[Pants-of-dog]

They just fell on hard times.

Even aliens crash their UFOs in places like Arizona every-once-in-awhile.

That doesn't mean they aren't still superior.


Anyway, regarding the thesis of this thread.

I reject egalitarianism entirely and hold that the true hierarchies of humanity are accurately discovered in a state of Anarchy.

An artificial equality is no equality at all. In fact, the very existence of a state-enforced equality is evidence that the natural-equality is in fact not there. Furthermore, the same goes for state enforced hierarchies, the fact that they need to be enforced to survive demonstrates that those in upper ranks of those hierarchies don't deserve to be there.

It is simple as that.

No, it is not that simple. History shows us that it is actually quite complicated, and the reasons why one group may be ascendant over another can boil down to simple luck or geography.

The fact that certain demographics, without a state, will produce and succeed in variance to other groups and along demographic lines is all the proof I need to know that egalitarianism is nonsense as an anthropology.

Can you give any examples from the real world?

Now, as a Christian, I believe in the inherent equality of all men before God, in the sense that all are equally sinful and under judgement and all were made, equally, in the Image of God. However, this inherent human dignity and depravity says nothing about the equality of outcomes given human performance in a state of nature; especially, given whatever endowments they were or were not given along demographic and even individual lines.

Lets all be honest.

If all states ceased to exist, once the smoked cleared, feminism and almost every other insane identity movement of the last 100 years would be seen nowhere on this earth.

This is the simple reality of the situation.

Random unsupported predictions are not an argument. At best, they are a reflection of the hopes of the person saying them, but in debate, they are worthless.

[One Degree]

I am unaware of any democracy or equality in nature. They appear to be human inventions in opposition to nature.

[Victoribus Spolia]

another can boil down to simple luck or geography.

Thats not an excuse, that is still natural inequality that can either be overcome or not.

There are no "Excuses" in a state of nature.

Whoever comes out on top, comes out on top.

Obviously.

Please tell me more about your poor victims of history and colonialism.

Can you give any examples from the real world?

You mean a lack of the contrary? Anytime stateless conditions have persisted, there was no institutional egalitarianism.

There is no example of women, in a stateless society (like feudalism), being able to do what they are under the protection of a state.

What this tells me, is that women being equal in a political or institutional sense requires state-intervention generally speaking.

This is because women, generally, are unable to physically overcome the opposite sex in a legitimate struggle, and also because they tend to resort to the natural impulses of their own sex in conditions that are, un-ironically, more natural (what some might call the biological imperative).

If you were to say that this occurs because of patriarchal oppression and conditions that unfairly favor men. You are correct.

When it comes to the sexes, in a state of nature, men have the advantage when it comes to maintaining control over women and children.

Thats my point.

Random unsupported predictions are not an argument. At best, they are a reflection of the hopes of the person saying them, but in debate, they are worthless.

Yes, I am discussing the future, so obviously we are talking about predictions being more-or-less plausible.

Welcome to the conversation.

So are you telling me that if there were no government to enforce laws against discrimination, rape, etc., and supporting things like suffrage, equal opportunity employment, and affirmative action, that feminism would flourish nonetheless?

If any claim requires evidence, it is that one.

[B0ycey]

I am unaware of any democracy or equality in nature. They appear to be human inventions in opposition to nature.

Let's all praise the 'Social Contract'.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thats not an excuse, that is still natural inequality that can either be overcome or not.

There are no "Excuses" in a state of nature.

Whoever comes out on top, comes out on top.

Obviously.

Please tell me more about your poor victims of history and colonialism.

If you wish to ignore how the state has been used to enforce hierarchies you assume naturally arise, feel free. But it does directly contradict the idea that any of the hierarchies we see now are natural.

You mean a lack of the contrary? Anytime stateless conditions have persisted, there was no institutional egalitarianism.

There is no example of women, in a stateless society (like feudalism), being able to do what they are under the protection of a state.

What this tells me, is that women being equal in a political or institutional sense requires state-intervention generally speaking.

This is because women, generally, are unable to physically overcome the opposite sex in a legitimate struggle, and also because they tend to resort to the natural impulses of their own sex in conditions that are, un-ironically, more natural (what some might call the biological imperative).

If you were to say that this occurs because of patriarchal oppression and conditions that unfairly favor men. You are correct.

When it comes to the sexes, in a state of nature, men have the advantage when it comes to maintaining control over women and children.

Thats my point.

This is not a real world example. Please provide a real world example.

Also feudalism was not stateless.

Yes, I am discussing the future, so obviously we are talking about predictions being more-or-less plausible.

Welcome to the conversation.

So are you telling me that if there were no government to enforce laws against discrimination, rape, etc., and supporting things like suffrage, equal opportunity employment, and affirmative action, that feminism would flourish nonetheless?

If any claim requires evidence, it is that one.

I am not here to discuss idle speculation.

[annatar1914]

Hello VS, just thought i'd step in here;

Yes, I am discussing the future, so obviously we are talking about predictions being more-or-less plausible.

Welcome to the conversation.

I'm going to assume that we're going to discuss what ''is'' or ''will be'', as opposed to what is right, although one could make the case that whatever is, is automatically right by virtue of it's existence.

So are you telling me that if there were no government to enforce laws against discrimination, rape, etc., and supporting things like suffrage, equal opportunity employment, and affirmative action, that feminism would flourish nonetheless?

These enforcement mechanisms, talking about what will be, will no longer exist because no one at that point will be interested in enforcing them through a Statist polity. With the increasing privatization of the functions and roles of the modern nation state, being absorbed by other non-governmental entities, people will have to enforce what they will by a frank exercise of raw power, open and honest.

If any claim requires evidence, it is that one.

Without a doubt. Now, what I'm all for is in ''equal rights'' as in an equality of opportunity, but again that doesn't come into play much with the modern state, as the referee and partial distributor or re-distributor of goods and services and ''rights'' in the Capitalist system. A sign of Lenin's prophesied Imperialism as the final stage of Capitalism though will not be through the State as thought by older generations of the Left, but through the triumph of private corporations and their overthrow of the State. I think that in such a period as this, you have every reason not to expect such silly mummery as ''equal rights'' to continue afterwards.

[Drlee]

So are you telling me that if there were no government to enforce laws against discrimination, rape, etc., and supporting things like suffrage, equal opportunity employment, and affirmative action, that feminism would flourish nonetheless?

If I were the one "telling" I would tell you that a world without government is a literal impossibility. Even the wounded and ill crawling out from the wreckage of a nuclear war would quickly establish some form of government.

Libertarians frequently indulge in the notion that there could exist a world without government, possibly by some broad consensus. Who would count the votes?

Government is here to stay.

Now if you want to argue that some of the ideas you mention might be suppressed by a government, I completely agree. Those who argue for some natural movement to a more progressive future are simply inattentive. In the US, at the moment, we are moving away from progressive ideas, not toward them. The same is Russia, Iran, Brazil......name it.

Some refer to some kind of political pendulum. I am not sanguine with such a simple explanation of the expression of political will. Democracy in the US is dead and in all likelihood gone for a few decades. What will arise is a crap-shoot. All will depend on what prevails at the end of work as a means of exchange. Some would say we will become more egalitarian. I am disposed to think just the opposite. Time will indeed tell.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you wish to ignore how the state has been used to enforce hierarchies you assume naturally arise, feel free.

When did I say that?

Likewise, how is that an argument in favor of more state-efforts to impose new hierarchies based on social justice instead of patriarchal-colonialist oppression?

I don't see the consistency in that claim.

But it does directly contradict the idea that any of the hierarchies we see now are natural.

What? what hierarchies are you even talking about?

This is not a real world example. Please provide a real world example.

No, because the burden of proof is on the one claiming that egalitarianism is a natural state to show it as prevailing in stateless conditions.

Hence, if women are fundamentally equal to men, by nature, then it should be shown how the sort of egalitarianism as claimed by feminism has prevailed in conditions where the state did not advocate on their behalf.

Thus, if we drop two feminists and two patriarchal dudes on a desert island, where both pairs intended to assert their own authority as a sex, which pair would win in subduing the other and establishing the governance of their sex?

The is the question you are trying to avoid by shifting the burden of proof.

Also feudalism was not stateless.

In a general sense it was, there were very few third-party monopolists of compulsion during the feudal era. The monarchies that existed were very small, localized, and decentralized. Private land-owners held almost absolute over their own lands, means of defense, security, and law enforcement.

This is sufficiently close to the idea of Anarcho-Capitalism for it to be a real example.

This is not to say that there was no governance, but only that governance existed in the hands of those with the means of securing their own lands.

I am not here to discuss idle speculation.

You do realize this is a political forum right?

and aren't you a commie? You got a lot of nerve bitching about speculation since dialectical materialism is about as speculative and idle as any system can get.

Indeed, If it didn't have a (albeit murderous) political precedent it would have been reserved to the "Opaque Cognitions" of history long ago.

I'm going to assume that we're going to discuss what ''is'' or ''will be'', as opposed to what is right, although one could make the case that whatever is, is automatically right by virtue of it's existence.

Yes and No.

I tend to view the natural order that arises after natural disorder (immediately proceeding after a major state collapse) as being close to my ideal and not merely predictive of what will happen; though that is true as well.

This is not too dissimilar to communism's moral desire and predicted outcome be basically the same: The international revolution of the proletariat in controlling both governance via democracy and the means of production.

Neo-Feudalism or Anarcho-Capitalism is not only what I think will happen eventually, but what I want as a moral outcome.

These enforcement mechanisms, talking about what will be, will no longer exist because no one at that point will be interested in enforcing them through a Statist polity. With the increasing privatization of the functions and roles of the modern nation state, being absorbed by other non-governmental entities, people will have to enforce what they will by a frank exercise of raw power, open and honest.

Wonderful.

Without a doubt. Now, what I'm all for is in ''equal rights'' as in an equality of opportunity, but again that doesn't come into play much with the modern state, as the referee and partial distributor or re-distributor of goods and services and ''rights'' in the Capitalist system. A sign of Lenin's prophesied Imperialism as the final stage of Capitalism though will not be through the State as thought by older generations of the Left, but through the triumph of private corporations and their overthrow of the State. I think that in such a period as this, you have every reason not to expect such silly mummery as ''equal rights'' to continue afterwards.

Well, I don't think "corporations" as we know them (and critique them) will survive without a state. I would argue they are a condition of a state and are therefore neither truly private nor truly capitalist.

Otherwise, agreed.

If I were the one "telling" I would tell you that a world without government is a literal impossibility. Even the wounded and ill crawling out from the wreckage of a nuclear war would quickly establish some form of government.

That depends on how we define a government. Technically, a father ruling his own family and his own property is a type of "government" (i.e. patriarchy); however, that is not what I am critiquing, I am against any third-party monopolist of coercion in general and against any social-contract political system in particular. I do not think the latter is natural or sustainable, but the former indeed does arise out of more basic and more natural systems over time.

As an Anarcho-Capitialist, I am still believe in patriarchy, theonomy, etc., SO I do believe in governing, law, and the right to rule others based on certain naturally-occurring hierarchies, but only if all such exists in the context of a naturally-occurring private property absolutism.

Such systems have actually been quite common in human history.

However, the point of course is only this:

Egalitarianism does not exist in a state of nature (except by voluntary associations), nor could it persist otherwise without the enforcement of a third-party monopolizing coercion.

Hence, in nature, if men wanted to dominate and sujugate women, they could. Thus, men and women are not naturally equal (regardless of whether they are equal in sight of God, which I do affirm).

This means that egalitarianism is artificial, equal rights are the invention of states and can only exist under such.

Hence, feminism is only a "powerful movement" because it is protected by the state.

If the state disappeared, it would disappear as soon as the pillaging began.

Feminism and all other "equality" movements are contingent, dependent, tentative, and at the base, fraudulent.

Libertarians frequently indulge in the notion that there could exist a world without government, possibly by some broad consensus. Who would count the votes?

I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, not a libertarian. Libertarians do believe in government (a minarchist one), so I don't know where you get this.

Anarcho-Capitalists do not believe that government can ban itself by democratic consent. As a Hoppean AnCap, I would argue that democracy is the worst system of governance of all, so none of what you said seems to make much sense.

Some refer to some kind of political pendulum. I am not sanguine with such a simple explanation of the expression of political will. Democracy in the US is dead and in all likelihood gone for a few decades. What will arise is a crap-shoot. All will depend on what prevails at the end of work as a means of exchange. Some would say we will become more egalitarian. I am disposed to think just the opposite. Time will indeed tell.

Agreed.

[Pants-of-dog]

When did I say that?

Likewise, how is that an argument in favor of more state-efforts to impose new hierarchies based on social justice instead of patriarchal-colonialist oppression?

I don't see the consistency in that claim.

I thought you were arguing that the unjust hierarchies we see in the world today are a result of natural inequality, and therefore they are an example of what we would see in a totally stateless situation.

This ignores the fact that many of these hierarchies are imposed by the state.

What? what hierarchies are you even talking about?

The ones you were discussing when you talked about natural inequality.

No, because the burden of proof is on the one claiming that egalitarianism is a natural state to show it as prevailing in stateless conditions.

Hence, if women are fundamentally equal to men, by nature, then it should be shown how the sort of egalitarianism as claimed by feminism has prevailed in conditions where the state did not advocate on their behalf.

Thus, if we drop two feminists and two patriarchal dudes on a desert island, where both pairs intended to assert their own authority as a sex, which pair would win in subduing the other and establishing the governance of their sex?

The is the question you are trying to avoid by shifting the burden of proof.

Since I never claimed that egalitarianism is a natural state (and I doubt this is a common belief among egalitarians) this seems like a strawman you cooked up in order to avoid the question I asked.

You claimed that “certain demographics, without a state, will produce and succeed in variance to other groups and along demographic lines”. Please provide an example of this.

In a general sense it was, there were very few third-party monopolists of compulsion during the feudal era. The monarchies that existed were very small, localized, and decentralized. Private land-owners held almost absolute over their own lands, means of defense, security, and law enforcement.

This is sufficiently close to the idea of Anarcho-Capitalism for it to be a real example.

This is not to say that there was no governance, but only that governance existed in the hands of those with the means of securing their own lands.

If you wish to incorrectly believe that feudalism did not involve coercive hierarchies supported by the state and church, go ahead.

You do realize this is a political forum right?

and aren't you a commie? You got a lot of nerve bitching about speculation since dialectical materialism is about as speculative and idle as any system can get.

Indeed, If it didn't have a (albeit murderous) political precedent it would have been reserved to the "Opaque Cognitions" of history long ago.

Your incorrect understanding of Marxist analysis is not the topic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This ignores the fact that many of these hierarchies are imposed by the state.

Which ones are enforced by the state? That seems silly.

These heirarchies were rarely enforced by the state, only that heirarchies which had existed long before statist hegemony were often protected by states at the behest of traditionalist who feared the erosion of their control by the state itself.

Case in point, those epochs where traditional patriarchal, racial, and religious rights were the most recognized by states, were the periods when those states were the least expansive in their scope.

This confirms the point that such hierarchies as these are in fact more natural, for they were only recongized and protected by states as a matter of concession under increasingly unnatural conditions; whereas, egalitarianism necessitates expansive government intervention as such conditions could not "stand on their own."

The ones you were discussing when you talked about natural inequality.

Wait. So you agree that such hierarchies are natural then? That was what I was responding to.

I am not used to you agreeing with me and am automatically skeptical.

Since I never claimed that egalitarianism is a natural state (and I doubt this is a common belief among egalitarians)

Thanks for the clarification. That is my only point.

You claimed that “certain demographics, without a state, will produce and succeed in variance to other groups and along demographic lines”.

I did, you just rejected it. Furthermore, if you agree that such heirarchies are natural, then why do I have to prove to you that they are natural?

If we already agree, there is no point debating it further.

"equality" is not a natural human state, but depends on the existence of a state and the artificial conditions the state creates in a society.

If you wish to incorrectly believe that feudalism did not involve coercive hierarchies supported by the state and church, go ahead.

You said THE state, there was no one unifed state in Europe, and even the larger monarchies were still quite small and decentralized (with the aristocracy being quite powerful, as the Magna Carta demonstrates). I do not regard the rule that lords have over their own lands as the same as being a state. They were proprietorships, but not states. This is consistent with the AnCap system.

Once again, the medieval-renaissance era in Europe is not a perfect example of Anarcho-Capitalism, but it is definitely approximate.

The point is this, most feudal contracts were locally and privately enforced, the arising of the absolutist monarchies in Europe marked the beginning-of-the-end for the mannor system in Europe.

Also, the church's power to coerce had nothing to do with its own monopolizing of power, it didn't have such. The enforcement of the papacy's will (as the Reformation correctly pointed out) was entirely dependent on the willingness of local lords and kings to enforce it. Thus, the Church's universal influence on moral law as a universal standard in the enforcing of inter-personal contracts was entirely voluntary.

This is no different than the role of Emperor in feudal japan. His power to enforce his will and decree was entirely dependent on the will and desire of the lords to carry it out. His own actual power was almost entirely symbolic (as was the case with the papacy).

Indeed, even in the case of the Crusades, the papacy did not have the power to compel the crusaders by force, but they went at his behest nonetheless because of a desire for spiritual rewards offered and for fear of the spiritual punishments that may come. This is, however, perfectly consistent with Anarcho-Capitalism and does not qualify as a state.

Your incorrect understanding of Marxist analysis is not the topic.

Please point out what I got wrong so I can correct it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which ones are enforced by the state? That seems silly.

These heirarchies were rarely enforced by the state, only that heirarchies which had existed long before statist hegemony were often protected by states at the behest of traditionalist who feared the erosion of their control by the state itself.

Case in point, those epochs where traditional patriarchal, racial, and religious rights were the most recognized by states, were the periods when those states were the least expansive in their scope.

This confirms the point that such hierarchies as these are in fact more natural, for they were only recongized and protected by states as a matter of concession under increasingly unnatural conditions; whereas, egalitarianism necessitates expansive government intervention as such conditions could not "stand on their own."

Racism was enforced by state laws until quite recently in the US. Today, these hierarches are still supoorted bynstate actuon though not law, such as the de facto impunity of police officers when shooting blacks.

Laws that limit abortion also supoort sexist hierarchies.

The entire land owenrship system in North America supports a colonial hierarchy that oppress3s and marginalises indigenous people.

Wait. So you agree that such hierarchies are natural then? That was what I was responding to.

I am not used to you agreeing with me and am automatically skeptical.

Thanks for the clarification. That is my only point.

I did, you just rejected it. Furthermore, if you agree that such heirarchies are natural, then why do I have to prove to you that they are natural?

If we already agree, there is no point debating it further.

"equality" is not a natural human state, but depends on the existence of a state and the artificial conditions the state creates in a society.

I never said I agree with you.

Please provide a real world example of your claim, from history. Not some example from your head. This is what “real world” means.

You said THE state, there was no one unifed state in Europe, and even the larger monarchies were quite small and decentralized (with the aristocracy being quite powerful). I do not regards the rule that lords have over their own lands as the same as being a state. They are proprietorships, but not states.

Once again, the medieval-renaissance era in Europe is not a perfect example of Anarcho-Capitalism, but it is definitely approximate.

The point is this, most feudal contracts were locally and privately enforced, the arising of the absolutist monarchies in Europe marked the being-of-the-end for the manorialist system in Europe.

Also, the church's power to coerce had nothing to do with its own monopolizing of power, it didn't have such. The enforcement of the papacy's will (as the Reformation correctly pointed out) was entirely dependent on the willingness of local lords and kings to enforce it. Thus, the Church's universal influence on moral law as a universal standard in the enforcing of inter-personal contracts was entirely voluntary.

This is not different than the role of Emperor in feudal japan. His power to enforce his will and decree was entirely dependent on the will and desire of the lords to carry it out. His own actual power was almost entirely symbolic (as was the case with the papacy).

Indeed, even in the case of the Crusades, the papacy did not have the power to compel the crusaders by force, but they went at his behest nonetheless because of desire for spiritual rewards offered and for fear of the spiritual punishments that may come. This is, however, perfectly consistent with Anarcho-Capitalism and does not qualify as a state.

Please point out what I got wrong so I can correct it.

No one cares about your incorrect beliefs re feudalism and Marxism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Racism was enforced by state laws until quite recently in the US.

Today, these hierarches are still supoorted bynstate actuon though not law, such as the de facto impunity of police officers when shooting blacks.

Also, nice grammar there champ, your trigger-induced tourettes is acting up again I see.

Please provide a real world example of your claim, from history. Not some example from your head. This is what “real world” means.

I did, you ignored it. Please provide evidence that egalitarianism can exist in a state of nature, which would be the burden of proof. However, if you deny that egalitarianism can exist in a state of nature, then there is no point discussing the matter further as that is the point of contention.

I never said I agree with you.

Sure you did, you denied that egalitarianism can exist in a state of nature.

That is my position.

Thus, you agree with me.

If you disagree, please say so and provide evidence for your claim.

Thanks.

[annatar1914]

I think so too, because by such exercise of raw power, the battle lines so to speak will be clearly drawn. In the coming age, I've resigned myself to the fall of the modern state because i've resigned myself to the fall of an unsustainable modernity. This includes a modern ''socialism'' as well. I'm tending to slide out of the modern, secular categories. Faith and Family, Kith and Kin and watchful Tsar and his brave Kynaz are enough for me to see restored in the framework of an agrarian communalism.

Good and Evil will still exist. And there are bad guys as well as good guys that are in agreement with what I just said, even as their aims are different. People have seen nothing yet; ISIS or an iteration thereof, will conquer the entire Islamic world and more besides.

Possibly, although Cecil Rhodes ''Rhodesia'' and King Leopold's ''Congo Free State'' come to my mind. I'm imaging a longer transition, but perhaps not.

[annatar1914]

oops, did my reply ever get messed up, lol. I guess you can figure it out, VS

[Pants-of-dog]

Your emotional reaction only confirms my claim.

Also, nice grammar there champ, your trigger-induced tourettes is acting up again I see.

Every time you focus on my typos, I count it as a win for me, seeing as how you do that instead of replying to my point.

But as long as we agree that the state enforces these hierarchies and they are not natural, we are good.

I did, you ignored it.

No, you just made up a thought experiment about an island with two men and two women.

Since you have no evidence for your claim that “certain demographics, without a state, will produce and succeed in variance to other groups and along demographic lines”, we can dismiss this as unsupported speculation.

Please provide evidence that egalitarianism can exist in a state of nature, which would be the burden of proof. However, if you deny that egalitarianism can exist in a state of nature, then there is no point discussing the matter further as that is the point of contention.

Again, I never made this claim.

Sure you did, you denied that egalitarianism can exist in a state of nature.

That is my position.

Thus, you agree with me.

If you disagree, please say so and provide evidence for your claim.

Thanks.

I disagree.

I think that both egalitarian relationships and hierarchies are unnatural. Both of them exist only in human relationships as a function of society, which in turn is influenced by many factors such as economic and material conditions.

This whole nature thing is something you brought up.

Attemtping to shift the burden of proof onto me by incorrectly assuming I am arguing a strawman is not logical.

[annatar1914]

VS, my reply to you, regarding the exercise of ''raw power'' ;

I think so too, because by such exercise of raw power, the battle lines so to speak will be clearly drawn. In the coming age, I've resigned myself to the fall of the modern state because i've resigned myself to the fall of an unsustainable modernity. This includes a modern ''socialism'' as well. I'm tending to slide out of the modern, secular categories. Faith and Family, Kith and Kin and watchful Tsar and his brave Kynaz are enough for me to see restored in the framework of an agrarian communalism.

Good and Evil will still exist. And there are bad guys as well as good guys that are in agreement with what I just said, even as their aims are different. People have seen nothing yet; ISIS or an iteration thereof, will conquer the entire Islamic world and more besides.

What we are seeing is the end of a System of notions of the State that came in the wake of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and codified by the intellectual heirs of Hugo Grotius, became manifest around the world with European expansion.

Not enough people read Carl Schmidtt, him being on the losing side and all....

All real Sovereignty is personal, privatized.

[JamesLV]

It doesn't real due of biological nature of humans. You can make people to be equal but they never do it themselves.

[Besoeker]

It doesn't real due of biological nature of humans. You can make people to be equal but they never do it themselves.

You can treat people equally but you can't make them equal. So inevitably, they will get different treatment.