But who decides the morality in a anarchist culture? You have laid out some some values by which you say an anarchist lives by, and which a statist lives by, but how it this morality decided? Further how does that culture grow without authority?
I guess my question is what are the guiding forces of anarchy that separate it from chaos?
As for burden of proof, this is the ultimate question of the clashing of any two or more cultures. You are describing an area where anarchy and statism are incompatible. Statism draw some lines to create rules in order to work as a system and anarchy as you describe it has much more personal barriers. At this place where the compatibility crumbles the burden of proof defaults to something more primal, and this is the violence that you speak of, who has the power to enforce their own truth?
It's clear that you don't like this position, it seems unfair and immoral. What is the solution?
"At this place where the compatibility crumbles the burden of proof defaults to something more primal, and this is the violence that you speak of, who has the power to enforce their own truth?"
Presenting violence as though it were evidence is argumentum ad baculum, which is literally a logical fallacy. How does what I like have anything to do with anything? In what way does initiating violence against people and forcing people to pay you create an order that voluntary association and exchange doesn't?
this is all written on my phone and my autocorrect seems to be all fucked so sorry for all the typos
Im sorry, i was just trying to have a discussion to help you articulate your ideas in broader ways. I dont have a particular stance on the issue when it really comes down to it, so lets make that clear.
Your article is written in the voice of absolute truth, which at moments also finds itself in the land of hypocracy(as you describe statisms, they also lie in absolutism). All i was trying to do is point at the larger problems here, and see if your position has a solution.
All i got from the post is "Statism is immoral as it forces me into rules i dont necesarily want to follow through violence"
You claim that it is immoral and then define what you believe to be moral.
Ok so you have highlighted a morality system which you feel is superior to majority culture. How does this play out in the real world? As you describe it ends in violence. How do we create a scenareo which you get the culture that you want that doesnt end in violence?
Where exactly did I say that consensual exchange ends in violence? I was asking you how consensual exchange ends in violence. I don't see where violence logically follows from consent.
"Superior to the majority culture"
What does that even mean, exactly? Is it your claim that violence is moral if the majority say so? Wouldn't the holocaust have been moral by the standard you put forth.
Again, how do my feelings have anything to do with anything? How could there be more than one "morality system"? Under what circumstances would rape, slavery or genocide be moral of morality is subjective?
To claim that you aren't taking a stance while simultaneously putting forth a series of claims in support of your position strikes me as dishonest, as do the baked in premises in your questions. Begging the question is yet another logical fallacy.
Burden of proof is still on statists. Anarchists don't have to prove why anarchy is superior to statism (or why consent is superior to violating consent) but statists do have to prove that the state exists, that it has authority and that people have a moral obligation to obey men and women who call themselves government.
My argument is that there are other forces in the world than right and wrong, and when people can't agree on what right and wrong means, those other forces are what rule.
Do you eat meat? Have you ever killed a plant? what about that bacteria you wash down the drain when you brush your teeth? What gives you the right to do any of these things, and is it ok? Are you going to tell the dolphins that gang rape one of their own for weeks that they are wrong (it's a thing)? What about ducks and roosters where every act of sex could be seen as rape?
This may seem extreme, and beside the point but yes, there is more than one morality system on this planet and in this universe, and yes its subjective.
I think there is [subjective!] value in what you are posting about, you've outlined some really solid critiques but as it is presented, because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread).
The burden of proof argument becomes completely null unless it's acknowledged by both parties, as i'd still argue that the two groups are working from different sets of morality. You seem to argue that it doesn't matter cause the described morality "praxeologicaly absolutely the truth" and statists are violating it. As far as the described morality, the burden of proof is on you, cause i say that is absolutely an assumption.
Morality doesn't have anything to do with dolphins or plants because dolphins and plants aren't moral agents. You've moved the goalpost so far at this point that I don't think we're even in the same solar system anymore (no pun intended). Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to rape, murder, or enslave people? Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to violate the bodily integrity of others? If they are just going to use violence either way, it's not even a debate. It's your claim that the burden of proof is on the rape victim to demonstrate why they shouldn't be raped? Because I don't know about you, if someone tries to violate my bodily integrity, I'm going to give them more than a few harsh words.
If you've arrived at a moral conclusion that condones rape, you've made a mistake in your reasoning and need to start over.
"Because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread)."
What problem? I don't see a problem here. Given that we aren't talking about dolphins or plants, under what circumstances would it be okay for you as a moral agent or any other moral agent to rape or enslave someone? Do you have an answer to this that doesn't involve moving goalposts?
If humans are the same as dolphins and plants and bacteria then why are you having this conversation with me instead of having it with a dolphin, a plant or a bacteria? As much as I appreciate the discussion, your demonstrated preference betrays your claims. I'm not sure whether you're dishonest or confused but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
dude i'm not saying i think it's ok to rape, i'm pointing out that your absolute rights are fuzzier than you claim them to be. You can draw the line at humanity if you like, but if you spend any time with that definition you will find that it isn't any less messy.
My point and the "morality problem" i'm talking about is that you have to understand people and groups have different perspectives and they can be absolutely stubborn. You and I are proving that in every exchange so far. Sorry bud, i'm right, I think. So are you, you think.
I'm saying the burden of proof argument isn't good enough, it changes nothing, contributes nothing to changing culture. It's rooted in dogma that you can't recognize because it's your own. All it says is "you know what, we are right, not them!"
Maybe your point is to preach to the choir, but if you ever want to reach others who maybe don't entirely agree with you, you need to expand your argument.
No one decides morality. Morality is praxeologically discovered through the realization that it's impossible to consent to a violation of your own consent. Truth isn't subjective. No one has "their own truth" because there is only the truth. Any deviations from the truth are falsehoods by definition. By defining truth as subjective, you strip all meaning from the word.
Redefining terms and conflating ideas. Things that statist are quite fond of. You almost always have to stop and have an entirely different discussion about defining terms before you can proceed with your original topic, lol.
Damn i didn't know anarchists were so into absolutes. That is kinda the nature of language isn't it? It has to be redefined so we can be on the same page and have a conversation. I'm not a statist, if anything i'm an existential-nihilist (which would be why i'm so caught up on this notion of truth).
The word truth can be subjective. Base 10 4+4=8 truth. Base 4 4+4=20 truth.
Now in our culture if some one comes up and says 4+4=20, they will be laughed at and corrected. Maybe that person came from a culture that does regular math in base 4 though. They aren't any more wrong than you are, but the burden of proof is on them isn't it?
Changing the counting system from base 10 to base 4 only changes the symbols used; not the quantity. You can't change the territory by changing the map. Is your claim that absolutes are falsehoods? Because that would be an absolute, which by your standard would be a falsehood. Do you know what "performative contradictions" means? Because you just engaged in one by using an implied absolute to criticize absolutes. If there's no such thing as absolute truth then you've effectively rendered all language meaningless which means there's no point in even having a discussion with you