There is no strawman. Max and possibly you are redefining the term anarchy into meaninglessness by conflating free will with ‘political’ freedom.
Of course you are free to try to do whatever you want, and end up killed or in jail. But that’s not the sort of freedom that libertarians talk about.
Of course. If you don’t like Canada just leave. You don’t leave ? There you are - you consented…
There are many states. They are in anarchy with one another, yes or no?
Do you resist?
While the states may be in anarchy with each other, there are still states.
ok. but whats that got to do with it?
how is that relevant?
You always have free will. If your free will can be taken, then it was never natural to begin with.
sure, but max (and you?) are conflating the freedom of the will with political freedom, such conflation is an argue fail [;)]
but some political entities are stronger than others. no matter the scale
I don’t want to play the “Nir is playing dumb game”. I only post to you, because you are intelligent. if you’re not going to be intelligent, then let’s just forgo this.
Yeah, exactly.
There are individuals who act in concert usually referred to as governments-states who coerce other people usually called subjects-citizens.
The fact that, say, the murderers and thieves of the american state are in ‘anarchy’ with respect to the murderers and thieves of the german state is not really relevant. For the time being they are only exploiting ‘their’ subjects, though they may start a war if they can get away with it.
This topic is making my head spin. A few days ago I would define anarchy as the absence of a state. I would define a state as a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force. This made perfect sense to me.
Now I’m wondering, assuming those definitions, at what point is the monopoly not territorial? At what point is it not a monopoly? When does the use of force become illegal? I’m confused. Can anyone help?[:S]
And, that’s all she wrote…
Someone will be along shortly to advise you on the correct dogma to embrace. Don’t worry. It’s all figured out. You’re a victim, and there is nothing you can do about it.
You are still conflating free will with political freedom and no, my free will can’t be taken, but my actions can be completely crippled.
im not playing dumb. how does the absence of a superstate that governs the nation states, prove that individuals who live under political governments, the very states we just spoke about, do not live under states, but are in ‘anarchy’ ?
i hope this doesn’t get ugly. (but the fact i havent punched a policeman today doesnt mean i consent to the state)
Maybe but that says nothing about free societies and political freedom. Libertarianism is not just ‘anarchy’.
I could contact my local authorities and ask them what my opinion is.
I was only talking about free will. The conflations are not mine.
If you have free will, then you are self-directed. If you agree with that, and you agree that free will is a natural condition, then it seems to me, that anyone who claims not to be self-directed, is committing a performative contradiction. Because they most certainly have free will, inseparable from their existence, as demonstrated by their existence.
Of course, if I am wrong, then everyone here who is only posting because the state coerced them to, raise your hands.
Then post it here, for feedback and discussion.
Hehe. I had to read that twice to get it =]
i agree with this 100% but it doesnt help much since it is a different position than that which Max was holding. perhaps you didnt realise that and saw Max as an ally for your position as stated here. well he may be, but are you an ally of his position that we are in anarchy now and that there is no state. and no state oppression, and no victims of states? (i dig marc stevens too, there is no philosophically legitimate state, but there is a conventional state with conventional legitimacy)