Politics is an immoral dead-end

[anthonybpugh]

Nothing makes it "more authoritative."  I have no interest in asserting authority over others.

The dictionary is our friend. 

au·thor·i·ta·tive (?-thôr'?-t?'t?v, ?-th?r'-, ô-thôr'-, ô-th?r'-) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources.
   2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: an authoritative account of the revolution.
   3. Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's authoritative manner.

No, it's not.  It's whining that you dislike my definition.  Demonstrating fault is something along the lines of: "your definition cannot be accurate, because it includes anarchic societies as 'States'."

I dislike your definition because it is wrong.  Your definition has been demonstrated to be wrong because it is at odds with every definition I have found.

Uh, that concurs with my definition, and not the Wikipedia definition, although it is excessively specific - an elegant definition should include the minimum necessary to isolate the entity being defined, without extraneous comments (eg, tax-collectors, which might not be necessary).

You have been saying all along that the state is mythical.  Now you are pretending that this is what you have been saying all along?  You are just full of bullshit. 

[MaineShark]

Nothing makes it "more authoritative."  I have no interest in asserting authority over others.

The dictionary is our friend. 

au·thor·i·ta·tive (?-thôr'?-t?'t?v, ?-th?r'-, ô-thôr'-, ô-th?r'-) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources.
   2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: an authoritative account of the revolution.
   3. Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's authoritative manner.

I'm well aware of the definition of authoritative.  I'm the one who used it, remember?

And this exactly fits my statement.

No, it's not.  It's whining that you dislike my definition.  Demonstrating fault is something along the lines of: "your definition cannot be accurate, because it includes anarchic societies as 'States'."

I dislike your definition because it is wrong.  Your definition has been demonstrated to be wrong because it is at odds with every definition I have found.

Except for the one you copied from the Auburn Political Science Department, apparently, since that one not only goes along with the definition I gave, but adds further restrictions.

Uh, that concurs with my definition, and not the Wikipedia definition, although it is excessively specific - an elegant definition should include the minimum necessary to isolate the entity being defined, without extraneous comments (eg, tax-collectors, which might not be necessary).

You have been saying all along that the state is mythical.  Now you are pretending that this is what you have been saying all along?  You are just full of bullshit.[/quote]

"Pretending"?  What sense does that make?  This is what I've been saying.  I bold-faced the portions of that definition, which lined up pretty well with the definition that I gave.

The State is non-real, because no entity possessing those properties can possible exist in reality.

Or are you going to argue that an entity having the right to initiate force can actually exist?

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

You define the state as being mythical.  That is the aspect of your definition I disagree with. 

[Vitruvian]

The State is non-real, because no entity possessing those properties can possible exist in reality.

The only property you have described as impossible is the "right to initiate force," which is a contradiction in terms.  No one on this thread has ever argued that the State can or should have this "right," neither has any definition presented of the word State contained such a "right," no matter what you may think you read.  Hence, both the Wikipedia and AU definitions are valid because they provide an accurate description of a real organization.

You are wasting your "breath" trying to paint me as a statist.  Anyone who knows me would laugh at you for saying it, and anyone who reads this thread will see your transparent attempt to smear your opposition.  The fact that you would resort to these tactics only proves to them and me that your argument is the weaker.

[MaineShark]

You define the state as being mythical.  That is the aspect of your definition I disagree with.

I never stated that the definition of the State includes it being mythical.  Logic insists that it is mythical, based upon its definition.

The State is non-real, because no entity possessing those properties can possible exist in reality.

The only property you have described as impossible is the "right to initiate force," which is a contradiction in terms.  No one on this thread has ever argued that the State can or should have this "right," neither has any definition presented of the word State contained such a "right," no matter what you may think you read.  Hence, both the Wikipedia and AU definitions are valid because they provide an accurate description of a real organization.

This is getting asinine.  Repeating nonsense doesn't make it magically true.

The definitions you've claimed were proven to be worthless, because they include voluntary institutions as "States," which is clearly false.

Either use the definition I provided, or provide one of your own which cannot include voluntary organizations.

You are wasting your "breath" trying to paint me as a statist.  Anyone who knows me would laugh at you for saying it, and anyone who reads this thread will see your transparent attempt to smear your opposition.  The fact that you would resort to these tactics only proves to them and me that your argument is the weaker.

Odd that so many see through you, though, isn't it?  I'm not the only one who sees how thinly-veiled your statism is.

Your complete inability to address any significant counter-argument (eg, your "voluntary" payment of taxes) demonstrates that your argument is not just weak, but was DOA.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

This is what is most irritating about this all.  I have actually took some effort in demonstrating the point I am trying to make.  I am the one who has actually backed up what I have been saying with actual sources.  You have done none of that.  I have actually supported my position.  Please, for the love of God, provide me with some source that supports your view.  Can you at least do that?  Are you even able to do that?  I honestly do not think you can. 

I honestly do not care what you have to say about these definitions.  What qualifies you to say what should and should not be included in the definition?  Without an alternative source I simply will not accept what you are saying.  You cannot prove anything to be false until you actually provide some kind of proof. 

[MaineShark]

This is what is most irritating about this all.  I have actually took some effort in demonstrating the point I am trying to make.  I am the one who has actually backed up what I have been saying with actual sources.

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  Any idiot can edit it to say whatever he wants.  For all I know, you edited it just prior to quoting it.  I'm not saying you did, or that you didn't.  The fact that you could, makes it pointless to claim Wikipedia as a source.

The only halfway legitimate source you used, backed what I've been saying.

Please, for the love of God, provide me with some source that supports your view.  Can you at least do that?  Are you even able to do that?  I honestly do not think you can.

You provided one, yourself.

I honestly do not care what you have to say about these definitions.  What qualifies you to say what should and should not be included in the definition?  Without an alternative source I simply will not accept what you are saying.  You cannot prove anything to be false until you actually provide some kind of proof.

I have proved it.  Your definition includes anarchy as an example of the State.  Hence, your definition is faulty.  That is a proof.  Endlessly quoting others is an appeal to authority, not a proof of anything.  You can quote fools saying that the Earth is flat, and it won't change the curvature of the planet one whit.  Appealing to authority (and demanding that others play that game) is indicative of those trying to support a failed argument by any means possible.

Appeal to authority is not a proof.  It is, however, a good demonstration of the maturity of the one doing it, since it is essentially the same as the whole "the law is right, because it's the law" nonsense that statists are inclined to spout.

Joe

[Rochelle]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  Any idiot can edit it to say whatever he wants.  For all I know, you edited it just prior to quoting it.

Hey, now, no knocking Wikipedia. I learned half of what I know from it! It's better than high school! And even if any idiot could edit it to say whatever he wants, for the most part, idiots DON'T!
It's a nice self-controlled (dare I say it?) anarchy.

[Vitruvian]

Your definition includes anarchy as an example of the State.

No, MaineShark is either genuinely mistaken or is deliberately misrepresenting our position.  As I said before:

Again, the Wikipedia definition of State says nothing about the legitimacy of the "political association" being requisite for Statehood, only the possession of effective dominion (a word which implies the initiation of force, i.e. domination or control).

A voluntary society cannot meet the Wikipedia definition of State.  An anarchic society would preclude the "dominion" of any and every political association because each relies on the initiation of force.  In other words, MaineShark's quarrel with this definition is groundless.

Whether MaineShark believes Wikipedia to be an "authoritative" source is really irrelevant: the content of the definition is what matters, and, as has been shown, that definition will suffice.  In fact, as a living example of spontaneous order, Wikipedia is the ideal source for this discussion.

[Faber]

If you doubt the integrity of your debating opponent, my advice is to withdraw.  If you don't think your debating opponent has an interest in a mutual exploration of truth, you should consider withdrawing.  That's why I had to stop participating in this thread.  It's not that the issues aren't important, I think they are.  But discussing them can only be worth the effort if all parties approach the issue with a good-faith intention to reach a mutual understanding of the truth.

[Vitruvian]

If you doubt the integrity of your debating opponent, my advice is to withdraw.  If you don't think your debating opponent has an interest in a mutual exploration of truth, you should consider withdrawing.  That's why I had to stop participating in this thread.  It's not that the issues aren't important, I think they are.  But discussing them can only be worth the effort if all parties approach the issue with a good-faith intention to reach a mutual understanding of the truth.

I agree completely.  This thread has deviated from its original purpose.

[Faber]

Since someone decided to smite me after posting this . . . I guess I should clarify and add that I wasn't accusing anyone of anything.  I would suggest the same thing to Joe, too.  If he doubts the integrity of his debating opponents, he should withdraw as well.  And it's perfectly clear that there is no more good faith left in this discussion.  Do what you want, of course, but that's just my advice, do with it what you want.

[Faber]

I didn't realize that tags were just a way of posting anonymously . . . .

[Christopher King]

Franz Kafka, the Problem of our Laws, comes to mind.

http://www.geocities.com/rowsofhouses/problemlaws.txt

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1031555

"A writer once wrote of the law: the sole visible and indubitable law that is imposed upon us is interpretation, and must we deprive ourselves of that one law?" (CS, 438, translation modified).

[MaineShark]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  Any idiot can edit it to say whatever he wants.  For all I know, you edited it just prior to quoting it.

Hey, now, no knocking Wikipedia. I learned half of what I know from it! It's better than high school! And even if any idiot could edit it to say whatever he wants, for the most part, idiots DON'T!
It's a nice self-controlled (dare I say it?) anarchy.

Wikipedia is useful.  But not as a source for this sort of use.  It is an excellent research tool for finding sources quickly, but not a legitimate source, itself.  I use it all the time to get links/references to other sources, particularly when dealing with some of the technical fields when I'm doing the "mad inventor" thing and need info about something outside my own fields of expertise.

Again, the Wikipedia definition of State says nothing about the legitimacy of the "political association" being requisite for Statehood, only the possession of effective dominion (a word which implies the initiation of force, i.e. domination or control).

A voluntary society cannot meet the Wikipedia definition of State.  An anarchic society would preclude the "dominion" of any and every political association because each relies on the initiation of force.  In other words, MaineShark's quarrel with this definition is groundless.

There is no initiation of force relied-upon in that definition.  "Dominion" means ownership, a point which was made pages ago, and which you never responded-to.  I hold "dominion" over my home, without initiating force against anyone.

Let's say that I get together with my neighbors, each of whom owns a given parcel of land, and we form a "political association" in which we agree to mutual aid and that all decisions amongst us must be made my unanimous consent of all members, or any non-consenting members will at that time have the option to withdraw membership with no penalty.  So, we each agree to pay a certain amount which we will pool together to build a powerplant and maintain a depot holding large emergency equipment, those being expensive propositions which would be silly to duplicate on a house-by-house basis.  No one is forced to participate, and all contract to be responsible for repairing any damage/wear to equipment which they use, and to replace any consumable supplies.

Since we have set up a structured association and maintain dominion over a given segment of the surface of this planet, your definition declares us to be a State.  Which is asinine.

If you doubt the integrity of your debating opponent, my advice is to withdraw.  If you don't think your debating opponent has an interest in a mutual exploration of truth, you should consider withdrawing.  That's why I had to stop participating in this thread.  It's not that the issues aren't important, I think they are.  But discussing them can only be worth the effort if all parties approach the issue with a good-faith intention to reach a mutual understanding of the truth.

Demonstrating the lack of integrity of someone like Vitruvian is a worthwhile goal.  His integrity would be required, if I were trying to debate him for purposes of changing his mind, but it is not required for me to destroy his silly claims so that others might learn.  Given the comments I've received from others here and offline, I'd say this has been very effective in that realm.  Vitruvian's inability to address the issue of taxes has likely had the greatest effect, from what I've seen.

For the record, I can't recall smiting you at any point (although you've made snide remarks on occasion –-rather than engaging in discussion - that might have earned one), and I certainly didn't smite you last night, or add any tags (although your post has me curious what tag might have been added).

Joe