Don’t start acting like Max, now.
i thought it was funny.
At least you understand it is an act. It’s difficult sometimes to illustrate who is the greater fool, the jester, or the King who employs him.
Fine.
Yes we have metaphysical free will. I don’t deny that and I don’t see how that enters the picture when discussing political freedom.
So, we are either talking past each other…or you are still conflating free will and political freedom.
I don’t want to speak for LS, but maybe he’ll say something kin to this.
LS?
Au contraire mon frere. You’re the one conflating.
Can you explain the difference between political freedom and free will?
Until we sort out what these two things are, the discussion can’t make any progress.
Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression.
I don’t see how that argues against this being anarchy now. So a criminal comes up to me and coerces me (in your state of anarchy). Does that mean you are instantly not in anarchy anymore due to this one person coercing you? That you are forced to elapse back into a state of government again?
Come on.
Nir just did (Thanks Nir =P)
Fine. We are in anarchy now. I, as a libertarian, don’t give a damn about anarchy.
Seriously. This is a totally silly redefinition of words which only causes more confusion.
Now, if people here are NOT libertarians, great, then maybe the site’s banner should be re-written to “advancing the scholarship of anarchy - whatever that is”.
I think it’s called starting with one’s own self and then going from there. It’s not accepting what the state demands of me and trying, with weak effort obviously, to reject the state.
When you let someone else do your homework, you risk failing the final exam.
you are in anarchy as there is no state, i.e. it is not the norm, it is not De rigueur, or DeJour , it is not the conventional arrangement. uit is not run of the mill, it is not the expected, it is not institutionalised, it is not the standard for the society. Rather, it is an adhoc arranegment. it is a chaotic event. it does not claim legitimacy. it does not enjoy legitimacy. it is crime without PR. etc. etc. i could go on, but i find it somewhat boring.
if everywhere you went you were set upon by criminals, then you make a stronger argument that you are living in a state, but you don’t really seal the deal until you say that these criminals claim legitimacy, and enjoy that convention, and are together as an organisation. if you got these things you got a state. and you do sad to say.
and i used to be sure that LS did not consent to the state.
Ok so far.
Is this synonymous with free will?
Only by other humans? And if so, why humans and not lions or thunderstorms?
To make clear, I would like Juan to reply since he claimed this was his answer.
So if some people don’t view the state as legitimate, does it cease to be a state?
ok then, i’ll refrain
no. perhaps it ceases to be a state in their eyes if they perceive that their peers do not believe it legitimate. but surely if a minority that feels the state is illegitmate recognise that a majority believe it to have legitimacy, then our minority can still conceive of its ‘statitude’ (new word !)
and I would agree with that. as I said, some political positions are weaker than others. alone, my political position is very weak, heck alone it’s not even a society to form any politics, but I think others agree in liberty and not just me.
I think the state is another group of individuals trying to claim consent and coercing it from numerous people that fall prey to their monopoly, including me. It doesn’t mean I refuse their coercion though. I do refuse it. And I see that the Emperor has No Clothes and only with a push back will justice be served.