Unsurprisingly, Rettoper is already dodging and going off topic.
Also the over/under for when the first mention of Hitler will be is 26.5 posts. Mind you, this is a gentlemen’s bet. And no bribing Rettoper.
Let me just remind Retopper that we both agreed not to discuss the topic at hand in any other thread. That includes this one. You can respond to what people have said about your positions here after the debate is finished. And everyone else, so as not to distract from the debate, please refrain from insulting or deriding the character of either of us in here.
Rettoper: “I think we need to establish that we live in the real world.”
sigh
So what exactly is this thread for?
To comment on the debate.
Ah.
Well as expected Rettoper isn’t actually adressing anything Liburne says and Liburne seems so determined to actually set them on the right track (not going to happen) that he’s not adressing much of what Rettoper says.
I just wish Liburne would start focusing on defence and ideological perpetuation and then this might actually get going somewhere.
I think Rettoper just gave in to the original question.
“[M]ore specifically, human beings would not magically and genetically mutate from brute statists that they have been throughout history to benevolent free marketeers just because their environment changed. Humans have always exhibited certain traits (greed, avarice, jealousy, envy, pride, et al) that may be anathema to the permanent establishment of an anarchic society.”
Strawman. Anarcho-capitalist thought does not argue that people must change in any way. Greed, avarice, jealousy, envy, pride, et al will exist in an anarcho-Capitalist society, and nobody argues otherwise.
The phrase “anathema to the permanent establishment of…” Does he mean “may prevent the permanent establishment of…” If these things are merely “anathema”, then so what?
I find it fascinating that he doesn’t ever dein to compare and contrast market-anarchy with constitutional republics. He says, human beings have XYZ imperfection therefore market anarchy fails, without mentioning how these human defects play out in the form of government he advocates. MarketAnarchy ‘looks enticing to outside predatory states’, (well don’t constitutional republics?)
Does he think the analysis is too obvious and mundane to perform, or is it cognitive dissonance of a sort?
I wish this was the 1700s, he would be claiming that slavery will always exist, because it does and people are just aggressive and will make each other slaves. History has shown that slavery will just expand.
So, what does the future - in our lifetimes - look like for anarchy? Will there be enclaves while we are still young? Or will be die like most of civilization never seeing a glimpse at all?
I think the latter will happen. I’m about 99.9999% sure. There are too many superstitious aka religious people that will not allow it to happen.
Rettoper: “In addition, they were cited from wikipedia ( a habit of many anarchists) which is not a source I trust without verification.”
Emphasis added.
“So, what does the future - in our lifetimes - look like for anarchy?”
Probably nothing… I think that the best likely scenario is that a lot of states move twoards minarchism, but who can really know where things will go?
Who could have known in 1750 that within 50 years an English colony would be a constitutional republic that would eventually conquer the world? Who in germany in 1913 could have guessed that in 30 years the country would be a facist dictatorship which had the serious possibility of dominating the entire west, and was exterminating millions inside of its own borders? What Roman could have guessed that a man, who may well have seemed like just another deranged jew who had been crucified, would eventually have the largest religeon on earth base itself off of his teachings?
We cannot know the future, and (to me) it appears as though we are reaching one of histories crossroads… To be realistic however, things often seem this way.
The debate question has been changed twice. Rett’s response to interation #3: "I think my statement above answers your question. ". Well, I guess that’s it then. Nothing more to see here folks… move along.
Did Rettoper just admit that his position is illogical?
Btw, if you want to learn how to straw man, then learn from Rettoper.
Rettoper retracted some statements. I consider that commednable espeically given that it’s the internet and people just want to argue from their position no matter what. At least he’s trying to learn. Might have been a little less turbulent if he bothered to learn more before arguing against some of the ideas that are prevalent here. Oh well. We all learn.
Vocabulary word of the day: Dirigiste
[^ SEE SECOND POST ABOVE ^ {“And everyone else, so as not to distract from the debate, please refrain from insulting or deriding the character of either of us in here.”)]
Can we get a link to the debate please?