Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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?
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
annatar1914 wrote: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.
annatar1914 wrote: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.
annatar1914 wrote: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.
Drlee wrote: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.
Drlee wrote: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.
Drlee wrote: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.