It's just a weak metaphor that everyone is reacting to. It's hard to believe that one of my liver cells is autonomous, exercises free will and voluntarily does its job. Every cell in the body is essentially born into a caste, given a set task, and operates as a drone doing that task until the day it dies, all under the blanket of a very specific set of hard coded rules. The functioning of the human body on a cellular level does not scream anarchy to me.
You could say that our cells, like many animals, live on instinct. And from our limited perspective, they may SEEM less than free, but they look like they make it work:)
Anarchy, to me, is not just a political setup, but also the way life works. Every human being is born free, even when he/she is born as a slave (just because someone says they own you and use force to make it so doesn't mean you stopped having free will).
It is our beliefs that make us function as free people or as slaves.
When doctors give us medicine for our body, they are not healing us, but rather trying to find a way for the body to heal itself. The doctor is an instrument of inspiration for the body's self-healing, just like government is an instrument of inspiration for society's self-organization.
The difference between the two is that government does such an incredibly crappy job.
You could say that our cells, like many animals, live on instinct.
No, actually they're hard-coded to work the way they do.
And from our limited perspective,
You mean science?
they may SEEM less than free, but they look like they make it work:)
What's your point here? Are you saying apparent freedom is inefficient?
Anarchy, to me, is not just a political setup, but also the way life works. Every human being is born free, even when he/she is born as a slave (just because someone says they own you and use force to make it so doesn't mean you stopped having free will).
Just cause anarchy to you is a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. You need facts and evidence that back up your view if you want to convince anyone.
It is our beliefs that make us function as free people or as slaves.
So when some guy tries to rob a bank and says he'll shoot you if you move, is it simply your belief (that you will be killed if you move), or the very real threat of someone holding a gun to your head that keeps you from moving. Your trivializing actions to beliefs that are internal to us, when those beliefs are usually formed by experience external to us.
When doctors give us medicine for our body, they are not healing us, but rather trying to find a way for the body to heal itself. The doctor is an instrument of inspiration for the body's self-healing, just like government is an instrument of inspiration for society's self-organization.
So, then, the medicine has no role? No, that's absurd. So according to you, then, the role of medcine is to enable our bodies to heal themselves. But if the medicine's role is to enable our body to heal itself, it is essentially healing us.
No, actually they're hard-coded to work the way they do.
Instinct and genetic code are not mutually exclusive.
You mean science?
No, I did not mean science. Science cannot determine if a being is free or not. At least not yet.
What's your point here? Are you saying apparent freedom is inefficient?
No, I did not say that.
Just cause anarchy to you is a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. You need facts and evidence that back up your view if you want to convince anyone.
So do you.
So when some guy tries to rob a bank and says he'll shoot you if you move, is it simply your belief (that you will be killed if you move), or the very real threat of someone holding a gun to your head that keeps you from moving. Your trivializing actions to beliefs that are internal to us, when those beliefs are usually formed by experience external to us.
Apples and oranges. I may not be able to stop a bullet with my mind, but as long as I can think freely, I am free.
So, then, the medicine has no role? No, that's absurd. So according to you, then, the role of medcine is to enable our bodies to heal themselves. But if the medicine's role is to enable our body to heal itself, it is essentially healing us.
I did not say that. My point was that we could decide to use other "inspiration", as we evolve our understanding of the body, to promote healing. So too with government and society.
Instinct and genetic code are not mutually exclusive.
Doesn't mean cells have instincts.
No, I did not mean science. Science cannot determine if a being is free or not. At least not yet.
Yet it strongly suggests causal determinism, which translates to hard determinism for that which is not or has not been in contact with free agents. Both scientists and philosophers do not think cells are free agents. Some even think animals aren't free agents. Now if cells aren't free agents, pointing to them as an example of working anarchism is ludicrous since anarchism, or any political leaning concerns only free agent subjects.
Just cause anarchy to you is a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. You need facts and evidence that back up your view if you want to convince anyone.
So do you.
Yeah, except I didn't assert what anarchism seems to me to use as an argument. You did. I'm simply rebutting your actual, yet weak, arguments in favor of anarchism and making explicit where you're using non-arguments.
I may not be able to stop a bullet with my mind, but as long as I can think freely, I am free.
Yeah, but only thinking cannot free you from slavery.
I did not say that. My point was that we could decide to use other "inspiration", as we evolve our understanding of the body, to promote healing. So too with government and society.
Okay, give me one example for healing our bodies. And don't point the transition from witchcraft and superstition to science unless you have an idea of what would replace science (two dots don't make a trend).
First of all, I didn't intend to attack you, apologies and respect. But what you present as an argument for your case is nonsense. The way cells work do not resemble anarchy in any shape or form. All cells are made first initial cell that gets divided and multiplied as to form various organs and the whole body. As all of this process is going on instructions in DNA are being executed. Without DNA code cells can't do anything. Under that one code each cell knows what to do and how to react at various situations.
Just describing what humans do as a representation of anarchy is wrong as well. You wan't to let of government, so you need to talk in those terms. Show me examples of societies or communities that work under anarchy? Show me why it is better? You can't. That's why I say your point of view is just noise and complaining, without offering any better alternative. Once you can offer a better alternative to governance maybe then people would start paying attention. Until then it is just noise.
The reason I said bs was because your initial argument was completely wrong. You can't just take something that is wrong and use it to make the idea of anarchy good or already existent.
Good luck.
It's just a weak metaphor that everyone is reacting to. It's hard to believe that one of my liver cells is autonomous, exercises free will and voluntarily does its job. Every cell in the body is essentially born into a caste, given a set task, and operates as a drone doing that task until the day it dies, all under the blanket of a very specific set of hard coded rules. The functioning of the human body on a cellular level does not scream anarchy to me.
You could say that our cells, like many animals, live on instinct. And from our limited perspective, they may SEEM less than free, but they look like they make it work:)
Anarchy, to me, is not just a political setup, but also the way life works. Every human being is born free, even when he/she is born as a slave (just because someone says they own you and use force to make it so doesn't mean you stopped having free will).
It is our beliefs that make us function as free people or as slaves.
When doctors give us medicine for our body, they are not healing us, but rather trying to find a way for the body to heal itself. The doctor is an instrument of inspiration for the body's self-healing, just like government is an instrument of inspiration for society's self-organization.
The difference between the two is that government does such an incredibly crappy job.
No, actually they're hard-coded to work the way they do.
You mean science?
What's your point here? Are you saying apparent freedom is inefficient?
Just cause anarchy to you is a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. You need facts and evidence that back up your view if you want to convince anyone.
So when some guy tries to rob a bank and says he'll shoot you if you move, is it simply your belief (that you will be killed if you move), or the very real threat of someone holding a gun to your head that keeps you from moving. Your trivializing actions to beliefs that are internal to us, when those beliefs are usually formed by experience external to us.
So, then, the medicine has no role? No, that's absurd. So according to you, then, the role of medcine is to enable our bodies to heal themselves. But if the medicine's role is to enable our body to heal itself, it is essentially healing us.
Instinct and genetic code are not mutually exclusive.
No, I did not mean science. Science cannot determine if a being is free or not. At least not yet.
No, I did not say that.
So do you.
Apples and oranges. I may not be able to stop a bullet with my mind, but as long as I can think freely, I am free.
I did not say that. My point was that we could decide to use other "inspiration", as we evolve our understanding of the body, to promote healing. So too with government and society.
Doesn't mean cells have instincts.
Yet it strongly suggests causal determinism, which translates to hard determinism for that which is not or has not been in contact with free agents. Both scientists and philosophers do not think cells are free agents. Some even think animals aren't free agents. Now if cells aren't free agents, pointing to them as an example of working anarchism is ludicrous since anarchism, or any political leaning concerns only free agent subjects.
Yeah, except I didn't assert what anarchism seems to me to use as an argument. You did. I'm simply rebutting your actual, yet weak, arguments in favor of anarchism and making explicit where you're using non-arguments.
Yeah, but only thinking cannot free you from slavery.
Okay, give me one example for healing our bodies. And don't point the transition from witchcraft and superstition to science unless you have an idea of what would replace science (two dots don't make a trend).
First of all, I didn't intend to attack you, apologies and respect. But what you present as an argument for your case is nonsense. The way cells work do not resemble anarchy in any shape or form. All cells are made first initial cell that gets divided and multiplied as to form various organs and the whole body. As all of this process is going on instructions in DNA are being executed. Without DNA code cells can't do anything. Under that one code each cell knows what to do and how to react at various situations.
Just describing what humans do as a representation of anarchy is wrong as well. You wan't to let of government, so you need to talk in those terms. Show me examples of societies or communities that work under anarchy? Show me why it is better? You can't. That's why I say your point of view is just noise and complaining, without offering any better alternative. Once you can offer a better alternative to governance maybe then people would start paying attention. Until then it is just noise.
The reason I said bs was because your initial argument was completely wrong. You can't just take something that is wrong and use it to make the idea of anarchy good or already existent.
Good luck.
I don't know for what type of anarchy you all talking about in here, but it happened already and it was not easy to maintain.