Climategate

1. China is the largest polluter in the world

2. Ignoring China, I still find it hard to believe that the U.S. government pollutes more than the private sector. Even if you're talking about the military-industrial complex, it's composed mostly of private companies (Lockheed, Boeing, ect.) than government owned manufacturing. If the government were to annex these companies it would be to the benefit of everyone, especially the environment, because a general would only insist on producing things the military actually needs. Lockheed and Boeing make things the military doesn't need and then their lobbyists convince congressmen to buy them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor). Regardless, even if the private sector pollutes less than the government, it's still enough pollution to cause horrible ecological damage.

3. State and society are intrinsically linked. Without a state there is anarchy. Anarchy is dog eat dog, the absence of society. So your quote it mistaken, it does follow that for a functional society to exist there must be a state of some kind. Once a society advances beyond a primitive tribal existence there is no way to maintain the rule of law and the functionality of infrastructure without government.

Maybe they've recently surpassed the US Military, but I doubt it.

http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_88.shtml

Please use sources if you're going to dispute someone else's claim.

That's because the private sector is responsible for the pollution they commit, unless of course they get a pass from government.

If the government's paying for it, whether it's on paper as a 'private' company or not, it's government doing it. I realize the media may be loose with its terminology, but let's differentiate actual private companies from government companies.

Which is yet another reason why government should not exist.

I don't understand the point of saying this. If pollution is the problem, you go after the source. The largest polluter would be the one you go after first.

Have you actually read any anarchist political theory, or are you just spouting off what government schools taught you, to fear the anarchy boogey man?

The state is actually an anti-social entity by definition, so no, they are not intrinsically linked. Society through the marketplace is the natural network of human interaction, and government represents the coercive entity which, through violent intervention, manipulates that which would have peacefully been. You can't call violence peace, cause that's a contradiction. I think you're overlooking the point of Rothbard's quote, that a dichotomy exists which people are ignoring.

Also, society doesn't exist, its just a conceptual placeholder for the sum of individuals.

You don't need violence to create peace. Also, stateless systems existed in Iceland and Ireland and were quite prosperous.

Good point, fugg politics. They corrupt everything they touch.

In 2007, China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

Have you actually read any anarchist political theory, or are you just spouting off what government schools taught you, to fear the anarchy boogey man?

That's the problem with anarchist political theory, it's a theory. There has never a functioning anarchical society. Consider places where there has been anarchy--developing African nations--first gangs form, then the gangs fight and cause all sorts of chaos and death, then the winner becomes dictator. That's why anarchist political theory is bullshit, that's why people equate anarchy with civil strife; because people have needs and without some form of distributive justice and the rule of law people will simply fight one another for available resources. Capitalism seeks to prevent chaos by channeling this competition into a sort of economic game. Socialism is like adding extra rules to the game so everyone plays fair--like when they added booth reviews to football. Communism seeks to nullify competition through equal distribution. Unfortunately, as ideal as communism sounds, we all know it doesn't work. Like anarchy, there has never been a functional communist society (it doesn't matter what the U.S.S.R. or China called themselves, they never achieved any of the communist ideals). Anyway, as long as there are things to compete for, humans will compete for them. Without a government to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of competition, people will commit atrocities far worse than those of Big Brother.

I just don't understand why you assume that people would live peacefully without government when the most violent places in the world are places where the government has no power. Hence this--

The state is actually an anti-social entity by definition, so no, they are not intrinsically linked. Society through the marketplace is the natural network of human interaction, and government represents the coercive entity which, through violent intervention, manipulates that which would have peacefully been.

--makes no sense at all.

Also, society doesn't exist, its just a conceptual placeholder for the sum of individuals.

All words are a conceptual placeholder for something, but society is "the sum of people living together in a more or less ordered community" according to my dictionary. Anarchy is not an ordered community at all, it's a complete lack of order. Government, however, is the pinnacle of an ordered community, hence I was correct in my claim that there is an intrinsic link between society and government. Government is what gives society order--from Mesopotamia to ancient Egypt to ancient China--historically groups of people have been defined as "societies" when government emerges. Government is only a violent, oppressive, coercive antagonist if one is opposed to civilization.

I'll have to read up on the stateless systems of Iceland and Ireland but I have my doubts that I'll find anything convincing. Iceland, after all, was colonized by Denmark while Ireland's history is anything but enviable. Not to mention Iceland's low population density. According to Wiki, the city I live in, which is the 7th most populous in Ohio, would be the 2nd most populous in Iceland. The more population density increases, the more the necessity of government as there are more people competing for less resources.

I knew this would go way off topic, dammit. Too bad we didn't elect Al Gore in 2000, then we wouldn't have to worry about this environmental stuff

In that case, what you wrote above was incorrect. You said pollution, not CO2 emissions. CO2 is not the only form of pollution.

I don't know if anyone ever told you this before, and the reason I'll do it now is because you'll never learn if no one ever tells you, and most people are too polite to ever tell, but...

...if you are wrong about something, it's good to say, "Woops, I was inaccurate. I meant to say 'CO2 emissions', but I said pollution. My b." The way you did it, it comes across kinda douchebaggy as though you're trying to cover the fact that you were incorrect. Regularly I wouldn't say anything, but I don't think you were intentionally trying to do that, and am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You could replace 'anarchist' with 'any' and you've just advocated ignorance.

Incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY
^Audio excerpt from Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty Ireland's system was more what you'd call panarchy, a system of voluntary government. Unlike what you're familiar with, panarchy is a system in which you belong to a 'government', though I'll call it what they called it in Ireland, a 'tuath'. The tuatha are not geographic monopolies, thus, they were market-based whathaveyous. But I'm giving away too much, just listen to the vid...

There's also Iceland:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk0tlZ2hZiY

That's not anarchy in the political sense. Your sentence just answered my question though, that you are totally ignorant of anarchist political theory.

First sentence:

I don't know what I'm talking about.

Second sentence:

I am making conclusions despite my ignorance, and I am right.

I hope you don't always think in such simplistic (and inaccurate) terms.

Voluntary communes 'work'. Voluntary being the key word.

The market has its own ways of establishing what's cool and whats not. However, you just admitted that you haven't studied these topics, thus, we can't really have an adult conversation about these theories until you're willing to learn them and actually critique them rather than just saying, "That doesn't work, cause its not what's going on right now."

Oh really...

Plus, I never said that. Government only exists because people assume it has legitimacy. Eliminating government is a matter of eliminating legitimacy. It's like the paradox of fighting evil...you never fight evil, cause once its identified as evil, people stop doing it. Moral systems established in the name of good kill more people than anything done in the name of evil. Coercive government is such a system.

You just said places with less government are more corrupt, and in giving a reason why, you quote me and say 'this makes no sense'. Feel free to explain why on both accounts...

You're like talking to a wall, guy. When you do actually answer my questions, you set up strawmen that don't represent my positions at all. This is not productive.

That someone plans something does not make it better than its natural state. Why planned economies don't work is complex, but I recommend Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. I'd explain it myself, but I don't think you'd absorb a word of what I say.

I refuse to become a broken record.

I agree, you don't listen to anything that questions your present paradigm. I feel very sorry for you.

Explain why please.

(I know, you won't, but what's the harm in asking?)

Because government solves problems, right? Al Gore isn't a hypocrite, right?

Ignorance and Blind Faith is awesome!

Chinese companies are allowed to pollute in ways American companies could never get away with. There are pictures in this thread that demonstrate this. The only reason the U.S. was ever considered a bigger polluter than China was because of C02 emissions, which is why that was the only important factor in proving my point. But the Chinese like to act like their shit doesn't stink, so it's not like it's easy to dig up statistics regarding their rate of pollution. Their lax regulation, massive overpopulation, and visual evidence all support the conclusion that China is the worst polluting country in the world. Nothing can be proven conclusively, ask any metaphysician, but there is little reason to doubt that China causes the most ecological damage.

Concerning anarchy, you're still wrong. I'm not well educated on anarchist theory because it's a waste of time. I don't have to be an expert on philosophical subjectivists, for example, to see the flaws in their thinking. Btw, your Irish "anarchists" were merely tribal and had a very low population density. I doubt you would rather live in their society than ours, and if you were given such a "Back to the Future" type of journey to their time, I sincerely doubt you'd find it more safe. Not to mention that their system failed to keep them safe from the British (which underscores one of the main functions of government).

Btw, how is quoting you and answering your question setting up a strawman? It's not like I misrepresented your position. You defined society as something it is not, something which is possible to be independent from government. It is not, a society ceases to exist when its government fails. The people may still be there, but when they stop working together they are no longer a society.

Explain why please.

(I know, you won't, but what's the harm in asking?)

The more population density increases, the more the necessity of government as there are more people competing for less resources.

I'll repeat it AS THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE COMPETING FOR LESS RESOURCES. Were you asking for an explanation of my explanation? I don't think it gets more basic than that. NYC has a greater need for government than a small town with a population of 1,000. How is that not obvious?

You say you refuse to become a broken record but you ask me to become one. Why should I prove the necessity of government (over and over again) when it's practically self-evident. If you're going to claim that anarchy isn't necessarily chaos and is a viable way of running the world, the burden of proof is on you. You're the one making fantastic utopian claims, not I. But democracy is not a theory, dictatorship is not a theory, monarchy is not a theory - these are workable forms of government which have sustained highly populated societies throughout the history of human civilization. Anarchy is what happens when society ceases to function and is always a transition from one form of government to another. I can't find an example of a working anarchy - it turns out your Island example is bunk b/c they had a legal court system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth)

And so much for your Ireland example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland):

The law texts show Gaelic society to have been hierarchical. The texts take great care to define social status, the rights and duties that went with that status, and the relationships between each "layer" of society. For example, chieftains had to take responsibility for members of their clann, acting as a surety for some of the actions of members and making sure debts are paid. He would also be responsible for unmarried women after the death of their fathers.

Since when were liberty and hierarchy congruent? Sounds pretty damn oppressive to me.

So you have yet to provide a good example of a non-government society of the past, let alone a modern one. So why don't you tell me why the Finnish are oppressed and coerced with their high standards or living, low-crime rates, and basic freedoms? The Swiss? I'm critical of a lot of U.S. government policies, but the worst solution I can think of is to get rid of the government.

Source please. Saying 'well, there's no source you can trust, but I suspect those bastards are up to something!' doesn't cut it.

Also, I totally gave you a pass on the pollution vs. CO2 emissions thing, which you failed to recognize as an error. I strongly suggest you consider for a second wanting to actually be correct rather than feel correct. You made an error, and should recognize the benefit in pointing out that error. If anything, the value you place on your own reputation should give you enough self-interested incentive to address your mistake. (And there's nothing wrong with self-interest, its how all living things operate). Granted, this is an internet forum, where reputation applies almost exclusively to strangers, but keep in mind that your posts will not be as believable in the future if you are known to make factual errors.

Translation:

I know what I'm talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about.

No, but you have to understand the flaws and how the rest of the theory does not explain the flaws away. Do you know what a paradox is?

Side note: I hope you're not so confused as to believe I am a subjectivist. I am not.

You didn't listen to the video. They were among the most advanced societies in the world at the time. I'm not going to transcribe the thing for you just because you won't listen to the vid (and you wouldn't listen to me either).

It lasted longer than the US, so living in a country younger than that system, you're far from entitled to make such a conclusion.

No, it kinda is like that. You keep saying I don't believe in order and rules and shit, which I never said. Your preconceived image of my ideas are preventing you from understanding what my ideas actually are. You admit knowing nothing about what I'm talking about, and in the same proverbial breath, dismiss my ideas. You're not going to learn anything if you're not willing to listen to more than a few words of what I'm saying.

You could say some of the words I'm using are stumbling blocks for you. You already have a concept of what 'anarchy' means, so when you see the word, you dismiss all things associated. This is not how to have an intelligent conversation, though I doubt that's your goal anyways.

True, I could use 'nicer' words that are less likely to trip you up, but at the same time, if you care to grow intellectually, you're going to have to get over your own biases as well. I don't tune out when I hear someone drop the 's' bomb (socialism), because many people only need be shown the gun in the room to understand the contradictions in their own way of thinking.

You weren't listening to what I said. I see no need to repeat, because I see no reason to believe that ven using clearer terms will help you understand my points any better. You simply don't want to see them. You want the entire conversation to use words which you define, and society will always mean people ruled over by government. In that sense, you can never even begin to understand what stateless theories (of which there are many) are all about.

You're defining government in an incredibly broad way. Just like people who will alternatively use the word 'God' to mean an omnipotent creator or the laws of physics. If you mean the laws of physics, say that. If you mean the invisible superman, say that. If you mean rules, say rules. If you mean a geographic monopoly on the use of force, say that.

You don't have to agree with my ideas to at least understand my ideas. Do you comprehend the difference? Saying "I don't know and I don't care, and you're still wrong" is not as effective — in fact, it's lunacy — compared to the intellectual depth of saying, "I understand your ideas, I see how the theory justifies itself, but think this theory is more effective, consistent, etc, for these demonstrable reasons".

So, here's some linguistic clarification:

When I say 'government', I mean the geographic monopoly on the use of force. I don't mean any rules whatsoever, as humans create their own rules when interacting with each other on a voluntary basis. This is not a coercive geographic monopoly. This is not government. Your 'society and government are one in the same' notion falls apart once the thing you are defining as 'government' becomes either a.) non-geopgraphic (as was the tuath system of Ireland), or b.) non-coercive. If other agencies are allowed to compete, it's not a coercive monopoly, and is a business like any other.

Is any of this making any sense? Not that I care all tat much because you're inadvertently open about your ignorance, but I actually spend time studying these things...this doesn't mean you should believe anything I say, but I do bring a certain level of thought to the table which you're openly disrespecting by choosing to remain ignorant of the work put into these ideas by philosophers throughout the history of political thought.

Again, I don't care, because choosing ignorance is your decision to make...but you may want to consider whether this ignorance is truly in your best interest.

Now you're altering the definition of society. So anything functioning is a society? What if me and my next door neighbor have no affiliation whatsoever, even through other people? Are we not part of the same society? Are we part of two separate societies? By creating this concept of 'society' (which has no tangible existence) you're introducing a facet into what would otherwise be peaceful human interaction which did not exist before, and have to be very precise in your application of this concept in order to make it part of a working theory of human interaction. This is praxeology, the study of human action, and the basis for Austrian Economics, the school of economic thought actually founded on science rather than political motivation, predicted the great depression, and advocates free markets. It goes without saying that this scientific approach to economics is not the approach advocated by the outdated political establishment we know as coercive government.

All these questions which are far to easy to dismiss as semantical are what shape our ability to communicate ideas. Right now, that communication ain't going so well, since the words you and I are using have quite ambiguous meanings.

You have yet to demonstrate how it is that coercive governments are capable of making resources more plentiful. That's what I'm asking. Saying 'you need them' does not rationally demonstrate why they are necessary. The marketplace has natural regulatory features, which you seem to be totally ignorant of. Pretending they don't exist does not make them disappear...though in a sense, they will disappear from your reality, because you will not be using them to your advantage. It's like pretending computers don't exist...have fun doing business on today's market without the aid of electronic communication, archives, etc.

I guess you simply don't understand how that's no explanation at all. More people going for less resources does not make a third party immediately entitled to be in charge of distribution of resources. This does not follow.

In order for it to follow, you would have to demonstrate how a third party is better at managing resources than the parties concerned. This requires an understanding of economics and political theory which you openly refuse to consider.

They would require more infrastructure. This is not the same thing as government. Again, words matter.

Here's the difference. I'm asking you to elaborate, not repeat. None of us should have to repeat anything if we're absorbing each other's points. You're making claims that I'm asking you to support. You're not doing that. Do you understand the difference between supporting ideas and repeating ideas? If you notice, you're not asking me to repeat or further support anything I'm saying, you're just trying to shoot it down on its face.

Saying something is self-evident =/= it being self-evident.

No, it's not. Government is an invention of man. This is the exact same concept as asking someone to prove god does not exist. There is no such entity as 'government' just like there's no such entity as 'Wal-Mart'. There's people praying in a church, there's shoppers trading in a store, and there's men with guns who kill in the name of 'the state', but all of these concepts are just that: concepts. Wal Mart may as well be real because I treat it as a real entity when I go in and shop. In that way, the entity becomes a viable placeholder for my association with that particular store and the goods they carry. I consent to a recognition of Wal-Mart, I don't consent to a recognition of 'the state'. What then, makes this entity exist without my consent? How many people needed to get together to make this government thing 'official'? If you live in a town of 200, and 101 people knock on your door one evening and tell you, 'we want your house, we're the government of RSharpville, here's 5 Federal Reserve Notes, now beat it'...was that the legitimate functioning of a government, or were they just a band of thugs claiming to have dominion over you that you did not consent to?

Consider (if you can) that we live presently in a 'state of anarchy'. Nothing made the gov't legitimate other than a bunch of people recognizing them. If they recognized something else tomorrow, would that be anarchy? You're caught up in your own biases over the word, and are incapable of opening your mind to any other ideas so long as you are using the word as a stumbling block.

Peaceful interaction is a utopian claim? The idea of coercive geographic monopoly not abusing its power is a utopian claim, show me one historical example of a government that did not abuse power and grow beyond its original limits.

You could strengthen your position by ceasing to use thought-terminating clichés like "that's utopian" without support. If it is utopian, you shouldn't have to say it, it should be rationally demonstrable.

They are political theories whether you want to recognize them or not. Again, the world does not disappear when you close your eyes.

This is a strawman. Your redefining the words I used to fit your vision of them. I never defined my views as transitional.

There were no taxes, thus, it was non-coercive (you were allowed to compete with their services). Again, you're redefining my words to fit your views.

But not that it should matter. I don't care if it's 'never happened', only a fool would conclude that this means it would never happen. (Pay close attention to the verb tenses in that sentence). The United States Constitutional government design 'never happened' before it happened in 1787. Voluntary interaction happens every day in every city, free from coercive government. Converting all human interaction into voluntary, mutually consented interaction would be the elimination of coercive government. This is not at all difficult to imagine.

It says it's hierarchical, but doesn't define how. But not that it matter, this example is 400 years old. Political theory, the stuff that you proudly don't read, has advanced dramatically since the 1600s. That's not me saying 'I don't care how that society functioned', because there's much to learn from it, but I won't discount any idea associated with that system of human interaction because 400 years ago, its participants had problems. This is where rational thought comes in, but only if you're willing to expend the required mental energy (which is of course, more energy than it takes to say 'that's wrong' to strangers on the internet).

Enough with the 'it never happened exactly as you'd like it to, thus, it will never happen' fallacy. These ideas are barely 40 years old (anarcho-capitalism as pioneered by Murray Rothbard).

That's because you don't think of solutions. Memes not currently running in the hard drive of your head are not allowed in, so nothing will change.

You're so silly, one day you're going to grow up and realize it. I'm not the one changing definitions. You're the one changing the definition of government to slavedrivers and anarchy to peacefully happy happy and then you accuse me of being ignorant for not knowing that my 2009 dictionary isn't up to date with Gigganworld. BTW, just because I don't read up on anarchist theory doesn't mean I'm ignorant of political theory. Reading about anarchy to be informed about politics is like reading about atheism to be informed about religion. SILLY. To reiterate this point, lets compare anarchy to astrology. To be truly informed of astrology to the same level that you are informed about anarchist theory, it would take a lot of study time and dedication. But someone who is dismissive of astrology isn't deemed ignorant. You don't need to be an expert in the field to realize it's based on a fundamental logical flaw (the claim that the position of the planets somehow influences our characteristics on earth). The fundamental premise of astrology is so absurd that further research into it is a complete waste of time. Likewise, anarchist theory is based on a flawed premise, the idea that highly complex, modern societies can function without government. Pointing to ancient societies which have little in common with todays world is like the communists who cite early Native Americans as an example of how their screwball utopian ideas are functional.

The reason I say you're utopian isn't b/c it's some kind of cheap shot, it's because you are. You neglect the worst aspects of man, you assume that if not for "the system" we could all be happy and free. But the system is the reason we are happy and free to the degree that we are. Get your panties in a bunch over this one.

RSharp, you may wanna check into this and see how you feel about it.

http://www.theadvocates.org/browne-resolutions.html

It reminds me of stuff Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly put out, usually under a title like "how to talk to a liberal." It seems to me that a political philosophy is particularly weak when the members adhere to certain strategies/guidelines for arguing their point. The greatest weakness of the Democratic party is our smorgasbord of ideas--we share common objectives but our we don't always agree on the best way to achieve them (i.e. health care). This causes a lot of inter-party disputes and makes uniting our congressmen difficult. But this is also our greatest strength because unlike Republicans or libertarians, we are much more flexible with our ideology. We understand that the most ideal solution isn't always a pragmatic one. Although many find this to also be a weakness (Kerry being labeled a "flip-flopper"), it is what has allowed the Democrats to be the party of solutions since the Woodrow Wilson era.

Anyway, even though your list isn't a strategy for implementing fallacies like the Republican ones, I'm glad my party doesn't try to tell me how to espouse my views (of course, I guess it would be pretty silly for Howard Dean to make such a list).

Woodrow Wilson was the worst president ever.

At least they stopped Robert Kennedy before he could become an even worse president

Wilson was awesome, the Treaty of Versailles has kept Germany from ever again threatening world peace.
Aside from that one, um, hiccup.

I'm purposely ignoring the rest of this thread.

I was trying to troll RSharp with that. Whether his aversion was a conscious effort on his part would explain whether he's seriose or not.