These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

A Capsuleer Manifesto
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cynthia Gallente
GERAS INDUSTRIES
#21 - 2011-11-04 19:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cynthia Gallente
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:


Of course it is. All power is defined by who is carrying the stick.

It has been theorized by political philosophers for centuries that one of the main functions of a state is to maintain a monopoly on violence. This is not oppression, or injustice, this is the essence of what a social contract is.

You turn your violence over to the state because to do otherwise, to maintain absolutely control of your own violence, is to create a situation of All being at war with All.

This is what your anarchy brings, Captain. Yes, it is the base level of human interaction. No, it is not a desireable, or pleasant thing.

I am increasingly of the opinion that it should be avoided at all costs.

I agree with you on this matter.
But at the same time, you must realize there are those who do want war on all.

Post with your lick™
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#22 - 2011-11-04 19:33:45 UTC
Yes, they do. Another cheesy saying goes 'Some men just want to watch the world burn'.

The proper role of the state (all states) is to find these people and make sure that cannot happen.
Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2011-11-04 20:15:00 UTC
You people say Anarchy like it's a bad thing.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#24 - 2011-11-04 20:16:23 UTC
Yes! Yes I do!
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#25 - 2011-11-04 20:34:30 UTC
Anarchy, with the definition of being an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals into autonomous communities, isn't a bad thing.

When you're dealing with a lawless environment, that's another matter.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-11-04 20:59:23 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Anarchy, with the definition of being an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals into autonomous communities, isn't a bad thing.

When you're dealing with a lawless environment, that's another matter.


The former.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#27 - 2011-11-05 01:51:42 UTC
Laws are rules - societal norms - that can be legitimately enforced by the state. They don't get legitimation by people agreeing on them, but by people agreeing on them to be right and just. To claim that what is right and just is what is perceived to be such makes them obsolete, though. Norms need to have an objective element to function as norms - as being binding to those that don't play by the rules, for otherwise they would eliminate the norms by their noncompliance to agreeing on them.

Laws, like any other norms of human conduct, need to be rooted to some extent in an objective truth about how human should act on one another.

And by the way. The spontaneously arising order that comes to be in human societies exist for a very long time now: It's called state or polity. Being anti-statist is being against that which arose naturally among humans - it's being against nature.
Garreck
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2011-11-05 01:57:33 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Anarchy, with the definition of being an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals into autonomous communities, isn't a bad thing.

When you're dealing with a lawless environment, that's another matter.

One leads to the other. Folks deliniate between the two for intellectual style points, but in practical terms anarchy leads to lawlessness.

This is, in fact, the prime sticking point I have with Fractionite philosophy. It is why two hard-line NRDS organizations such as Star Fraction and CVA fight so bitterly.
Cynthia Gallente
GERAS INDUSTRIES
#29 - 2011-11-05 15:50:17 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Laws are rules - societal norms - that can be legitimately enforced by the state. They don't get legitimation by people agreeing on them, but by people agreeing on them to be right and just. To claim that what is right and just is what is perceived to be such makes them obsolete, though. Norms need to have an objective element to function as norms - as being binding to those that don't play by the rules, for otherwise they would eliminate the norms by their noncompliance to agreeing on them.

Laws, like any other norms of human conduct, need to be rooted to some extent in an objective truth about how human should act on one another.

And by the way. The spontaneously arising order that comes to be in human societies exist for a very long time now: It's called state or polity. Being anti-statist is being against that which arose naturally among humans - it's being against nature.

That sounds like Amarrian style thinking.

Post with your lick™
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#30 - 2011-11-05 16:08:43 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Laws are rules - societal norms - that can be legitimately enforced by the state. They don't get legitimation by people agreeing on them, but by people agreeing on them to be right and just. To claim that what is right and just is what is perceived to be such makes them obsolete, though. Norms need to have an objective element to function as norms - as being binding to those that don't play by the rules, for otherwise they would eliminate the norms by their noncompliance to agreeing on them.

Laws, like any other norms of human conduct, need to be rooted to some extent in an objective truth about how human should act on one another.

And by the way. The spontaneously arising order that comes to be in human societies exist for a very long time now: It's called state or polity. Being anti-statist is being against that which arose naturally among humans - it's being against nature.


The problem with most states, is that they have become self perpetuating, for no reason other than that they exist.

And the objective element to a norm, is that it's been existence for a while. It's only relevant, if the conditions that led to it rising, haven't changed. Capsuleers are a pretty big change, no? Even if you just look at the lifespan issue.


Aside from that, it's a fairly circular argument to say: 'Laws exist, because if people didn't follow them, they wouldn't exist. So you should follow them'.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-11-05 17:32:30 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Laws are rules - societal norms - that can be legitimately enforced by the state. They don't get legitimation by people agreeing on them


I disagree. I believe that it is the people of a state who surrender some of their power to the state for the sake of safety, and that if the government misappropriates or abuses this power, it is in the full right of the citizens to abolish the state and take the power back. Furthermore, I believe that in today's current state of affairs with the incompetent Empires unable to stop these pointless wars, while allowing innocent people to go hungry so they can build their fleets of dreadnoughts, this is what needs to be done. The states are, by and large, failing to serve the interests of their citizens, therefore the citizens should fail to serve the interests of their empire.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#32 - 2011-11-06 12:25:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Anarchy, with the definition of being an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals into autonomous communities, isn't a bad thing.

When you're dealing with a lawless environment, that's another matter.


Jason Galente wrote:
You people say Anarchy like it's a bad thing.



Bad is not the right word, but yes, it is, if you consider that progress and evolution is something that you are looking for. Static isolated communities are antithesis to societal advancement. And if they are not isolated, then they are not united either, which means conflict. Conflict is a good motivator for progress, but also a magnificent hindrance to global synergy and social prosperity.

Eventually, when elements remain in multiple small entities, they limit themselves by definition. There were theories about the new emergent sentient beings revolving around networks, entities composed of human beings, much like living bodies composed of cells.


Steve Ronuken wrote:

The problem with most states, is that they have become self perpetuating, for no reason other than that they exist.

And the objective element to a norm, is that it's been existence for a while. It's only relevant, if the conditions that led to it rising, haven't changed. Capsuleers are a pretty big change, no? Even if you just look at the lifespan issue.


Aside from that, it's a fairly circular argument to say: 'Laws exist, because if people didn't follow them, they wouldn't exist. So you should follow them'.


States might have their own issues, more or less tied to each other, like self perpetuation, but something that people find convenient to forget is the very fondamental principle of dissension or social unrest. Simply said, make the people unhappy enough, and any empire, state or societal entity will collapse inevitably. It is somewhat tied to laws of entropy.

While you can definitly fight against a certain set of laws while asking for new laws to be written, but fighting against all laws for the sake of fighting the concept of law, like it is the case in absolute anarchies, is denying the human right to live together, or you end in a chaotic soup that has no other meaning than selfishness.

People seem to acknoledge the issue at hand but like many people following that weirdly fashionable anarchic movements they go for the wrong conclusions. People should work to fix what is wrong instead of trashing the whole body. Do surgeons kill the whole patient when there is something wrong in one of his/her organs ?
Previous page12