Lifyre wrote:
You mean besides the fact that in most countries you don't take power by killing the person you're replacing? Or the fact that if I can kick your ass it means nothing in how likely I am to succeed? When people stop being a wuss at school they might go somewhere... Somewhere you obviously won't be.
-Lifyre
Well, first off, remember that we're talking about anarchy with all of this. So I'm still not hearing any reason why, in fact, the fact that you can kick someone's ass doesn't gurantee my sucess. Sounds to me like, if you're a great family provider, lots of spare food, all of that, but someone is stronger and there's no law preventing it, they can come in and take whatever they like and just beat the living shit out of whoever says otherwise. So
Quote:
the fact that if I can kick your ass it means nothing in how likely I am to succeed
actually weighs in directly on my chances of sucess. Brute strength and animal cunning, which you and Ollie so contemptuously dismiss, provide two direct benifits: the ability to take what the possessor desires from other, productive individuals, and the ability to produce and keep the fruits of labor safe from other accquisitive individuals. That said, I'll repeat my observation that as yet neither you nor Ollie have given any
substantiated reason that anarchy doesn't mean rule of force, brutal state of nature, etc. etc. etc. It's all assertations right now.
As to
Quote:
You mean besides the fact that in most countries you don't take power by killing the person you're replacing?
I should point out a few key things...starting with the reminder that, in fact, this is done fairly regularly. So even if you're going to argue "well, things are more civilized these days, so an anarchy would be more civilized as well," you're sort of assuming things based on a nice comfortable first-world sense of government. How exactly do you think power changes hands in South and Central American nations? Not always with a bloodbath, no. But frequently? You bet your ass. Even when modern-day power struggles aren't resolved with "kill the opposition," they still almost universally involve superior military force backing the victor. So, once again, I'm seeing the basic human trend as being toward resolving things by violence and intimidation.
So what's the significence of all this? Well, I posed the topic, so I'm doing my best to stay neutral on the position, but I do feel it important to weigh everything I've just said in as a refutation of the idea that Ollie and Lifyre are both throwing out sarcastically, that is to say the concept that an anarchy these days would not devolve into a world based on "brute strength and animal cunning." And, until they stop insinuating that everyone who disagrees is a wuss who got his head flushed in highschool and start trying to substantiate the position with some analysis of human behavior, I'd say the refutation stands and we must assume anarchy to mean a brutal, violent state of nature where the strongest and most violent are the most able to survive.