Logomancer7
@logomancer7.bsky.social
A fan of philosophy, technology, environmentalism, and social justice
Oh hey. That top-left one is darn near dead-on my profile picture. Even the angle is perfect. Nice one!
I wonder if there's a standardized "Socrates face" that is used by a variety of sculptors. That would explain the similarity.
I wonder if there's a standardized "Socrates face" that is used by a variety of sculptors. That would explain the similarity.
December 22, 2024 at 8:34 PM
Oh hey. That top-left one is darn near dead-on my profile picture. Even the angle is perfect. Nice one!
I wonder if there's a standardized "Socrates face" that is used by a variety of sculptors. That would explain the similarity.
I wonder if there's a standardized "Socrates face" that is used by a variety of sculptors. That would explain the similarity.
Under left-wing politics the association is not considered voluntary because taking the job is the only option this person has to get their basic needs met. They may not being directly coerced by the factory owner, but other factors *are* forcing them to make a decision they might not otherwise.
December 22, 2024 at 8:02 PM
Under left-wing politics the association is not considered voluntary because taking the job is the only option this person has to get their basic needs met. They may not being directly coerced by the factory owner, but other factors *are* forcing them to make a decision they might not otherwise.
Suppose that a person living in abject poverty accepts a job offer from a factory owner. Do you consider this association to be voluntary? In right-wing politics it would be considered voluntary, because the factory owner is not using coercion themselves. But left-wing politics views it differently.
December 22, 2024 at 8:02 PM
Suppose that a person living in abject poverty accepts a job offer from a factory owner. Do you consider this association to be voluntary? In right-wing politics it would be considered voluntary, because the factory owner is not using coercion themselves. But left-wing politics views it differently.
You also mentioned the values of voluntary association - presumably suggesting that you are in support of it. However people's ideas of what counts as voluntary can vary quite a bit based on where they stand politically so we should probably clarify that term as well.
December 22, 2024 at 8:02 PM
You also mentioned the values of voluntary association - presumably suggesting that you are in support of it. However people's ideas of what counts as voluntary can vary quite a bit based on where they stand politically so we should probably clarify that term as well.
So first of all you mentioned that you believe socialism will arise from class struggle. Would I be correct in assuming that this means that you are in support of socialism? And while we're on the topic, what is your understanding of what socialism actually is?
December 22, 2024 at 8:02 PM
So first of all you mentioned that you believe socialism will arise from class struggle. Would I be correct in assuming that this means that you are in support of socialism? And while we're on the topic, what is your understanding of what socialism actually is?
I'd be happy to discuss political theory with you, but first let me check that I've correctly interpreted what you're saying. The set of beliefs you've espoused is quite an unusual mix so I want to make sure that I understand where you're coming from.
December 22, 2024 at 8:02 PM
I'd be happy to discuss political theory with you, but first let me check that I've correctly interpreted what you're saying. The set of beliefs you've espoused is quite an unusual mix so I want to make sure that I understand where you're coming from.
Once you continuously prove that you are willing to use a dialectic frame of mind (viewing them not as an enemy to be defeated, but as an ally in the pursuit of truth) they tend to reciprocate this attitude, and discourse becomes infinitely more productive from that point forwards.
December 22, 2024 at 6:36 PM
Once you continuously prove that you are willing to use a dialectic frame of mind (viewing them not as an enemy to be defeated, but as an ally in the pursuit of truth) they tend to reciprocate this attitude, and discourse becomes infinitely more productive from that point forwards.
Wherever you go, there will be some bad faith actors who maintain this eristic mindset no matter what, and will never budge on any issue. But I've found that most people aren't like this - and are capable of having a conversation in good faith when shown that others are willing to do the same.
December 22, 2024 at 6:36 PM
Wherever you go, there will be some bad faith actors who maintain this eristic mindset no matter what, and will never budge on any issue. But I've found that most people aren't like this - and are capable of having a conversation in good faith when shown that others are willing to do the same.
I'm not so sure on this one. The eristic mindset (which views other participants in discourse as enemies to defeat in a sort of intellectual combat) is definitely prevalent on the internet, but I don't think that it's so ingrained that all internet discourse is doomed to be unproductive.
December 22, 2024 at 6:36 PM
I'm not so sure on this one. The eristic mindset (which views other participants in discourse as enemies to defeat in a sort of intellectual combat) is definitely prevalent on the internet, but I don't think that it's so ingrained that all internet discourse is doomed to be unproductive.
Something I'm wondering about though is your relation to anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. You listed them as ideologies you subscribe to, but when you were expanding on your ideology later I saw no mention of any concepts from them. Could you elaborate on why you identify with them?
December 22, 2024 at 2:43 PM
Something I'm wondering about though is your relation to anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. You listed them as ideologies you subscribe to, but when you were expanding on your ideology later I saw no mention of any concepts from them. Could you elaborate on why you identify with them?
The other responders are right though: both anarchists and anarcho-capitalists generally consider the associations between "anarcho-capitalism" and Anarchism to be a misconception (a misconception which is almost certainly the result of the similarity of their names).
December 22, 2024 at 2:43 PM
The other responders are right though: both anarchists and anarcho-capitalists generally consider the associations between "anarcho-capitalism" and Anarchism to be a misconception (a misconception which is almost certainly the result of the similarity of their names).
I think that the term you're looking for may be "Minarchist". Anarcho-capitalists don't believe in any government whatsoever. Minarchism is a slightly less extreme form of right-wing libertarianism which supports the non-aggression principle and free markets as you say that you support.
December 22, 2024 at 2:43 PM
I think that the term you're looking for may be "Minarchist". Anarcho-capitalists don't believe in any government whatsoever. Minarchism is a slightly less extreme form of right-wing libertarianism which supports the non-aggression principle and free markets as you say that you support.
I also notice that you mentioned in passing that you find it difficult to see how a transition can be made. I need to be heading off now, but let me know if you'd like to hear more about that (or any other topic) and I'll be sure to write something up for you :)
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
I also notice that you mentioned in passing that you find it difficult to see how a transition can be made. I need to be heading off now, but let me know if you'd like to hear more about that (or any other topic) and I'll be sure to write something up for you :)
But suppose that things were different. Suppose that parents took their children to community assemblies discussing important issues from a young age. Suppose that their schools let them be involved in organizing events, and added politics to the curriculum. Would people still grow to be so unwise?
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
But suppose that things were different. Suppose that parents took their children to community assemblies discussing important issues from a young age. Suppose that their schools let them be involved in organizing events, and added politics to the curriculum. Would people still grow to be so unwise?
The obstacle here is that most education systems currently give little attention to such matters. They are focused around producing people who are competent at working in their specialized field - teaching them to be "cogs in the machine" so to speak, not competent at making more holistic decisions.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
The obstacle here is that most education systems currently give little attention to such matters. They are focused around producing people who are competent at working in their specialized field - teaching them to be "cogs in the machine" so to speak, not competent at making more holistic decisions.
The same applies to what you said about stupidity: humans have the potential for it, but also the potential for great wisdom. Just as we can build a society which fosters kindness, cooperation, and compassion, so too can we build one which fosters wisdom.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
The same applies to what you said about stupidity: humans have the potential for it, but also the potential for great wisdom. Just as we can build a society which fosters kindness, cooperation, and compassion, so too can we build one which fosters wisdom.
All humans have the potential in them for evil, but also the potential in them for good. How far they lean to either end is heavily shaped by the environment they find themselves in. What anarchists suggest is that we build an environment which fosters the best aspects of humanity wherever possible.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
All humans have the potential in them for evil, but also the potential in them for good. How far they lean to either end is heavily shaped by the environment they find themselves in. What anarchists suggest is that we build an environment which fosters the best aspects of humanity wherever possible.
Now as for your mention of human nature: what's important to remember is that "human nature" is far more flexible than how we typically think about it. Consider: the very same human who turned out a shameless and unrepentant murderer could have been a saint, if only their life had gone differently.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
Now as for your mention of human nature: what's important to remember is that "human nature" is far more flexible than how we typically think about it. Consider: the very same human who turned out a shameless and unrepentant murderer could have been a saint, if only their life had gone differently.
Not to mention it helps me too; it gives me the opportunity to reinforce my understanding by responding to your criticisms. And if that leads me to an area where I myself aren't sure of the answer then all the better! That just means that I get to learn something new, or unlearn something incorrect.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
Not to mention it helps me too; it gives me the opportunity to reinforce my understanding by responding to your criticisms. And if that leads me to an area where I myself aren't sure of the answer then all the better! That just means that I get to learn something new, or unlearn something incorrect.
Also, don't worry about poking holes in ideas. I prefer it to if you were to uncritically accept everything I had to say. In my opinion, it's an important part of getting to grips with new concepts. Without it, our understanding probably wouldn't get much further than parroting what we've been told.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
Also, don't worry about poking holes in ideas. I prefer it to if you were to uncritically accept everything I had to say. In my opinion, it's an important part of getting to grips with new concepts. Without it, our understanding probably wouldn't get much further than parroting what we've been told.
If the justification for granting the judge the power to decide a person's fate alone is that they have greater expertise, then let them instead use that expertise to convince the others present of the right course of action. If anyone else can make a better argument than that expert, then so be it.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
If the justification for granting the judge the power to decide a person's fate alone is that they have greater expertise, then let them instead use that expertise to convince the others present of the right course of action. If anyone else can make a better argument than that expert, then so be it.
The solution you describe: removing mandatory minimums and granting judges wider latitude, would effectively turn the law into what I called a guideline: authority is no longer deferred to it. Yet anarchists would still prefer not to let the fate of a defendant rest on the judgement of one person.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
The solution you describe: removing mandatory minimums and granting judges wider latitude, would effectively turn the law into what I called a guideline: authority is no longer deferred to it. Yet anarchists would still prefer not to let the fate of a defendant rest on the judgement of one person.
People may campaign to change the law after the fact to account for the new case that arose, but the legally mandated action will have already been taken. Not to mention the underlying issue of the law being inflexible still won't have been addressed.
December 22, 2024 at 1:19 PM
People may campaign to change the law after the fact to account for the new case that arose, but the legally mandated action will have already been taken. Not to mention the underlying issue of the law being inflexible still won't have been addressed.
The difference between that and a law I think, is that laws have authority deferred to them. Even if everyone present thinks that the law as written is wrong in a particular case, it will still be applied. The law takes precedence over the autonomy of anyone in society, regardless of circumstance.
December 22, 2024 at 1:18 PM
The difference between that and a law I think, is that laws have authority deferred to them. Even if everyone present thinks that the law as written is wrong in a particular case, it will still be applied. The law takes precedence over the autonomy of anyone in society, regardless of circumstance.
What I called a taboo is something that a community agrees is wrong and shouldn't be done. My idea of a guideline is much like what you called a law: a codification of a taboo, also describing how the breaking of the taboo should be responded to by a community.
December 22, 2024 at 1:18 PM
What I called a taboo is something that a community agrees is wrong and shouldn't be done. My idea of a guideline is much like what you called a law: a codification of a taboo, also describing how the breaking of the taboo should be responded to by a community.