Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 83

that is the exact non-argument Loco was making, I'm here to debate ideas, this kind of thing is a waste of time, dont do that[/QUOTE]

Lol im just debating here to pass the time tbh. But if you here to debate ideas, why do you always engage in the same activity that propagandists on the right use? I mean the activity of pointing to the most irrational, vitriolic elements on the radical left and and presenting it as if that's what the radical left is normally like. If you want to debate ideas you will engage with arguments of the articulate left. And by articulate left i mean those who spend their life's work doing research on important issues to do with politics, not people who spend all day on twitter.

On August 17 2018 21:35 Loco wrote: You are here to debate ideas about as much as PragerU is on YouTube to properly educate people for a brighter future. You come here with your agenda and you give no shit about representing people's positions accurately and exploring things mutually, how can you pretend to be interested in productive debate? How many times are you going to accuse me of being or siding with communists when I've been explicit about my anarchist views over and over again? The only thing that debating has ever done here is further entrench you into your position that the "freer" people are to compete with one another, the better off society is, or that it's virtually inevitable anyway due to the X factor in our biology. You start from that and work backwards to justify your conclusions every single time. If you ever concede some points here and there, they are soon glossed over or rationalized in order to favor your preferred narrative. What Stroggoz is implying is that you are out of touch with reality and debating with your Competition™ crypto-religious views is a waste of time and basically anyone who studies this subject seriously knows this to be the case. He's just being nicer about it even though there is no point because you are not going to be more receptive to anything he says. So there, you're both wasting each other's time, but maybe that's exactly what you want, since you don't really value your time all that much.

no idea who PragerU is.

its funny you accuse me of painting you as a communist instead of anarcho syndicalist when it was you who obsessivly tried to say I'm not an anarchist since anarco capitalism didnt exist, you are so obsessed with labeling things that you forget to put any substance in your arguments thats why they are so poorly constructed.

I've never seed the freer a society is the better it is, I've acknowledged to you that perhaps in a post-scarcity society a form of collectivism might be a better choice, I've conceded that some forms of state are better than no-state, but the tendency of government to grow like a tumor makes it not a good choice for going for them.

Your last line is the same as your typical non-argument bullshit, you give 0 substance and only say "your ideas aren't taken seriously by academic and reddit friends" then followed by a sad attempt of ad-hominem, anybody with a clue here can see past your bullshit.

On August 18 2018 02:11 Spitfiree wrote: @Baal it seems to me as if you're a believer of the "invisible hand" of the market, not sure if I understood you correctly though

Yes I do, and I know the market isn't perfectly fluid leading to friction like isolated places, but pretty much all of the market problems are caused by intervention in the economical side (not societal problems obv)

On August 18 2018 04:23 Stroggoz wrote: I don't even think standard neoclassical economics is in touch with reality, to a large extent. Actually according to richard wolf, the reason business school was developed because the people who run the world were having a lot of trouble doing it from taking standard economics courses, they were miseducating themselves and so the MBA fixed that problem. Not sure if richard wolf's claim is true (he didn't give a source), but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Don't think my claims in general about the modern economy have been that extreme, it's accepted by some economist commentators on the right wing, like martin wolf, who calls the modern economy a parasitic host that is eating itself from the inside. To be fair, out of the F.I.RE economy; finance is a worse offender in terms of rent seeking in the economy than real estate is, and I think most of the problem is caused from speculation rather than landlords collecting rent. But in New Zealand the real estate problem is worse than it is in other countries. I don't really think twittering with vitrolic comments is that helpful at all and me coming on LP to argue about this isn't either, since no one reads LP lol. I think i agree that economics looks at abstract principles in the same way physics does, and that reality is very complex for both of those subjects. If the economics profession want's the study the economy in an abstract way with less focus on real world economies and economic history, that's fine, but they have to accept that they don't know much about what's going on.

standard economics isn't in touch with reality because of state intervention, it is extremely difficult to get "glitches" in a free market, but when you add lobbying, regulation, taxation and its evasion then you create an intricate maze where indeed classic economics doesnt flow as it should, in a free market real state should pay dividends in proportion to its risk/effort, why doesn't that apply in NZ is the government involved or why its an exeption to the rule?

On August 18 2018 04:56 Stroggoz wrote: Lol im just debating here to pass the time tbh. But if you here to debate ideas, why do you always engage in the same activity that propagandists on the right use? I mean the activity of pointing to the most irrational, vitriolic elements on the radical left and and presenting it as if that's what the radical left is normally like. If you want to debate ideas you will engage with arguments of the articulate left. And by articulate left i mean those who spend their life's work doing research on important issues to do with politics, not people who spend all day on twitter.

Well its a guilty pleasure, left nutjobs amuse me more because they are somewhat educated, and right nutjobs are mostly uneducated rednecks brainwashed with patriotism, they are scary not funny.

The only legitimate source of left wing ideology I follow is Zizek and in a lesser degree Chomsky

On August 17 2018 22:49 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2018 21:35 Loco wrote: You are here to debate ideas about as much as PragerU is on YouTube to properly educate people for a brighter future. You come here with your agenda and you give no shit about representing people's positions accurately and exploring things mutually, how can you pretend to be interested in productive debate? How many times are you going to accuse me of being or siding with communists when I've been explicit about my anarchist views over and over again? The only thing that debating has ever done here is further entrench you into your position that the "freer" people are to compete with one another, the better off society is, or that it's virtually inevitable anyway due to the X factor in our biology. You start from that and work backwards to justify your conclusions every single time. If you ever concede some points here and there, they are soon glossed over or rationalized in order to favor your preferred narrative. What Stroggoz is implying is that you are out of touch with reality and debating with your Competition™ crypto-religious views is a waste of time and basically anyone who studies this subject seriously knows this to be the case. He's just being nicer about it even though there is no point because you are not going to be more receptive to anything he says. So there, you're both wasting each other's time, but maybe that's exactly what you want, since you don't really value your time all that much. I just walked in late to the party but just curious, since I think Prager U is actually pretty informative, can you point to a specific fact or claim in any of the videos that are veritably false? It seems like that should be easy considering the way you use the analogy in such a matter-of-fact way.

can you actually say something instead of the 30 minute sperglord videos thing again

On August 18 2018 06:52 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2018 21:35 Loco wrote: You are here to debate ideas about as much as PragerU is on YouTube to properly educate people for a brighter future. You come here with your agenda and you give no shit about representing people's positions accurately and exploring things mutually, how can you pretend to be interested in productive debate? How many times are you going to accuse me of being or siding with communists when I've been explicit about my anarchist views over and over again? The only thing that debating has ever done here is further entrench you into your position that the "freer" people are to compete with one another, the better off society is, or that it's virtually inevitable anyway due to the X factor in our biology. You start from that and work backwards to justify your conclusions every single time. If you ever concede some points here and there, they are soon glossed over or rationalized in order to favor your preferred narrative. What Stroggoz is implying is that you are out of touch with reality and debating with your Competition™ crypto-religious views is a waste of time and basically anyone who studies this subject seriously knows this to be the case. He's just being nicer about it even though there is no point because you are not going to be more receptive to anything he says. So there, you're both wasting each other's time, but maybe that's exactly what you want, since you don't really value your time all that much. no idea who PragerU is. its funny you accuse me of painting you as a communist instead of anarcho syndicalist when it was you who obsessivly tried to say I'm not an anarchist since anarco capitalism didnt exist, you are so obsessed with labeling things that you forget to put any substance in your arguments thats why they are so poorly constructed. I've never seed the freer a society is the better it is, I've acknowledged to you that perhaps in a post-scarcity society a form of collectivism might be a better choice, I've conceded that some forms of state are better than no-state, but the tendency of government to grow like a tumor makes it not a good choice for going for them. Your last line is the same as your typical non-argument bullshit, you give 0 substance and only say "your ideas aren't taken seriously by academic and reddit friends" then followed by a sad attempt of ad-hominem, anybody with a clue here can see past your bullshit.

What's funny is that you decided to use a tu quoque fallacy to avoid dealing with the fact that you repeatedly misrepresent me around here. You could have said "yeah I do that for fun, but you also misrepresent me" but no, you don't even acknowledge it. Even when I'm no longer active, you're still trying to bait me with misrepresentations. Behavior which clearly shows you're here out of boredom, not to have productive discussions. And then you have the gall to say to people that they are wasting your time.

Speaking of people here with a clue, there hasn't been a single person here who has shown support for your "understanding" of anarchism and your defense of an-cap, it's not just me, so stop talking as if it is. No one here has ever said that there are good arguments to be made for an-cap, and it's the same everywhere else; other than an-capitalists themselves, no one takes it seriously, because the flaws are so blatant to everyone, even Joe fucking Rogan realizes how silly of an ideology it is when he schools Dave Rubin on his podcast.

In philosophy it's usually very easy to make favorable arguments for a position that you don't hold, but you don't hold it because your thinking has progressed past it: you see there are better alternative positions to hold. It's almost never a clear cut "everything about this philosophical school of thought is incoherent and indefensible", in reality you just pick what has the most arguments in favor of it and admit the weaker spots. An-capitalism is the closest thing you can get to it in political philosophy. It is to political philosophy what phrenology is to neuroanatomical science, it's as fringe as it gets. What is the case cannot be a "non-argument". It's very hard to gloss over all of its weak spots and defend it in the face of all of the better alternatives. The arguments have been made already and you were unimpressed, and so are we by your arguments, so why don't you stop wasting our time with it and whining about people not arguing with you? There's nothing to argue about anymore. It has run its course. At what point are you going to stop obsessing over this futile virtual fight over it?

The things you've conceded are absolutely meaningless because they are not dealing with the world as it currently is, they're convenient to concede because they don't prompt any action whatsoever, which of course is fine with you since you apparently are this new kind of anarchist that's not interested in organizing and being involved in direct action to end oppression, which was always the raison d'être of anarchism. Are an-capitalists ever political when they are not on their computer? Do you have something you're engaged in that I should be aware of? In what way do you think it may improve people's lives to argue with them over this?

you are so obsessed with labeling things that you forget to put any substance in your arguments thats why they are so poorly constructed.

Gee that's a really well constructed argument. Not begging the question at all. Yeah, I'm the one obsessed with labels but while I say my views align with anarchism full stop, you'll label me anarcho-collectivist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist interchangeably.... everything not to say anarchist because you want that cool title for yourself it seems. But fine, my opinion isn't worth anything, so let's hear it from Rothbard himself who coined the term anarcho-capitalist:

"We find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. That none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines". [...] We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist"."

On August 18 2018 07:00 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2018 02:11 Spitfiree wrote: @Baal it seems to me as if you're a believer of the "invisible hand" of the market, not sure if I understood you correctly though Yes I do, and I know the market isn't perfectly fluid leading to friction like isolated places, but pretty much all of the market problems are caused by intervention in the economical side (not societal problems obv)

Or intervention is an inevitable emergence in an economic system that functions based on a gaming logic with no regard for anything other than maximizing profit, and the economic problems and the societal ones are interlinked (a sick economy creates sick people who further produce a sick economy). But that's just me being irrational, it's not like most human cultures throughout history were non-market based, egalitarian and much less violent or ill than we currently are or anything.

And here's a shocker for you:

On August 18 2018 08:06 Loco wrote: What's funny is that you decided to use a tu quoque fallacy to avoid dealing with the fact that you repeatedly misrepresent me around here. You could have said "yeah I do that for fun, but you also misrepresent me" but no, you don't even acknowledge it. Even when I'm no longer active, you're still trying to bait me with misrepresentations.

So how do yo want me to call bud? so I stop putting the wrong label on you lol,

[qutoe]Behavior which clearly shows you're here out of boredom, not to have productive discussions. And then you have the gall to say to people that they are wasting your time.[/quote][/quote]

Perhaps I'm here out of boredom but clearly I dont find exchhaningn non-arguments entretaining, thats why discussing with you became dull.

Speaking of people here with a clue, there hasn't been a single person here who has shown support for your "understanding" of anarchism and your defense of an-cap, it's not just me, so stop talking as if it is. No one here has ever said that there are good arguments to be made for an-cap, and it's the same everywhere else; other than an-capitalists themselves, no one takes it seriously, because the flaws are so blatant to everyone, even Joe fucking Rogan realizes how silly of an ideology it is when he schools Dave Rubin on his podcast.

Not to ancap but re-read this thread and see who doesn't get support, you are painfully unaware of yourself.

For the 100th time the same non-argument, even "joe fucking rogan" disagrees? oh nevermind all I've ever said.. I'm joining antifa with you *cue in the soviet anthem* (oh no.. misrepresented as a commie again!)

In philosophy it's usually very easy to make favorable arguments for a position that you don't hold, but you don't hold it because your thinking has progressed past it: you see there are better alternative positions to hold. It's almost never a clear cut "everything about this philosophical school of thought is incoherent and indefensible", in reality you just pick what has the most arguments in favor of it and admit the weaker spots. An-capitalism is the closest thing you can get to it in political philosophy. It is to political philosophy what phrenology is to neuroanatomical science, it's as fringe as it gets.,

congratulations you are our 101th non-argument

You are makign me sound like Stefan Molyneux lol (in before you mention how I liked him before he went full psycho)

The things you've conceded are absolutely meaningless because they are not dealing with the world as it currently is, they're convenient to concede because they don't prompt any action whatsoever, which of course is fine with you since you apparently are this new kind of anarchist that's not interested in organizing and being involved in direct action to end oppression, which was always the raison d'être of anarchism. Are an-capitalists ever political when they are not on their computer? Do you have something you're engaged in that I should be aware of? In what way do you think it may improve people's lives to argue with them over this?

The more you speak about this action the more I picture you in a balalclava hitting make-america-great-again hat wearing red necks with a bike lock lol.

That kind of political activism is puerile, society will jump through its hoops as we self arrange as a species as I observe, I've made this point many times since the bee analogy I like to use.

I'll leave the fascist skull crackin' and ending opression to you, shine on you crazy diamond!

Gee that's a really well constructed argument. Not begging the question at all. Yeah, I'm the one obsessed with labels but while I say my views align with anarchism full stop, you'll label me anarcho-collectivist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist interchangeably.... everything not to say anarchist because you want that cool title for yourself it seems. But fine, my opinion isn't worth anything, so let's hear it from Rothbard himself who coined the term anarcho-capitalist:

Sure since I quit smoking I had to call myself anarchist to keep the cool score 8)

I call you anarcho collectivism to point out that you are against the free market, its you the one who says any ideology that believes in a free market stateless society is non existant, not worth considering only followed by a bunch of poopy-heads.

So if you want to call me "nonarchist" go ahead, and I'll call you whatever the fuck I want too, you dont get to dictate my words.

Your obsession with controlling language is so cliché what in the fuck is going on, is it like some kind of "fight club" rule for lefties that I'm unaware of?

On August 18 2018 09:52 Loco wrote: Or intervention is an inevitable emergence in an economic system that functions based on a gaming logic with no regard for anything other than maximizing profit, and the economic problems and the societal ones are interlinked (a sick economy creates sick people who further produce a sick economy). But that's just me being irrational, it's not like most human cultures throughout history were non-market based, egalitarian and much less violent or ill than we currently are or anything. And here's a shocker for you:

"There are no market in stateles socities" yes, because there isnt any big stateless society in the world and tiny societies do not require a free market, sadly its very difficult to stop people from raising and clinging to power since its in our nature.... oh nevermind, our pleasure in power is a social construct isnt it? lol.

most human cultures throughout history were non-market based, egalitarian and much less violent or ill than we currently are or anything.

omg... that is the stupidiest thing you have said in this forum.

human cultures throughout history have been brutally violent, extremely unequal, do you think native mesoamericans were peaceful and women had the same rights as men you genius? They were on constant wars that even lead entire races to extintion, they cannibalized people in rituals, had a brutal slavery and cast societal order.


I expected that kind of ignorance from some crazy hippie who idealized ancient tribes, but this coming from you is just distrubing, what the fuck.

That must be the 6th most stupid thing I've ever said according to you, maybe you should start rank-ordering them. That you wouldn't expect a statement like that from a leftist shows how much you actually care to learn about leftist thought, as Stroggoz rightfully pointed out. It's a common leftist claim, also made by people like Chomsky which you claim is legit enough to follow.

I don't give a fuck how you label yourself and how you label me, I didn't initiate this conversation over labels or out of a desire to correct you. I initiated it to point out how blind you are to your own behavior. You dismiss, trivialize and misrepresent people constantly and claim to be here to have a decent debate about ideas. You're not, period. Even now you just said it's about entertaining yourself. It's like you haven't outgrown the nihilistic phase that most atheists go through in their late-teens/early 20s and you're still living a meaningless hedonistic life as a response to it, which makes you unable to appreciate that political philosophy/economy is well-being or illness/life or death for many; it's not a game of egos to score points over the internet. In the real world where people actually care about other people and the future of this planet, it's an understanding that influences how you act in the world. Reducing it all to the unnecessary violence that is committed by some mentally ill leftists is the apex of intellectual laziness and banalisation.

I told you at least twice that I was no longer interested in discussing this subject with you, I'm not pretending to be making arguments, I've explicitly said I was done and I wasted enough of my time constructing arguments that you refused to engage on good faith and with effort. You'd often drop a sentence or two and give vague response to posts that I spent a lot of time writing. In any kind of interaction between two people, unequal knowledge and/or unequal effort, combined with a lack of respect, leads to nothing but frustration. I don't find it entertaining and I stopped engaging months ago, now I'd only appreciate if you stopped mentioning my nickname to prop yourself up or bait me. When someone says they're done, they've forfeited, you've won. There is no justification for denigrating them or continuing to try to pick a new fight with them. "Puerile" is exactly the word to describe such behavior.

On August 19 2018 02:58 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + That must be the 6th most stupid thing I've ever said according to you, maybe you should start rank-ordering them No, you simply are outdoing yourself every time lol   That you wouldn't expect a statement like that from a leftist shows how much you actually care to learn about leftist thought, as Stroggoz rightfully pointed out. It's a common leftist claim, also made by people like Chomsky which you claim is legit enough to follow. It surprised me that you said such a ridiculous thing but not from most leftist, meaning I considered intellectually above them but I'm starting to think I shouldn't, if Chomsky said that literally outside of an hyperbole to make a colroful critique then It's quite dissapointing and a profoundly stupid thing to say.   I don't give a fuck how you label yourself and how you label me Except that you have been obsessed about it and you kept derailing the conversation to that, were those the "meaningful" thougtful posts you are talking about?   I didn't initiate this conversation over labels or out of a desire to correct you. I initiated it to point out how blind you are to your own behavior. You dismiss, trivialize and misrepresent people constantly and claim to be here to have a decent debate about ideas. It was you (and now Stroggoz) that were saying how X ideology shouldn't be taken seriously, how its doesnt and cant exist, how its for internet nerds, how its for rich people and peole paid by these same rich people. Projection much?   Even now you just said it's about entertaining yourself. It's like you haven't outgrown the nihilistic phase that most atheists go through in their late-teens/early 20s and you're still living a meaningless hedonistic life as a response to it, you just chose to decieve yourself but thats another subject   which makes you unable to appreciate that political philosophy/economy is well-being or illness/life or death for many "POC are fighting for their lives!!!" LOL, leave the SJW catch phrases for your protest signs, [quote now I'd only appreciate if you stopped mentioning my nickname to prop yourself up or bait me.

It wasn't to bait you, I honestly dont enjoy discussing with you as I did years ago, I mentioned cuz he used almost the exact same non-argument, but I wont bring you up again.

On August 19 2018 02:58 Loco wrote: [quote]That must be the 6th most stupid thing I've ever said according to you, maybe you should start rank-ordering them

No, you simply are outdoing yourself every time lol

That you wouldn't expect a statement like that from a leftist shows how much you actually care to learn about leftist thought, as Stroggoz rightfully pointed out. It's a common leftist claim, also made by people like Chomsky which you claim is legit enough to follow.

It surprised me that you said such a ridiculous thing but not from most leftist, meaning I considered intellectually above them but I'm starting to think I shouldn't, if Chomsky said that literally outside of an hyperbole to make a colroful critique then It's quite dissapointing and a profoundly stupid thing to say.

I don't give a fuck how you label yourself and how you label me

Except that you have been obsessed about it and you kept derailing the conversation to that, were those the "meaningful" thougtful posts you are talking about?

I didn't initiate this conversation over labels or out of a desire to correct you. I initiated it to point out how blind you are to your own behavior. You dismiss, trivialize and misrepresent people constantly and claim to be here to have a decent debate about ideas.

It was you (and now Stroggoz) that were saying how X ideology shouldn't be taken seriously, how its doesnt and cant exist, how its for internet nerds, how its for rich people and peole paid by these same rich people.

Projection much?

Even now you just said it's about entertaining yourself. It's like you haven't outgrown the nihilistic phase that most atheists go through in their late-teens/early 20s and you're still living a meaningless hedonistic life as a response to it,

you just chose to decieve yourself but thats another subject

which makes you unable to appreciate that political philosophy/economy is well-being or illness/life or death for many

"POC are fighting for their lives!!!" LOL, leave the SJW catch phrases for your protest signs, I wont even say much about this because apparently you think that we want the free market not because its an overall better situation for everybody, but because we want ferraris while the rest rot.

now I'd only appreciate if you stopped mentioning my nickname to prop yourself up or bait me.

It wasn't to bait you, I honestly dont enjoy discussing with you as I did years ago, I mentioned cuz he used almost the exact same non-argument, but I wont bring you up again.

Mentioning the overall lack of popularity of a political proposition ( as an argument against it) is admittedly a weird thing for an anarchist to do.

That's true lebowski, but i've made plenty of arguments against ancapitalism before, and the comment wasn't intended as an argument, rather it's just a known truism related to property and basically everything else in the economy. The economics surrounding property isn't just a bunch of market forces.

You can't base social organisation off a few simple principles. It's like kantian ethics, it leads to unpredictable and unintended consequences. One consequence of ancapitalism is omnicide, the destruction of most species on earth including humans. markets create externalities, that's a cost to a third party when two people make a market transaction, in an ancapitalist society there is nothing to protect against that. Pollution would stack up pretty quick and after a few hundred years everyone would probably be dead.

The whole problem is people seeking a few elegant principles for a good social organisation. It doesn't work that way in reality, you have to figure out how to solve the problems as they come. So yes i don't think it should be taken seriously, and tbh it isn't either by the rich or poor. The rich take it seriously as an ideology but in practice they would be nowhere without the research and development the US military/government did in developing the internet, computers, and space shuttles that are later commercialized when it can be done. The billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel wrote in his book that a market society wouldn't work because of the lack of innovation. (in perfect competition you can't save up the money for R@D.) And the poor don't take it seriously for obvious reasons.

On August 19 2018 01:22 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2018 09:52 Loco wrote: [quote]most human cultures throughout history were non-market based, egalitarian and much less violent or ill than we currently are or anything. omg... that is the stupidiest thing you have said in this forum. human cultures throughout history have been brutally violent, extremely unequal, do you think native mesoamericans were peaceful and women had the same rights as men you genius? They were on constant wars that even lead entire races to extintion, they cannibalized people in rituals, had a brutal slavery and cast societal order. I expected that kind of ignorance from some crazy hippie who idealized ancient tribes, but this coming from you is just distrubing, what the fuck.

The only stupidity would be making claims about whether violence has gone done or not without looking at what anthropologists have to say on the matter, . The claim whether violence has gone down over time is an open question in anthropology, and depends on many assumptions like if structural violence counts or not. there are well researched people making arguments on both sides of the spectrum. If the nuclear bombs go off it will be a question with an easy answer.

Do anthropologist even have enough data to make meaningful arguments on the crime rates of previous societies?

It's easy for someone like me to make quick assumptions since we know tribes from the ancient times used the means of total war to have an end result (best case scenario they left only the women alive and kidnapped them), while this isn't the case in current times, even close history. In fact, the only two total war-like things that have happened the past 100 years are both done by the USA in the same year - Dresden bombing and Nukes in Japan. Both were completely unnecessary and the fact that there is no single person in their right mind that agrees it was the right thing to do in either scenario, shows that we've progressed as human. Then again I'm looking into extremes, which might be a bad thing to do when it comes to crime rates, since total number of victims from the average type of crimes could much larger than the death toll of an extreme case.

It does seem highly unlikely to me that we could have any sort of reasonable claim made regarding historical crime rate data pre 17-18-19th century though... even now the "official" data that goes public is highly deviated from what it should look like even in modern societies due to retarded laws like prohibition of weed and we're not sure how we're classyifing the said "Crime rate" is it violent crimes only? Are any type of crimes that affect society ?

steven pinker made a claim that violence has declined over time, but it was ridiculed and criticised by a lot of people from every angle.

You can look at current traditional societies and make extrapolations. Some traditional societies today are quite peaceful, like the kalahari bushmen for example, others were violent, like Maori in recent times. Baal points to one violent society but that is cherry picking. There are thousands of hunter gatherer societies still around, and you would need a solid statistical sample of them to draw any conclusions. one of the criticisms of pinker was that he had a very small sample of data and drew a lot of it from a disregarded anthropologist.

Well, i'm no expert on this area, but i know pinker ignored some perspectives from a couple of anthropologists like Douglas Fry and Brian Ferguson. Ferguson presents a picture of initially low-level of violence (relatively), and then, in the last 10,000 years war emerges and violence intensifies – then, with colonialism there is a dramatic dislocation of culture which in many cases increased violence, for a time, before pacification.

So with colonialism there are often long periods of pacification after huge bloodbaths-that's structural violence, keeping the population impoverished. I agree with ghandi that forced poverty through colonialism is a form of violence.

The practices baal points to like, cannibalism, brutal slavery, wars that lead to genocide, have all happened recently and still happen today. Cannibalism was quite prevalent in ww2, and in the 1966 indonesian massacres, and still happens in several African countries. all of this coming from modern state societies. brutal slavery, some of the worst i've ever read about is happening right now in places like west papua. as for racial or ethnic extermination, that's what the 20th century is known for.

One thing is right though and that has been moral progress beginning in the enlightenment, there has been a widening of the scope for recognition of human rights.

not really possible to 'quickly evaluate'.

Honestly I think a lot of it comes down to violence being.. more entertaining. There's this chronicle on the old norwegian viking kings written in the 1250s and we had one king - Olav Kyrre - that ruled over a peaceful, unified norway for 27 years without being involved in any wars. He only gets a fraction of the historical coverage that other kings ruling over more chaotic periods do. There are virtually no popular culture examples simply depicting a peaceful, golden age - periods covered deal with periods of strife and turmoil. This most certainly influences our perception.

Then there's regional bias. I can't picture Europe having had a less violent 50 year-period than we do now, in terms of percentage of the population being involved in or suffering from acts of violence. Then it depends on where you start your timeline. Periods of time of humanity where the population density was so sparse that groups wouldn't interact all that frequently or where the resources were plentiful are bound to be less violent. So if you're examining the entirety of humanity, then sure, I can see an argument for current day society still being more violent than average, even if I wouldn't agree with the assessment if looking at 'the west' for 'the past 2000 years'. For Africa as a continent, hard to say also - precolonial times in subsaharan africa are not well covered by historians.

I definitely agree that extended enlightenment thought have been a very positive development for humanity, though, no question about that.

On August 19 2018 08:38 lebowski wrote: Mentioning the overall lack of popularity of a political proposition ( as an argument against it) is admittedly a weird thing for an anarchist to do.

The problem obviously doesn't lie in the fact that a position is radical, but in the lack of a serious body of work to support the internal logic of the position. The anarchist literature is vast, multi-disciplinary, rigorous. has a long history, does not conflict with contemporary science, etc.; the right-libertarian positions do not, and they are markedly anti-science or at the very least ascientific.