree with you, I won't begrudge you your bubble.

I've provided a definition

And I'm trying to understand that definition.

 

[benjipwns]

But your vote is doing something, it always is.

Well, it jammed the machine in 2012 for fifteen minutes, so I can't disagree. If only all votes were that effective.

 

[Piecake]

How do things usually work out when monopolies are replaced by competition?

That doesnt explain anything. I was curious about how your idea of government competition is actually implemented, not a basic, one sentence economic theory applied to government

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Jesus Christ this thread is even worse than usual.

>_<

I dunno. It's been a fun couple of pages to read. This place usually gets so slow when there's no big elections on the horizon. Especially now, with half the government insisting on doing nothing, and the other half insisting on meeting them in the middle. This is a pretty fun discussion to lurk on.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, it jammed the machine in 2012 for fifteen minutes, so I can't disagree. If only all votes were that effective.

In an ideal democracy, voting is all you need to do. Of course, we don't live in an ideal democracy, which is why I personally denigrate electoral politics and voting (not to the extent that I would recommend somebody not do it, but to the extent that I say it's the very least a politically active person can do). But this is the difference between the ideal and where we're currently at in human civilization, which is admittedly pretty fucking primitive.

 

[benjipwns]

In an ideal democracy, voting is all you need to do.

Depends on how you define voting I suppose.

If you mean a single vote and majority rules, then it's not an ideal democracy. If you mean, consensual voluntary interactions, then it is.

That doesnt explain anything. I was curious about how your idea of government competition is actually implemented, not a basic, one sentence economic theory applied to government

What is there to explain? It'll be implemented just like everything else is. Why wouldn't it in absence of monopolies deploying violence?

 

[empty vessel]

Depends on how you define voting I suppose.

If you mean a single vote and majority rules, then it's not an ideal democracy. If you mean, consensual voluntary interactions, then it is.

By choosing to benefit from society, aren't your political losses "voluntary"? If you want to be banished to being nourished by coconuts and having absolutely no share of social wealth that's been created, that's a choice, no? If you want to have a shelter, food that you don't personally grow, health care, beds, etc., then you are voluntarily choosing society, are you not?

 

[benjipwns]

By choosing to benefit from society, aren't your political losses "voluntary"? If you want to be banished to being nourished by coconuts and having absolutely no share of social wealth that's been created, that's a choice, no? If you want to have a shelter, food that you don't personally grow, health care, beds, etc., then you are choosing society, are you not?

See you keep claiming that a corporation is society, I just fundamentally disagree. A corporation is an entity within society, but it is not society. It is not all social forces, properties, entities, etc. No matter how much it wishes to claim this status.

But so it doesn't look like we disagree on EVERYTHING:

But at least we're not talking about electoral politics. The real gutter.

.

 

[Piecake]

What is there to explain? It'll be implemented just like everything else is. Why wouldn't it in absence of monopolies deploying violence?

A lot. Corporations are a lot different than a government, no matter what you say. Is your plan to just have a bunch of little governments spread out everywhere so that people can pick and choose one or have multiple governments in one location that see a complete turnover in the government structure when one of them gets elected?

The first one seems like a recipe for scientific, technological, and economic stagnation (or regression) while the second one just seems like a chaotic, inefficient mess. I mean, both seem terrible to me, so that is why I asked for specifics since I was hoping you had another option

 

[empty vessel]

See you keep claiming that a corporation is society, I just fundamentally disagree. A corporation is an entity within society, but it is not society. It is not all social forces, properties, entities, etc. No matter how much it wishes to claim this status.

You can't have the benefits of what people create collectively without submitting to the rules of the collective. No one individual can create a cell phone. An individual can create some rudimentary things, but of course over a life span can only specialize in so many things. So maybe you could create a bed for yourself, but it would probably be the most shit, uncomfortable bed any human ever slept in, unless you are in fact skilled with carpentry. But even if you are, how are you going to cut the wood without a saw? Your hands aren't up to the task. Saws are products of society, not of individual humans living in isolation from each other. You think you could develop steel on a deserted island by yourself? No.

 

[benjipwns]

Is your plan to just have a bunch of little governments spread out everywhere so that people can pick and choose one or have multiple governments in one location that see a complete turnover in the government structure when one of them gets elected?

The first one seems like a recipe for scientific, technological, and economic stagnation (or regression) while the second one just seems like a chaotic, inefficient mess. I mean, both seem terrible to me

But both is what we've had for all of human history, and look at the progress we've made! I see no reason to assume we need to centralize things more, we should get more decentralized and more democratic!

You can't have the benefits of what people create collectively without submitting to the rules of the collective. No one individual can create a cell phone. An individual can create some rudimentary things, but of course over a life span can only specialize in so many things. So maybe you could create a bed for yourself, but it would probably be the most shit, uncomfortable bed any human ever slept in, unless you are in fact skilled with carpentry. But even if you are, how are you going to cut the wood without a saw? Your hands aren't up to the task. Saws are products of society, not of individuals. You think you could develop steel on a deserted island by yourself? No.

So we need a corporation to deploy violence on others to have things? Is that what you're saying?

Or is this just more confusing one corporation for all of society?

 

[Piecake]

But both is what we've had for all of human history, and look at the progress we've made! I see no reason to centralize things more, we should get more decentralized and more democratic!

Is this a joke?

 

[empty vessel]

So we need a corporation to deploy violence on others to have things? Is that what you're saying?

I know where you're coming from benjipwns, because I've been through the anarchist school (albeit of the real kind and not of the pseudo-capitalist kind), but the answer is yes. We have to cede individual liberties to benefit from coexistence with other humans.

Or is this just more confusing one corporation for all of society?

A society of humans has to have rules.

 

[benjipwns]

We have to cede individual liberties to benefit from coexistence with other humans.

A society of humans has to have rules.

Then I don't get why you guys bitch so much about having rulers if it's what you want.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I find benjipwn's misuse of terminology confusing.
A corporation is a corporation, a government is a government, and we've yet to reach a point where a corporation has become a government.

Calling a government a corporation in order to draw a silly analogy is not really accomplishing much.

 

[benjipwns]

I find benjipwn's misuse of terminology confusing.
A corporation is a corporation, a government is a government, and we've yet to reach a point where a corporation has become a government.

Calling a government a corporation in order to draw a silly analogy is not really accomplishing much.

Take it up with the Romans, not me.

What's a Constitution other than a Corporate Charter?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Take it up with the Romans, not me.

What's a Constitution other than a Corporate Charter?

The constitution is offensive, that I agree with you on.
It is inherently un-democratic and a plague on the sociopolitical cultural web of the United States of America.

 

[benjipwns]

The constitution is offensive, that I agree with you on.
It is inherently un-democratic and a plague on the sociopolitical cultural web of the United States of America.

I think if we have to have a state, the U.S. Constitution is the only thing actually enacted that's close to an acceptable charter. Shame about the willful denial of the 9th and 10th Amendments* though. Just shows you what corporate corruption leads to.

*And 1st, 4th, etc.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Then I don't get why you guys bitch so much about having rulers if it's what you want.

I think you're presenting it as a binary choice. Most of us want a ruling body. That doesn't mean any old ruling body will do. We're allowed to complain about one type of rule without having to throw the entire concept away.

 

[empty vessel]

I find benjipwn's misuse of terminology confusing.
A corporation is a corporation, a government is a government, and we've yet to reach a point where a corporation has become a government.

Calling a government a corporation in order to draw a silly analogy is not really accomplishing much.

I've no problem with benjipwns's terminology. Corporations are state entities. A corporation is a governing collective. A government is a corporation. Corporations are government.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I think if we have to have a state, the U.S. Constitution is the only thing actually enacted that's close to an acceptable charter. Shame about the willful denial of the 9th and 10th Amendments* though. Just shows you what corporate corruption leads to.

*And 1st, 4th, etc.

It is unacceptable because it is essentially the latent dictatorship of some war criminals who lived 300 years ago.

It's about as acceptable of a charter as the bible.

 

[benjipwns]

I think you're presenting it as a binary choice. Most of us want a ruling body. That doesn't mean any old ruling body will do. We're allowed to complain about one type of rule without having to throw the entire concept away.

It seems most people want a monopoly corporation as the ruling body. I think that's a concept to throw away in favor of something democratic.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It seems most people want a monopoly corporation as the ruling body. I think that's a concept to throw away in favor of something democratic.

by democratic you mean you will bitch and moan till you get what you want. you're problem is you don't have the government you want so its invalid. Most people consent to the government the fact you don't doesn't mean the rules don't apply.

democracies are democratic.

anarchism is silly philosophy and disregards all reality and human nature. its a though experiment, nothing more

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It seems most people want a monopoly corporation as the ruling body. I think that's a concept to throw away in favor of something democratic.

What is it you have in mind? I still don't quite get it. A bunch of governments competing to get citizens voluntarily?

 

[benjipwns]

Anarchism is the state of reality and human nature.

Trying to create democracies by imposing corporate monopolies is the silly disregard.

 

[empty vessel]

Anarchism is the state of reality and human nature.

Trying to create democracies by imposing corporate monopolies is the silly disregard.

Your cell phone disagrees with you.

 

[benjipwns]

Your cell phone disagrees with you.

LG claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force? I admit I didn't read the terms and conditions.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Anarchism is the state of reality and human nature.

Trying to create democracies by imposing corporate monopolies is the silly disregard.

No its not. Human beings are social creatures, they don't live solitary lives. Never have, never will. Even tribes and hunter gathers aren't anarchic because I'm pretty sure they have a hierarchy that not everybody agrees to, they have rules, like not killing, they have leaders, they have collective decision making, etc.

LG claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force? I admit I didn't read the terms and conditions.

cell phones wouldn't be possible in anarchy. Nothing would. humanity would die out

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Anarchism is the state of reality and human nature.

Trying to create democracies by imposing corporate monopolies is the silly disregard.

There is no state of reality and human nature.
Everything is as it is, as it is as it is.

10,000 BC, there was anarchy.
2014, there is a wide range of different societal systems. These are not imposed upon anarchy, they exist alongside it.

 

[empty vessel]

LG claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force? I admit I didn't read the terms and conditions.

Your cell phone is a product of society. You have a cell phone and want a cell phone. You voluntarily choose society. I can't blame you. The benefits of society are unimaginably enormous. Virtually everything you appreciate is a product of it. Society comes with rules. Ideally, democratically chosen.

 

[benjipwns]

No its not. Human beings are social creatures, they don't live solitary lives. ... cell phones wouldn't be possible in anarchy. Nothing would. humanity would die out

Then how did all of human history exist without a single corporation holding monopoly power? How does the current world function without one?

Why do you guys seem to think anarchism requires solitary living?

10,000 BC, there was anarchy.

There is still anarchy.

Your cell phone is a product of society. You have a cell phone and want a cell phone. You voluntarily choose society. I can't blame you. The benefits of society are unimaginably enormous. Virtually everything you appreciate is a product of it.

Why are you granting a single corporation all the great works of society?!?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Then how did all of human history exists without a single corporation holding monopoly power? How does the current world function without one?

What the hell are you talking about? who is talking about a single government (i'm not using your terminology)? there are many, state, city, local, homeowners, binational, multinational, supranational.

youre literally just spouting "single corporation" without reading what is written.

 

[empty vessel]

Why are you granting a single corporation all the great works of society?!?

Can you name a society without rules? If you cannot, then you cannot name me a society without a corporation. Everything you have results from humans working together. Humans working together requires rules for working together. Anarchism is not about a rule-less society. It is about a society that is most fair and without hierarchy. Egalitarianism is the core of anarchism.

 

[benjipwns]

What the hell are you talking about? who is talking about a single government (i'm not using your terminology)? there are many, state, city, local, homeowners, binational, multinational, supranational.

Right, and they all claim a monopoly, which is clearly impossible. More evidence that anarchy has not led to the end of human existence. And that it's just peachy to deny legitimacy to any single corporation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Right, and they all claim a monopoly, which is clearly impossible. More evidence that anarchy has not led to the end of human existence. And that it's just peachy to deny legitimacy to any single corporation.

They all claim a monopoly on legitimate force and lawmaking, yes. How the heck is this impossible? People have come together as a society and have decided to set rules and grant a monopoly to those rules...

 

[benjipwns]

They all claim a monopoly on legitimate force and lawmaking, yes. How the heck is this impossible?

So which one holds the legitimate monopoly?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

So which one holds the legitimate monopoly?

The one with more power.

 

[benjipwns]

The one with more power.

And if we were in an anarchy, just hypothetically, which group would would claim it?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

nvm i'm not arguing this. its silly read the books I posted. you'd have a lot of those questions answered

 

[benjipwns]

nvm i'm not arguing this. its silly read the books I posted. you'd have a lot of those questions answered

I have read those books, except for Locke (mostly)* they make a lot of apologia for the necessity of a ruling class to dominate the unwashed masses because otherwise the masses might do what they want instead of what the elites want.

EDIT: *And Payne, though more explicitly elsewhere.