Politics is how people agree between them (or are forced by others) to go about their lives.
You cannot "refrain from politics" anymore that you can "refrain from life" or "refrain from society".
As long as you are subject to law, for example, you are participating in politics (as a passive subject at least).
Or as long as you need to use any common infrastructure, from roads to water, you are participating in politics.
Anarchism itself is very much politics, and has a long history of political involvement that takes 200 volumes to recount, from the International to the Spanish Civil War and on.
The only alternative to politics is to go to some cabin in the woods and hunt for your food, but I don't think that's what you have in mind.
> Politics is how people agree between them (or are forced by others) to go about their lives.
I want to be clear about my definitions to avoid semantic arguments. Sure, in a casual context the word is used that way (e.g. "office politics"). I mean to use the more specific definition, which refers to the organization of government, so I don't refer to all social organization as "politics." For another usage similar to mine, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-politics.
The point others are trying to make here is that it's completely self-serving to call one's political thought as Non-Politics.
Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought and agorism is political in nature, making large (debatable) assumptions about how societal relations ought to be organized.
But you're still making a semantic argument, which is what I'm trying to avoid. I'm not arguing over what the "true meaning" of the word is. I have given my definition, and I would prefer that my statements be evaluated using those definitions.
You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution. And everyone else is saying that non-politics is still politics. But in order to be consistent with your claim that all politics are bad whereas anarchy is good, you have to claim that anarchy is not politics.
At any rate, with non-politics everyone still governs their own body, so it's not unreasonable to view absolute anarchy as 7 billion different totalitarian nations.
> You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution.
It depends what you mean by "left-wing" and "right-wing." There are certainly a lot of differing beliefs which can be held without approving of politics.
> But in order to be consistent with your claim that all politics are bad whereas anarchy is good, you have to claim that anarchy is not politics.
You're still phrasing this like a semantic argument. I am not trying to argue what the "true meanings" of words are, because that's useless (although it's clearly a very attractive style of argument to many people in this thread). I have told you what definitions I am using, and clearly, anarchism is not politics according to my definitions. I would prefer you address the actual ideas I have expressed, rather than argue over "true meanings" of words. Also, I am not saying that all discussion of political philosophy is bad, because that field inevitably concerns itself with beliefs which advocate refraining from political activity.
> so it's not unreasonable to view absolute anarchy as 7 billion different totalitarian nations.
It is unreasonable if you want to have intelligent discussions using concise terms. That's why, if the members of a discussion are unable or unwilling to agree upon a few basic definitions, the only arguments available are semantic arguments. Thus, discussions involving the concept of "nations" or "states" should be based on an agreement of terms, and the only conceivable useful definitions for those terms would exclude individual humans.
As far as I can tell, reading upwards, your ideas are simply that politics are bad and non-politics are good. Are there any other ideas?
The problem is precisely that you're defining terms to suit your arguments. All colors are bad, white is especially bad, therefore only the absence of color is good. But in many respects black functions just like the other colors. You can't say, well I'm defining terms like this, and it happens to suit me, so let's just discuss my ideas, namely that black is incredible, because it isn't a color. I don't agree with your axioms, so none of the claims in your system make logical sense.
You're doing the same thing when you deny that an individual under absolute anarchy is equivalent to a state - presumably a state requires two or more people for you. Defending "your" land by yourself in the wilderness with a gun is still government.
It's fine to discuss the form of government you like most - maybe anarchy is great - but it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as superior to all other governments because for some magical reason it is not a government and therefore does not contain any of the supposedly evil properties of governments, namely submission to the authority of another which inevitably gets abused. What you propose entails one of the most sinister consequences, namely that an individual's own authority, strength, and material wealth will be the final arbiter of power.
My ideal is the exact opposite of global anarchy: one government, one currency, one set of rights, and no borders.
But we can't have a reasonable discussion if my ideal is a priori terrible because it's political, and your ideal is wonderful because it's non-political / apolitical / whatever.
> The problem is precisely that you're defining terms to suit your arguments.
No, I'm not. The problem is that you are dead set on your perceived "true meaning" of the word, and you cannot get past anyone using a different definition regardless of how explicit they are about it. My argument is not that the string of letters "politics" is bad, which would then require me to set a precise definition of the word to make my argument fit my other beliefs. My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad. "Politics" is the perfect word to use when referring to "participation in government," so I used that term. When people brought up a potential different definition of "politics," I immediately gave the definition I was using in my first claim. That should be the end of the semantic argument, but people persist, many ignoring my actual claim.
> All colors are bad, white is especially bad, therefore only the absence of color is good.
Nothing I said is remotely of this form. I said politics are bad, then I defined politics as precisely as I could, period.
> You're doing the same thing when you deny that an individual under absolute anarchy is equivalent to a state - presumably a state requires two or more people for you.
Wrong again. If you desire to enter into a discussion about states using a definition of "state" that includes individuals, then so be it. We could have that discussion without having any semantic arguments. You still cannot get past the idea of "true meanings." The point is to speak and discuss things given an agreed upon set of definitions. In theory, all the words you use could be pure gibberish, provided that all participants were aware of their definitions in that discussion. Obviously, that's not the easiest way to have a discussion, but then again, neither is this thread.
> It's fine to discuss the form of government you like most - maybe anarchy is great - but it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as superior to all other governments because for some magical reason it is not a government and therefore does not contain any of the supposedly evil properties of governments, namely submission to the authority of another which inevitably gets abused.
This is another disagreement on the definition of terms, and we cannot continue this discussion until we agree on a definition. My definition of "government" does not include voluntary organizations. If you present your definition, then I could agree to use it (just for this discussion, of course), and then we could talk about whatever you actually want to talk about. Again, in this paragraph, you are appealing to your perceived "true meaning" of the word "government," and until you provide that definition, you haven't really presented any ideas that can be intelligently discussed.
> What you propose entails one of the most sinister consequences, namely that an individual's own authority, strength, and material wealth will be the final arbiter of power.
Here, you depart from making semantic arguments and instead make a simple straw man argument. I never claimed to advocate that, and I do not advocate that.
> My ideal is the exact opposite of global anarchy: one government, one currency, one set of rights, and no borders.
> But we can't have a reasonable discussion if my ideal is a priori terrible because it's political, and your ideal is wonderful because it's non-political / apolitical / whatever.
But as I have pointed out numerous times, I'm the one not making a priori arguments based on a string of characters like "political" or "government." I'm providing definitions and using those to construct actual ideas, rather than appealing to "true meanings." I have not and will not design an argument by placing a label on your proposal containing the string of characters "political," then pointing and saying "See! It's political therefore it's bad." Nor do I place a label on my proposals then argue that they are good because of what the label says. Those would be semantic arguments, and I seem to be one of few people in this thread not making semantic arguments.
I actually think you're caricaturing the problems people are having with your argument.
The issue is not being dead set on a "true meaning", it's that you have rejected the term "politics" in the meaning others here have attributed to it (i.e. the process of resolving power relations among individuals - not necessarily about governments or states), but have not replaced it with a suitable alternative that we can use to move the discussion forward.
In so doing, it comes across (at least earlier in the thread) that you're claiming that such a process is not required in an anarchy.
But I have presented the definition I was using in my first comment. At that point, disagreeing with my definition is pointless, and no longer addresses my first comment.
Besides, I have shown repeatedly that my usage is indeed standard. The Wikipedia articles on politics and political science both overwhelmingly show this. Only in casual language, like "office politics," is the term used to refer to non-government interactions.
You have not shown that your usage is entirely standard - myself and others have repeatedly pointed to aspects of Wikipedia articles that contradict your use of the term.
"Office politics" is not casual language, it actually is using the term "politics" as most refer to it in modern times: the process of determining power arrangements among beings.
But this is still semantics. I can accept your definition of politics as being the activities within the state. Lets call "the process of determining power arrangements among beings" as "power struggles".
I've claimed there are a number of thinkers that have varying views on "power struggles", some of which presume a state, others of which do not. One thing that seems to be clear is that there will always be power struggles in any community of beings: no system will eliminate them. So the question is, on what basis do we agree to contain power?
As far as I can tell, you haven't said anything besides politics and government, as you define them, are categorically bad. You haven't provided any reasons why.
My claim is that non-politics and non-government, as you define them, are not a solution. The reason is that they are exactly circumscribed by politics and government, as you define them. The definition of X provides the definition of !X. Thus, they do not ultimately differ. This is a really important point: loyalty and rebellion are very closely related in that they are two sides of the same coin, both dictating your behavior. You don't need permission to sail in international waters (non-politics), but there's lots of places you can't go (politics) if you're going to stay in them. To be clear, I do understand what you mean when you say non-politics and non-government.
My definitions are as follows: to govern is to marshal force in the establishment of rights. To marshal force in the establishment of rights is to govern. This includes your definition of government and your definition of non-government.
> My definition of "government" does not include voluntary organizations.
Even if you join a voluntary non-governmental organization that provides you rights by marshaling force, regardless of whether or not I join your organization, I am still governed by it, in so far as the protections you have been promised by that organization will apply to me. If you pay for damage to your property to be illegal, I am going to be in trouble if I damage it, so I must obey the law that you have created with your wealth, or face the consequences.
My questions about your ideal form of government (or shall we say "protection" for your sake) are as follows: how does such a system restrain the power of the most rich? How does such a system prevent the abuse of the most poor?
It seems to me to be some kind of nightmare world where material wealth and social connections end up being the final arbiters of justice.
We effectively have anarchy at the international level today since the UN has no real power. Why is this a good thing? The US, with its vast amounts of power, is able to bully many of the other countries into submission, and there is no oversight. I fail to see how anarchy at the individual level would be substantially different.
>No, I'm not. The problem is that you are dead set on your perceived "true meaning" of the word, and you cannot get past anyone using a different definition regardless of how explicit they are about it. My argument is not that the string of letters "politics" is bad, which would then require me to set a precise definition of the word to make my argument fit my other beliefs. My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad. "Politics" is the perfect word to use when referring to "participation in government," so I used that term. When people brought up a potential different definition of "politics," I immediately gave the definition I was using in my first claim. That should be the end of the semantic argument, but people persist, many ignoring my actual claim.
Well, if you have ANOTHER MEANING for the word, why do you feel the need to use the same word, and not another one, even a made-up one?
I'd say it's because, however you might want to define your own definitions, you cannot escape the overall reach of the terms.
You argue against semantics, but semantics is all you're doing: you're not putting forward a different description of politics (explaining how it will work, etc), you're just redifining the word to mean something else.
If we were allowed to do that, no discussion could ever take place. For one, now other persons in the discussion cannot use the same word in their argumentation, because you just redefined the term.
>My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad.
OK, that's something we can work with. How is that solved by prefering "anarchy" or "non politics"? Might as well say "I'm against gravity". You still are subject to government and it's laws. And the only way to change that is:
1) Go to some remote area and start a commune.
2) Convince people to abolish government (which necessitates entering into the political sphere).
>Again, in this paragraph, you are appealing to your perceived "true meaning" of the word "government," and until you provide that definition, you haven't really presented any ideas that can be intelligently discussed.
Notice how "his perceived true meaning" is actually the true dictionary meaning everybody agrees upon. You substituted your own definition, and now you act as he is using some weird meaning of his own.
It's vastly better to avoid redefining any term, and just DESCRIBE (with many words, instead of using a token redefined by you term) what you want to say.
That is 'I'm providing definitions and using those to construct actual ideas, rather than appealing to "true meanings"' is the worst thing you could possibly do in a coversation. Stop with the redefinitions, and work with descriptions and arguments.
>Those would be semantic arguments, and I seem to be one of few people in this thread not making semantic arguments.
On the contrary, you are the one person in this thread that fucked up semantics, by coming with your own definitions of words. That's semantics work per se.
Well, your definition above is that politics "refers to the organization of government". So you want to be non-political with respect to that, ie. don't care about Washington, etc.
Here is where the the problems arise:
1) Government is not just the one in Washington, but all kinds of government, ie. all kinds of collective decision making. You cannot avoid those. Any time you want to get to a decision some kind of government will emerge -- and as the decisions get more complicated or involve more people (and have to be enforced or else are nullified), it will have most of the regular government traits.
2) You cannot even avoid the regular government just because you prefer to be non political. If you want to do without "politics" (as defined in your definition) you still need to enter the political field (ie. you could face adverse action from Washington, you have to abide by their laws, etc). So even to be "non-political" you first have to abolish politics somehow, or you are still subject to them.
You cannot "refrain from politics" anymore that you can "refrain from life" or "refrain from society".
As long as you are subject to law, for example, you are participating in politics (as a passive subject at least).
Or as long as you need to use any common infrastructure, from roads to water, you are participating in politics.
Anarchism itself is very much politics, and has a long history of political involvement that takes 200 volumes to recount, from the International to the Spanish Civil War and on.
The only alternative to politics is to go to some cabin in the woods and hunt for your food, but I don't think that's what you have in mind.