A:  If you want to call pre-tribal prehistoric pre-hierarchical groups of Neanderthals examples of anarchical societies then you have your head in a very weird place and you provide no extant examples.  Also why isn’t there any evidence of their sustained anarchy?  I can see you are grabbing at straws and will take even the slightest slice offered by me into my position of giving them as probably roaming as undisciplined animals as a wide open invitation.  Bull crap.  The paraphrased articles I’ve given (and also given the websites for so you can do your own research) are to save space here on this forum.  There is a ton of stuff out there.  But it seems lazy minds like yourself needs to have everything done for you.  Do go find your own dumb stuff.  But I doubt you can recognize knowledge, reason, or insight with your myopic vision.

Shenonymous:
‘… That makes my point it doesn’t refute it!  You offered them as examples of anarchic societies, I say they are not and never were. ...’

I offered their apparent pre-White Man state as examples of anarchic societies.  As you seem to have come around to the idea that there could have been anarchic societies, we don’t really need to flog this issue any more.  There are plenty of better arguments against anarchism, and I’ve supplied you with links where you may find a variegated selection to please any taste.

...as to mincing words about anarchism: I have been trying to describe the field a bit because you don’t seem to know much about it.
------------------------
My reply:  Funny but it seemed to me you didn’t know much about anarchism.  Do we see what we want to see?

I don’t claim to be an expert on anarchism.  Many anarchist writers and heroes bore or offend me.  I was responding to your claim that no anarchist societies have ever existed, a claim you can’t make without exhaustive knowledge of both anarchism and anthropology.  Belief in this exhaustive knowledge is not encouraged when you post one of the more threadbare clichés of anti-anarchist literature.  No, I am not seeing what I want to see—I want to see knowledge, reason, insight.  I have no trouble finding dumb stuff or producing my own.  Opposition is true friendship.  Show that I am wrong, so that I can move forward to a better kind of wrongness.

A:  I said that the named Indian nations were compelled to adopt state-like political structures by the White Man.  Of course they have tribal councils, laws and so forth now; it’s the nature of the soup they’re in.
------------------------
My reply:  That makes my point it doesn’t refute it!  You offered them as examples of anarchic societies, I say they are not and never were.  They have strong intra tribal structure and the freedom you are postulating did not exist.

...as to mincing words about anarchism: I have been trying to describe the field a bit because you don’t seem to know much about it.
------------------------
My reply:  Funny but it seemed to me you didn’t know much about anarchism.  Do we see what we want to see? 

I will tweak my position a little and say that primitive peoples, the hunter-gatherers, probably were to a degree anarchic, having a non-hierarchical, more or less self-sufficient societies.  It is difficult to say though, just to what degree they could have survived without some form of society governing rules.  When populations become dense, however, governments as we know them emerged out of need and such anarchic groups disappeared. The elemental purpose of government is the safeguarding of basic security and public order, without which individuals would find it most difficult to achieve self-sufficiency.  While some governments are oppressive there are also positive aspects to governments. Government:  A Latinized Greek gubernatio from kybernisos, to steer, to drive, to guide, to act as a pilot” and now meaning the body with the power to make and/or enforce laws for a country, land area, people, or organization (focus on the word organization) and could also mean a group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory.

If you would provide proof of just one governmentless anarchy that existed that lasted to any consequence (which was my point), I would be amazed.  I don’t argue that the theory exists. “That all forms of government are unnecessary, oppreseive and undesirable and should be abolished.” I argue that they have never had existence of any consequence if they even had any existence at all, and I argue that they haven’t because it is not self-servingly propitious to do so.  The examples you offered are shown not to be anarchies.  And that is the nature of the non-anarchic ‘stew’ they are in.

Anarchistic societies, all those attempted, all of them have had organizational structure (government) that all members agree to.  They cannot survive in the kind of world that has evolved that has governments as we see today.

While Noam Chomsky is one of my contemporary heroes, and who is considered a left-anarchist, I submit that even in view of his theories, no society has ever developed based on his theories. That is not saying there will never be, but I submit that it is highly unlikely as it is within the negative nature of these theoretical anarchistic societies the reason very they cannot be sustainably created.  I don’t think an outcome of anarchism is necessarily chaos.  I think there is weakness in the fact that there is a lack of a safeguarding government.

Shenonymous: ‘Ignorance is bliss...A do please try to rephrase your last paragraph, it is incoherent. ...

I’ll analyze my own last paragraph in a moment.  First let me remind you that I said that the named Indian nations were compelled to adopt state-like political structures by the White Man (a metaphor).  Of course they have tribal councils, laws and so forth now; it’s the nature of the soup they’re in (another metaphor).

Oh, and as to mincing words about anarchism: I have been trying to describe the field a bit because you don’t seem to know much about it.  If you did, you would know that the argument that anarchies don’t or have never existed is a sort of primary cliché and has been dealt with by, probably, thousands of writers.  Since you like authorities, you can get caught up by looking at the Wikipedia page on anarchism, or Bryan Caplan’s FAQ at
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarf aq.htm where you will find better arguments than that one.  Of course there are anarchists whose vigorously dispute both articles, but that just goes with the territory.

You don’t need to tell me about the Dukhobors; I have several books about them and have lived among them, although of course the people I met were a remnant, the community itself and its peculiar culture having been crushed long since by the state.

Now, that last paragraph....  Maybe I won’t analyze the last paragraph.  Why don’t you just tell me where you go off the rails, and I’ll try to fix them from thereon out?  I looked it over and it seems reasonable to me, although perhaps lacking in elegance.  In it, I’m referring to the difficulty of justifying totalizing statements about human societies, cultures, psyches.

Ignorance is bliss...A do please try to rephrase your last paragraph, it is incoherent.  Mincing words over what anarchism means is petty and shows a retreat.  Fact is you don’t know exactly what kind of social structure went on in the “primitive” groups you are trying to insinuate here.
FYI:
The Doukhobors are a Christian group of Russian origin later defined as having a religious philosophy, a ‘way of life’ - known generically as Spiritual Christianity. Starting no later than the 18th century, they rejected secular government, the Russian Orthodox priests, icons, all church ritual, the Bible as the supreme source of divine revelation and the divinity of Jesus.  If this is true, then in what strange way could they be called “Christian?” Just a curiosity.  Their Pacifist beliefs and desire to avoid government interference in their life lead to an exodus of the majority of the group from the Russian Empire to Canada at the close of the 19th century. However, their interaction with the Canadian authorities was anything but peaceful.  Nevertheless there was organizational structure.  The leader of the main group of Doukhobors that arrived to Transcaucasia from the Ukraine in 1841 was one Illarion Kalmykov.  He died in the same year, and was succeeded as the community leader by his son, Peter Kalmykov.  After Peter Kalmykov’s death in 1864, his widow Lukerya Vasilyevna Gubanova took his leadership position.

The Kalmykov dynasty resided in the village of Gorelovka, one of Doukhobor communities in Georgia. (Shown on one of J. Kalmakoff’s maps.[7]. Lukerya was respected by the provincial authorities, who had to cooperate with the Doukhobors on various matters. The number of Doukhbors in the Transcaucasia reached 20,000 by the time of her death in 1886.  The death of “Queen Lukerya” was followed by a leadership crisis. Lukerya’s own plan was for leadership to pass after her death to her assistant, Peter Vasilevich Verigin. However, only part of the community accepted him as the leader; others Lukerya’s brother and the village elder.  While the Large Party was a majority, the Small Party had the support of the older members of the community and the local authorities. This hardly indicates the kind of freedom anarchists espouse.  Hardly animal freedom.  There is still social structure and community rules.  this group had spiritual leaders.  Whether or not the term leader is generated from a religious base or a governmental base is irrelevant to the basic philosophy of anarchism.  Looks like they want their cake and to eat it too.  It is pure hogwash to think these were anarchic societies, when in fact they only separated from other forms of government.  This group of quasi-anarchists has not survived.

The anarchist Peter Kropotkin advocated for a communist society free from central government.  Living 79 years, although he was perhaps the supreme anarchist activist, he was never able to establish an anarchic society.  I disagree with his comparison of the animal kingdom with humans, as written in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, not because I think humans are that much greater than any other animal, but that nature and evolution gave the human a different way of communal survival using their faculty of reason.

The Tribal Justice Advisory Group of the Navajo Nation shows emphatically it is not an anarchistic group, but one that has laws and a government of its own.  The fact that it is resistant to the government of United States does not preclude that it is a highly intratribal governed entity in itself.

A similar case is made for the Hopi in that there is a Hopi Tribal Council and Local Government and each village has had its own social, religious, and political organizations. http://library.nau.edu/speccoll/exhibits/hopitg/Hopile sson3.html
and having a Hopi Constitution and By-Laws
http://www6.nau.edu/library/scadb/recdisplay.cfm?contr ol_num=12326

Okay let’s get a grip here.

Also, radical Shenonymous, the relations of the people to their chief ruler was much different than relations to a king, president, etc.  they argued with him personally and did not treat him with that awe that doth hedgh a king that they couldn’t object. 

The ruler had to argue his positions to them, not merely decree them.  their relation to thir ruler was more like a legislature to a chief, and the people were instrumental in helping to make the power decisions of their grouping.

They did not behave like a bunch of animals as a unit without participating in creating the unity.  I don’t know that this is the best way to characterize mostly non-white people, especially for a radical like yourself.

But Anarcissie’s point that what Marx called primitive communism and what might be characterized as a kind of anarchism, although I don’t know Anarcissie’s view on this, indicates that social forms that existed in pre-history might be ressurrected and adapted to technical societies.

Shenonymous: ‘All primitive tribes have a king, or ruler and they behave as a unit like lemmings or flocks of flamingoes. Name one that doesn’t.’

Navaho and Hopi Indians, at least before they were pressured into adopting state-like institutions by the White Man.  I know about these two from happening to have read books about them; I am pretty sure there are others.  The Indians in general seem to have practiced a lot of what we would call individualism.  For instance, there was sometimes trouble on the frontier because although the chief of a tribe had signed a treaty, the other members of the tribe had not; these claimed they were not bound by the treaty.  The “chiefs” turned out to be not dictators or kings but people of influence and repute, something quite different.

Another group that seemed to get along without rulers or a state structure were the Dukhobors in the earlier stages of their tragic history.

But anyway, if you’re going to support a positive assertion about the total experience and possibilities of human societies or cultures, I think you have to enumerate them all and show that the assertion is true for each one.  Otherwise, the rest of us can continue in our agnosticism or our true-believing anarchism.  “Name one” leaves your proof up to my ignorance, and that’s too easy.

Yeah, Folktruther, radical is the best description of Shenonymous.  A sign in my office reads, Subvert the Dominant Paradigm.  And I do at every opportunity.

All primitive tribes have a king, or ruler and they behave as a unit like lemmings or flocks of flamingoes. Name one that doesn’t.  None of the history of primitive tribes indicate anarchic structure.  By noting a possible free “social organization” as remarked by these enslavers does not give an anarchic composition to the tribes.  Yes, because there have been no anarchic social groups in history does not mean there won’t be one in the future, but the likelihood is against it because the internal dynamics would prevent it from flowering.  Anarchy remains an unproven political hypothesis.

Yes, white man is responsible for all these “found” primitives’ troubles.  That is what education and technology from education allowed to happen.  It gave one group (white man) the power over a weaker group (other than white man).  But in Africa there were tribes who enslaved other tribes, and in Latin and South America also.  Read the history of Aztecs and Incas.  More currently, I would call China’s treatment of its hundreds of millions of people enslavement especially those indentured to work in the factories.  So while I am a proponent of education in order to eradicate ignorance, I am also one who thinks the educators must be monitored for truth.  Which is not an easy thing to do since truth can be relative.  And who would do the watching?  Certainly not Plato’s guardians.  They were preconditioned to teach only certain things deemed beneficial to the Republic.  So all sides of an idea, as Socrates noted, as in facets of a diamond, need to be learned so that informed decisions may be made.

Are you just an arrogant hypocrite in that you don’t have such a high opinion of your thinking that you wouldn’t want your child to adopt your beliefs?  You may admit to it but it would be just a facile response.  You offer her crazymaking notions when you tell her the Educated lie to her yet sending her to the school of liars.  Teaching her critical thinking would be kinder and gentler and more constructive, then she could determine if they were lying or not would healthier mentally than just believing she is lied to.  Maybe they aren’t lying.  How would she be able to tell, if she believed her father?  You could explain to her about Subversion!  To not be afraid to ask questions in the home as well as at school.

Anarcissie made a good point Dr S.  “Primitive” tribes have a classless social organization not based on hiearchy.  many observers, especially before the White man began enslaving and exterminating them, have remarked on the excellant attributes of their social organization.

The disagreement is how to get to that social organization historically in a technical society.
***
Your suggestion that I homeschool my daughter is an extremely dangerous one.  She might end up thinking like me!  Even now her teachers tell me (she is a teenager and consequently does not communicate to us much)that she remains seated when they Pledge Allegiance to the Flag. Shocking.  Imagine what she would be like if she stopped looking at me in that dubious way and actually identified with the subversive truth. 

No, homeschooling is out. I just explain how the Educated lie to her when she asks.

I didn’t realize you were so radical, Dr S.

Shenonymous: ‘Spoken like a true indivdualist anarchist, Folktruther.  If people take power into their own hands, brains and souls, they can determine their own freedom. Name one civilization that lived and survived anarchically. ...’

I think Folktruther is a democrat rather than an anarchist, so I’ll jump in and field this question.

Technically, civilization means “city-building”, and cities seem to have appeared as a development of military organization and slavery, so almost by definition there can be no anarchic civilization.

However, civilization is often used to mean having any kind of developed culture or humane customs.  In that case many tribal peoples have been “civilized” without living in a state, that is, under the control of permanent institutions of social coercion.

In any case, that a particular form of social organization hasn’t occurred before is not a valid argument against its viability; liberalism, capitalism, democracy and industrialism never occurred before they appeared, quite recently in historical terms.

I am posting this everywhere so you might see it on several forums and I will be updating as I receive new information.

Time for something else…

So McCain is going for character assassination of Obama!  Well then, the gloves are off.  This is the season of the witch!  The witch is going ahunting!  Let’s see, how about starting with dickhead McCain’s first wife!  And how he left her after she had a disfiguring car accident for another cutsie chick, Cindy.  That’s loyalty for ya.  It’s one thing to fall out of love and divorce, but for guys who want to be politicians, messing around is deadly.

Two years younger than Ralph Nader, on his own health, check out this website:
http://therealmccain.com/doctors/

Joe Klein-Time magazine Sept. 17, 2008 tells us McCain’s claims skirt facts and his lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent’s character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth.  So we will publish these lies every day in every place possible. Even the New York Times editorial board is calling John McCain a liar.

Paraphrasing Klein’s words, John McCain raises serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He defaces his beloved military code of honor. He is running a dirty campaign.

Jon Stewart called him a shameless panderer. What could that mean?  He embraces all the things he used to condemn.  Bush being one of them, then he turns around and is now bashing Bush.  What the f**K???
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/07/daily-show-jo hn-mccain-reformed-maverick/

By way of providing background, the article reprised the story of the Keating Five scandal that cost three Senators their jobs and nearly ended John McCain’s career. According to the Times, during McCain’s years in the House of Representatives, he became friendly with Charles Keating, Chairman of Lincoln Savings & Loan.

Vote Obama/Biden if you want change in the White House.

Spoken like a true indivdualist anarchist, Folktruther.  If people take power into their own hands, brains and souls, they can determine their own freedom. Name one civilization that lived and survived anarchically.  Such abject and absolute self-determination doesn’t work well in communities.  It is an idealistic pipe dream, which is a fantastic hope or plan that is generally regarded as being nearly impossible to achieve.  It is implied that the smoker of a pipe is smoking a substance that alters their perceptions to make something fantastical seem achievable.  Anarchism is in contradiction to the idea of fascism which imposes complete authority.  But unlike fascism, anarchy has not had any successful experiments.

Lawlessness is descriptive of the anarchic state.  You can have that only in a dream.  As soon as you choose to live in a community, anarchy fails.  Even if you had a community of anarchists, they would soon find they have different defining positions and conflict would arise.  (See The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 31).  The notion of letting alone is closely associated, is possible, and its structure is what is guaranteed by privacy laws.  But the idea of laws implies a cooperation and agreement of a group.  So absolute anarchy is not possible in the end although the letting alone is possible to a degree.  Again there has been no society where completely letting alone ruled.  The ideals of anarchism however can largely influence how a society may be structured to guarantee the maximum letting alone.  Even though individualist anarchism has been espoused by numerous luminaries in history, it is all theoretical and no community has ever existed under these ideals.  Can you explain this?

You have the responsibility to stop your daughter from winding up like me, educated!  Your excuse for letting your daughter continue to get an “education” is humorous.  You could home school your daughter.  I have personal friends and family who have home ‘educated’ their children.  In one case, the children were so well home educated that they had no trouble and qualified for college.  In another case, the children were not, mainly because the arrogant parents were not schooled enough themselves to teach their children properly.  There is probably a similar ratio for children who go to either private or public school.  But the point is these children have the right to be educated at least in this country.  So to educate or not isn’t really a choice you have.  However, with the disdain for education that you and Anarcissie have I would strongly advise that you convince your children to not go to college!  The world needs more ignoramuses.  By the way, how do you know Whitehead did not exaggerate very much about Plato’s status as the reference for all of Western tradition?  To what degree did he exaggerate, or not? 

Here are a few citations for your reference:
*Errico Malatesta, “Towards Anarchism”, MAN!. Los Angeles: International Group of San Francisco. OCLC 3930443.
*Agrell, Siri (2007-05-14). “Working for The Man”. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved on 2008-04-14.
*"Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006
*"Anarchism". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14, “Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable.”

This last citation says it is possible, but I say there has never been one.  It might be desirable but since it has never been tested, it is unknown if really it is desirable.

Folktruther:
‘… If people take power into their own hands, brains and souls, they can determine their own freedom. ...’

Hence my desire to encourage autonomy.  Of course, the big problem then is how to get from the individual will to the group or general will.

I am not overly fascinated with the inner-outer business myself.  I think politics is about the material world.

Tut, tut, Dr S, no meed to get testy.  I don’t recall name calling but if I did, I apologize.  And I can’t withdraw my daughter from school, she has to get miseducated enough to go to college.  I just warn her against believing anything they tell her.  Otherwise she might wind up like you.  Educated.

All the Western tradition is a footnote to Plato, Anarcissie, as I know you know Whitehead said, and its not mmuch of an exaggeration.  Plato was against freedom in the modern sense, as Popper finally legitmated, influencing Soros.  He was for political deception, and these Noble Lies have been translated into bourgeois lies in capitalist power systems.

Surely, however, there is a distinction between an inner sense of freedom and outer freedom, though the former may lead to the latter.  I think it more useful to think about power rather than freedom, since violence, money and truth can be quantified and truth assertions about them made more precise.

In which case power to the people could be stated more precisely and devoid of the usual deception.  It is this powerism that I am for, not various forms of socialism which it may lead to. If people take power into their own hands, brains and souls, they can determine their own freedom.

Shenonymous: ‘Anarcissie:  Seeing the words, they had to at least know how to read or someone among them or someone told them who knew how to read to know that the words were symbols that represented meaning. ...’

So if they taught themselves to read, or their parents or older siblings or companions taught them, or if they just picked it up, or they got as far as third grade, they were educated?  I didn’t know we were using the word so broadly.  I attempted to differentiate education from learning and knowledge before; now it seems they are being confused anyway.  Sure, if education means any old learning at all, we can hardly say the authorities control or direct or even influence it.

Anarcissie:  Seeing the words, they had to at least know how to read or someone among them or someone told them who knew how to read to know that the words were symbols that represented meaning.  If not then the words were only marks and had no meaning.  Reading comes after knowing words and their meaning.  Reading is an education about representation through symbols, marks with meaning.  Why keep fighting this?  Of course I agree that words have meaning. It is what language is, the words of language embody meaning.  I haven’t argued that!  But even ideas put into words need to be explained to some people.  Why do we even have to say this?  You and your colleague remind me of the Black Knight in the Holy Grail.  You surely aren’t as stupid as you make out to be.  It is time to exit this revolving door.

Shenonymous: ‘… The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.  But to know what the ideas mean that are contained in each of these documents takes education.’

I don’t know about that.  They’re pretty plain-spoken.  And the liberalism which these documents embody descends not from Plato but from the anti-authoritarian, anti-educationist Protestant idea that every man could interpret the Scriptures for himself.

I recall a grainy, 1950s news photograph of a battered bus full of Africans involved in some racial confrontation or other in South Africa; on the side of the bus they have a banner inscribed “ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL”.  I doubt that any of them had much education.  I think they knew what the words meant anyway.

Gordon Lightfoot once sang, It’s a race among the ruins if you plan to face tomorrow.

The notion of ‘being,’ taken up by Plato and of course the Continentals, Heidegger, Sartre, et al, is interesting from the point of view that it had come time, again, for the human to learn it did not need supernatural beings to justify his existence.  That to truly value life one has to look within, as in Socrates’ Know Thyself, to find ultimate meaning.  It is common for those who have a hard time seeing below surfaces to have a low opinion of Plato.  There are many levels on which to read his works.  Conditions in ancient Greece in politics was different than they are today.  Athens was ruled by a military oligarchy (The Thirty Tyrants, the leader of which was Plato’s uncle, see the writings of Charles H. Kahn) who were overthrown and democracy restored.  Of the modes of “free” living, Plato valued only thinking.  But of course he was upper class and had the independent wherewithal to spend time thinking rather than at labor.  Socrates too did not work much having inherited money from his father’s estate.  His wife, who undoubtedly brought a dowry to their marriage, and three sons, Lamprocles, Sophroniscus and Menexenus, (see From Solon to Socrates By Victor Ehrenberg and “Socrates, that’s the question,” by Philip Coppens), his family, had to live poorly while he sauntered around the countryside having discussions about the nature of freedom, virtue, justice.  Ever wonder what ever happened to Socrates’ sons or Xanthippe?  A couple of ancient writers say he was paid to teach and run a sophist school (even though he strongly criticized the Sophists, so that is highly unlikely, and Plato explicitly denies it in his Symposium).  More likely he took handouts from friends and relatives.  In my view, hardly an ethical or manly way to live.  So for me Socrates is a contradiction in character.  Plato encountered Socrates after he himself had already been highly educated.  And Socrates himself was schooled and from what little is known about him, enjoyed wrestling, and was a warrior in addition to his speeches on the virtues. 

In his allegory of the cave, Plato gives an account of what it means to be free.  It is a worthwhile brief tale to always keep in mind.  What it means in relationship to education and government (politics) is food for discussion.  What is the truth of one’s being seems to be a question only oneself could find an answer.  If it involves remaining ignorant of the world or becoming educated about it are different paths to be sure.  An ancient saying, “There are many roads to Rome.”

Instrinsic freedom is something only the self can give up and yes, I agree that it is awareness of this kind of freedom that moves the human spirit to resist slavery of any kind.

Contrary to what Folktruther criticizes about me, it is not pieces of paper that I hold absolutely valuable, and he and I have argued about this before, only he has selective amnesia, it is the ideas as represented by the words on those pieces of paper, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.  But to know what the ideas mean that are contained in each of these documents takes education.

Folktruther:
‘My goodness, Dr Shenonymous, I’m stunned by your political beliefs.  You actually believe that what is written down on a piece of paper more than two centuries ago gives us functional political equality now? ...’

It’s been a long time since I read the material, but I believe there is an idea in Plato that if one is free in the law, or in the spirit, one is truly free, and the oppressions and obstructions of daily practical life are not of importance, they are not the truth of one’s being.  (I have read that a similar idea appears in Hegel’s work, but I find Hegel unreadable, so I can’t testify.) In that view, an oppressed people, like say the descendants of the American Negro slaves, were still intrinsically free, and it is this intrinsic freedom which enabled them to manifest practical freedom through the Civil Rights movement.  In other words, the inner is always becoming the outer.

I used to have a low opinion of Plato, except as a stylist, of course, but my dilettantish studies of mathematics, especially Gödel, have caused me to reconsider.  I’m sure Plato, or rather his ideal form, is breathing a sigh of relief up in the Empyrean.

In any case, as to practical freedom, I don’t experience life that way, but I recognize that it is a widely held and very respectable system of beliefs.

Shenonymous: ‘Without repeating your entire post at 10:17, Anarcissie, I have this reply:  At least in your very last sentence you admit the use of the words are yours and yours alone usage.’

I’m not sure how to parse that, but if you mean to say my particular usage of words is mine and mine alone, no, I don’t “admit” that.  The meaning of words is conventional, however, so that different people may use the same word with different meanings—in fact, the same person often uses the same word with different meanings.  In the case of power if I were talking physics, I would mean something different than if I were talking politics.  However, I did say, and do believe, that my usage of power in a political sense closely approximates the general usage.  In any case, that’s how I’m defining the term for use in my own theories, so that if I say, “Not everyone has the same power,” someone can correctly conclude, “Oh, he means that not everyone has the same capacity to work his or her will.”

‘Your definitions do not seem odd, they are unsubstantiated.’

One doesn’t substantiate definitions unless one is writing a dictionary.

‘Thus they become merely your opinion and your own usage is idiosyncratic, there is no reason to think your opinion has any merit.  They appear to be anarchistic and whiny, but that is my opinion. For example, my [Anarcissie’s] lifelong interest in such questions as “Why can’t I do what I want?”’

Well, a good deal of philosophy is whiny.  “Who are we?  Where do we come from?  What are we doing here?” The brave man, the noble savage, doesn’t ask such questions; he goes out and kicks ass.  But I don’t care; I’m interested in some of the whiny questions anyway, and so are a lot of other people.  If you don’t like the whiny questions, stay out of the room when they’re discussed.

I don’t understand the previous assertion that, because my definitions are idiosyncratic, my opinions must have no merit.  I don’t agree with the idiosyncratic business in the first place, as I said—I think my definition is a subset of common usage—but in any case, how would the idiosyncrasy of a set of definitions automatically detract from the merit of the opinions they were used to construct?  Newton idiosyncratically defined the previously unheard-of gravity as the attractive force between masses, in order to make up a theory explaining the motions of the planets; did this make his opinions invalid?  How else was he to proceed?

‘It appears from the next part of your post, “Since humans are both highly willful and highly social animals, much (not all) of human life is struggle to achieve and exercise power, or at least is affected by the struggle for power,” you have come to a conclusion without providing once again any extant example (my usual complaint).’

I think the evidence for that comes from daily life, common sense, and introspection, as well as public discourse (e.g. media, academia, literature).  I am indebted to the radical feminists of the 1960s for their insights into how power affects personal and familial relationships: “the personal is political”, as they used to say.  Although they were not the first to come up with the idea, they did clear away a lot of cultural obfuscation which surrounded that part of life.

If I have a method in political philosophy, it is to examine ordinary daily life first, and to keep the logic fairly simple.  Of course, people may have widely differing life experiences, as I think I said previously, so they are not always going to see the world in the same way.  For instance, a person whose thoughts and desires were completely aligned with those of the authorities would not experience a sense of oppression or resentment, even in a highly authoritarian social order.

Long enough....

Is it because you don’t believe Anarcissie can defend his/her own positions that you feel the need to name call Folksytruther?  You can swim in your swill of ignorance if you want to, it is your right.  You speak like the Muslims in their pathology of submission when it comes to political equality.  You think you are so clever with your twisting what is said.  If anyone is interested besides you and Anarcissie and myself, it is all laid out for them to read.  You obviously lead a sheltered reclusive life.  You are quite correct, you should not be arguing with me at all.  You aren’t really anyway, you are shadow boxing.  Why don’t you pull your daughter out of the ‘elite’ school?  You show yourself to be stupid.

My goodness, Dr Shenonymous, I’m stunned by your political beliefs.  You actually believe that what is written down on a piece of paper more than two centuries ago gives us functional political equality now?  That power has nothing to do with political equality?  That Murdock has nothing to do with political equality?  That political equality is the ability to obey the law?  And either believe in American political equality or go back where you came from?

I don’t believe I have ever encountered anyone who is so completely indoctrinated by the American mainstream narrative.  And you back up your assertions by appealing to dictionaries, and mainstream sources. And when Anarcissie tries to make sense of your impricision, he simply doesn’t have an agile enough mind.  And my views on Education and Information stem from my being abused educationally as a child?

We actually shouldn’t be arguing with you at all, Dr Shenon, we should be exhibiting you around the world to illustrate what Education does to people.  In teaching the young all the absurdities that you believe, you have come to identify with them yourself.  One learns best by teaching. And what you have lerned, and defend, is absolutely astonishing.

You are an Education touchstone, Dr S.  An example of what will happen if you go to school long enough. I shall show your beliefs to my daughter.  I thought what they are teaching my daughter in the Elite high school she goes to was delusive, but I never actually emotionally believed that the teachers really believed in it. 

Foolish me.  You have freed me of one more power delusion, Dr S, and I thank you for it.  I have been accused occasionally of a tendency to exaggeration, but it is obvious to me now that I haven’t been going far enough.

Without repeating your entire post at 10:17, Anarcissie, I have this reply:  At least in your very last sentence you admit the use of the words are yours and yours alone usage.

Your definitions do not seem odd, they are unsubstantiated.  Thus they become merely your opinion and your own usage is idiosyncratic, there is no reason to think your opinion has any merit.  They appear to be anarchistic and whiny, but that is my opinion. For example, my [Anarcissie’s] lifelong interest in such questions as “Why can’t I do what I want?”

This part of your 10:17pm post, To the extent that I have power over myself, I can do as I will; is, as defined in the Free Dictionary, as autonomy.  This part of your post, to the extent that I have power over others, I can make them do as I will; is fascism as defined as oppressive, dictatorial control.  It appears from the next part of your post, Since humans are both highly willful and highly social animals, much (not all) of human life is struggle to achieve and exercise power, or at least is affected by the struggle for power, you have come to a conclusion without providing once again any extant example (my usual complaint).  It is simply a statement with some expectation that it is authoritative when it is merely a statement.  Do you have any reference for this conclusion? 

I will demonstrate and make one of your points.  Here is a referenced argument for power with respect to politics:  Since politics is a social relationship involving authority, the idea of power is involved in regulation and management of a state or other ‘political’ unit, for the purpose of preserving its safety, peace, and prosperity, its defense of hits existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, increasing its strength and resources, and th protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of heir morals. (source: partly Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913, partly my modifications).  There are various forms of power: incentive power, referent power, legitimate power, expert power.  In his essay, “Politics as a Vocation,” Max Weber defined power as the ability to impose one’s will “even in the face of opposition from others,” since every state is founded on force, hence, power struggle. He goes on to say, Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory...the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the ‘right’ to use violence. Hence, ‘politics’ for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state. This is a limited use of power by agreement of the citizens of the state.  On the other hand, Hannah Arendt, in “On Violence,” defines “political power as power that corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.” This means by agreement among a group.

When you state the politics of the family determines what will be served for breakfast tomorrow morning, it is not the case that is the usual use of that word, you have merely stretched it to be so.

Although I would accept paraphrasing to more succinctly make a point, this is the kind of answer I look for when I say back up your statements.  There are tens upon hundreds of references on politics and power and political power.  When offering an opinion it is prudent to give some reference or simply say this is my opinion and only my opinion, take it for what it is worth, the implication being that there is no other authority for it.

Shenonymous: ‘Anarcissie:  I answered your bifurcated question in two parts, if you were nimble of mind enough you would have seen that. ...’

Well, I was somewhat stunned by getting a yes to an this-or-that question.  And you’ve warned me not to assume anything.  So you can’t expect me to be very nimble in the context.

About power and politics: I define power (in the case of politics, psychology, and other such fields) as the ability to work one’s will.  To the extent that I have power over myself, I can do as I will; to the extent that I have power over others, I can make them do as I will; and vice versa, of course.  Since humans are both highly willful and highly social animals, much (not all) of human life is struggle to achieve and exercise power, or at least is affected by the struggle for power.  Politics is the theory and practice of that struggle—of determining whose will (in a community of wills) shall prevail.  Thus, for example, the politics of the nation-state determines who will be the next president, the politics of the family determines what will be served for breakfast tomorrow morning.  I realize these definitions may seem odd, but to me they fit the way people usually use these words, and I find them useful in concocting my theories because they are fairly clear and succinct.  They also reflect my lifelong interest in such questions as “Why can’t I do what I want?” I realize others may define these words in different ways—I’m just giving an explanation of my own usage.

Anarcissie:  I answered your bifurcated question in two parts, if you were nimble of mind enough you would have seen that.  The yes answers before the comma with an explication, and the next paragraph answers your question after the comma asking you what kind of power you are talking about.  We see, me and my cat, that you have not answered.  It wasn’t a contradiction but actually a two-part question where the first part had no real connection with the second part.  I’m surprised you don’t see that.  It wasn’t an either or situation. 

If I were you, I would contact the Mother Ship to hurry around as fast as possible with a semiotician.

Hey I like cats!  Mine is a communist, I think, he says Mao!  I’ve tried to break him of it since I am an anti-communist, but I’ve had to learn to co-exist.  Yeah, I know it must sound like a contradiction an ultra-liberal anti-communist.  Sounds like V.  Oh well, I’ve never met an extraterrestrial even online!
H o w d o y o u d o?

Shenonymous: ‘Please don’t conclude for me, Anarcissie.  I can speak for myself.  It is the same bad habit I’ve found amongst children that they insist on speaking for others.  Your assumption, and consistent assumptions, is wrong. ...

I had to make an assumption, because I presented you with two sides of a contradiction, and instead of selecting one or the other—or objecting to my construction of the question—you mysteriously answered “Yes.” That’s like “Do you want to go in or out?” “No.” I get that from my cats, except they say “Meow” and sit in the doorway. 

I decided to apply the yes to the first proposition—“we are all politically equal”—because that’s what you’ve been arguing, as far as I can tell.  But now you’ve rejected your own “Yes”!  You say my assumption is incorrect (and gratuituously add that it’s childish, for some reason): therefore, you don’t believe we are all politically equal.  Or do you think the question is undecidable or meaningless?  If so, why don’t you say so?

Not only is your experience different from mine, it appears that your logic is, too.  Or at least your syntax.

Of course, as an extraterrestrial, I’m used to this sort of thing happening.  When the Mother Ship returns I’m sure they’ll explain it all.

Please don’t conclude for me, Anarcissie.  I can speak for myself.  It is the same bad habit I’ve found amongst children that they insist on speaking for others.  Your assumption, and consistent assumptions, is wrong.  We live in a democratic republic with a representative government.  The will of the people, the majority of the people usually by actual vote, is through our representatives good or bad as they turn out to be, or by fiat of the Supreme Court, a branch of government sanctioned by the Constitution which was ratified by all the states in the United Stated, that elected Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney as the leaders of this country is what drives the acts of the nation.  I have no idea what Rupert Murdoch has to do with this conversation as you have inserted that name for some unknown mysterious and frivolous reason, as you are wont to do, a silly adolescent habit.  If I do not like what my representatives do, senators or house of representatives, I have the right to challenge them as a politician, or find others who will do that and convince enough people to replace them and hope these new characters live up to my expectations.  Since I am civilized and choose to live in the United States, I am bound to live under its laws as I have described above. 

Real everyday functional political equality has to do with abiding by the law.  Whether all people of the society do that is irrelevant to what is legal under the law.  Nor do I believe that my sole will can decide anything this country does as a nation.  I can exercise my right to vote, I can express my counter opinions to the government in various ways. But unless I can convince the majority of the people to my opinion, I have to be satisfied with what happens and keep trying to make my case accepted.  That is what this country is all about.  It is not about fascism or taking over the government when it doesn’t suit me by force other than by the force of the written law. 

Since the Bill of Rights First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees me several rights, one of which is free speech, I have to right to voice my opinions with out fear of reprisal or injury in this country, in many and various ways, even though there are thugs who would deprive me of that right.  They cannot deprive me, even though they do in fact injure or kill me.  There are laws in place that would prosecute those who would kill or injure me.  Whether or not these laws are strongly enforced or enforced at all still does not deprive me of my rights.  Should it come to that I would hope there are enough others that would insure me of those rights, or see to it that criminals who did in fact injure or kill me are brought to justice.  That is exactly what civil rights have been about.

It is rather a stupid question to ask if I believe my will is just as much a component of a decision of this country to attack another country.  This is in fact exactly theoretical and you belie your ignorance of your own position.  If I vehemently am against such an act, I have the right to express it as I have noted above.  To what degree have you been deprived of your right to express your dissatisfaction with your government?  And what have you actually done to express that?  You and a few others are just a lot of hot air.  You might get yourselves a large balloon and fly away to where you have “real’ rights.  Oh yeah, where exactly might that be? 

Yes it does seem true that you and I cannot communicate.

Shenonymous: ‘… Do I believe we live in a society where people are politically equal, or one in which some people have much more power than others?

My answer:  Yes, emphatically.  We are guaranteed equality by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. ...’

I’ll take the “yes” to apply to the first part of the question: you believe we live in a society where people are politically equal.

In that case our life experiences are so radically different that I doubt if we will be able to communicate much about the issues raised here.

You realize, I assume, that I am not speaking about legal or theoretical equality, but real, everyday, functional political equality.  You believe that your will is just as much a component of, say, the decision of whether the United States should attack another country as Dick Cheney’s or Rupert Murdoch’s.  This does not comport with my experience, but I have to concede it may with yours.

Part 1
Anarcissie: It seems to me my last (implied) question was precise enough.  To rephrase it, do you believe we live in a society where people are politically equal, or one in which some people have much more power than others?

I confess I am unable to decode your last phrase above.  Do you mean “produce convincing accusations”?  But I have not been dealing in accusations—I believe all the ad hominem arguments in our recent discussion have been on your part.  I’m just giving a view of the world, and trying to find a common ground of shared experience and belief with you so we can discuss our differences of opinion rationally.

My reply:  Of course you would think so, Anarcissie, and therein lies our differences.  Although you avoid specifics and couch all your personal opinions among fallacious generalizations, as if you believed there is magic of truth to hide among numbers, I will give you absolute personal regard and answer your rephrased question, Do I believe we live in a society where people are politically equal, or one in which some people have much more power than others?

My answer:  Yes, emphatically.  We are guaranteed equality by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Whether or not there are bullies in America does not negate the rights of equality.  It takes a long time for ideas to permeate such a large society, not educated enough, and for them to collectively understand how to assert the power they have to control their lives.

Power and political equality are of different species.  Power does not imply politics.  Unequal politics does not imply power. Each requires their own definition to see if there is any confluence.  To define power, we have to distinguish what kind of power is in question.  Since it is your thesis, you need to answer that question before we can move forward. 

To kill all the birds with one stone, for efficiency’s sake, I ask you what do you mean by political equality?  Here are some of my answers.
There are a myriad of references on political equality to be found at google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=What+is+polit ical+equality?&btnG=Google+Search
Briefly one from a Marxist website says of Political Equality: This specific notion of equality is to give equal rights to everyone so long as the rights of private property are not threatened, such as embodied in forms of workers’ participation, community consultation, and so on. This form of equality amounts to the institutionalization of inequality; its aim is to co-opt the workers.

From a more capitalist thinker, is a 21-page essay THOUGHTS ABOUT POLITICAL EQUALITY, WHAT IS IT?  WHY DO WE WANT IT?  by Sidney Verba, Harvard University, 1969.  Political Equality And Participation at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Summer/Summer01/ papers/Verba
Of the various ways in which citizens in the United States can be unequal,
political inequality is- one of the most significant and troubling.  By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions.

Part 2 – reply to Anarcissie and folktruther
As discussed in the American Declaration of Independence, the principle of political equality states as a self-evident truth, that all men (and here I am assuming women as a co-set of men because I am a woman, sil vous plait), are created equal.  This does obviously contradict biological fact.  We must assume the authors of the Declaration meant either or both legal equality and polticial equality.  If you disagree with this conclusion, I suggest you re-conclude or move to another country.  But for the sake of argument, let us suppose I am correct and that the Principle of Political Equality ( and for convenience sake, may be call it PPE) maintains that even though no two people are biologically equal all have equal authority to vote on every law and policy of their society.  Only those who have this equality live by their own decisions - and are free. Furthermore, when all people of a society have equal authority to make laws, they may legislate other equalities.  They can decide all laws of society, including other equalities.

You think you are giving your own view of the world, when what you are doing is arguing fallaciously by including the world as sharing your view.  I should like to find common ground for rational discussion.  Just say exactly who you include in your criticisms, especially among the educated.  Then we can discuss differences of opinions and why we have those opinions.

No folktruther I do not agree that Education… has been, throughout history, a systematic exercise in child abuse. That is a ridiculous assertion.  Perhaps you were abused as a student?  In my experience, children do not like to be made to learn anything, and in their resistance might say they were being abused.  Being a teacher of every grade from pre-K to high school seniors besides being a college professor for a decade, in any subject you can think of, in a most conservative neck of the woods, I have uniquely observed in public school there is discipline but not abuse!  The need for discipline is to learn self-control.  Which in effect teaches not to be controlled by others!  But until one learns self-control, one is a little beastie. You know that and do not really need to be told.  The need for discipline in schools it seems is because parents themselves do not either know how to do it because they do not understand discipline themselves, or simply said, don’t care, the latter I have witnessed more times than I care to even remember.

Education, Shenonymous, has been, throughout history, a systematic exercise in child abuse.  This intellectual, emotional and physical abuse is applied to get the young to get them to do what they are told.

This indoctrination into obedience of authorized power is instilled largely by preventing them from thinking ideologically illegitimate thoughts.  They are Free to dscuss Educated truths within narrow limits, as long as in the end on the Ecamination, they come up with the Correct Answers.

You take pride in being highly Educated, Shenonymous. Fine.  You see imprecision and jargon in Anarciessie’s comments that uneducated persons like myself cannot see.  Anarcissie and I disagree politically, but, as I’ve said before, I think he is honest and intellegent, not as common attributes among the Educated as one would like.  I respect him, and would not respect him more if he threw around fifty pound bags of unfamilar languages in his spare time.

Education and Information are considered an unalloyed Good by the Educated.  But this assumes that the information is true and the conceptual language that conveys it is useful.  Is this the case in the US at the present time, Dr Shenon.  Has it ever been the case?

When Galileo built his telescope and turned it to the moon to see craters, many of the learned of the time wouldn’t look through it.  They knew that there could be no craters on the moon because these were imperfections, and Aristotle, The Philosopher, as they called him, had already learnedly pronounced that the Heavaenly bodies were Perfect.

The debater of Huxley, when they were arguing the opposite sides of evolution, was a highly Educated man, the possessor of many arcane languages.  He refused to believe that his ancestor was a monkey, in the popular locution of the time.  Kind of like Sarah Palin now, isn’t it, but Educated at the time.

What do you think, Dr Shenon.  Are the Educated in America today more like the priests and professors who opposed revolutionary truth, or more like the truth revolutionaries?

Shenonymous:
‘Anarcissie, my repeated criticism is your lack of precision.  You can try to dance around all you want, but the fact of the matter is you generalize and include what you really don’t back up.  So we should leave it there as I said yesterday, it isn’t worth pursuing any further and just let it lie that nonspecifics do not actually convince accusations.’

I confess I am unable to decode your last phrase above.  Do you mean “produce convincing accusations”?  But I have not been dealing in accusations—I believe all the ad hominem arguments in our recent discussion have been on your part.  I’m just giving a view of the world, and trying to find a common ground of shared experience and belief with you so we can discuss our differences of opinion rationally.

Anarcissie, my repeated criticism is your lack of precision.  You can try to dance around all you want, but the fact of the matter is you generalize and include what you really don’t back up.  So we should leave it there as I said yesterday, it isn’t worth pursuing any further and just let it lie that nonspecifics do not actually convince accusations.

Shenonymous: ‘Anarcissie—If you wouldn’t mind backing up what you are calling important relationships between (only linguistically correct it would be ‘among’) civilian government, military, corporate America, MSM, and academic institutions with names please and what the exact relationships are as it would transform your spurious claim into something credible.  I suspected you were “educated” and that you only pretend to be a hypocrite.’

I’m certainly a hypocrite, but I don’t know if I’m worthy to be called a metahypocrite.  Hypocrisy is the compliment which vice pays to virtue, and I would certainly prefer to pay virtue compliments rather than practice it.  But am I hypocritical about my hypocrisy?  If only!  I am afraid I must decline your proffered compliment to my vices.

Now, as to between and among, I think that is not a matter of grammar but connotation.  In considering a multiplicity of relations between a multiplicity of beings, we might see the relations as separate independent strands between partners (between) or as a mass arising within the community as a whole (among).  And I think that is about all the fun I can get out of that subject.

On to “jargon”.  The sentence you picked as an example of jargon—I’ll accept your definition for the moment—seems completely jargon-free to me.  The words are common words, and not a single word among them is used in other than its plain sense; and your problem with my statement, as far as I can see, is that you disagree with its meaning rather than my vocabulary choices.  Possibly you don’t believe that some people have more power than others, in which case my remarks will seem surreal, whereas to me the notion that our social order is one of equality is the surreal view.  This is something I would have to clear up before I moved my rhetoric forward like some magisterial (but hypocritical) Sherman tank to demolish all your objections.

There are many more points to pick on, but this is already too long for the medium.

Part 1
Anarcissie—If you wouldn’t mind backing up what you are calling important relationships between (only linguistically correct it would be ‘among’) civilian government, military, corporate America, MSM, and academic institutions with names please and what the exact relationships are as it would transform your spurious claim into something credible.  I suspected you were “educated” and that you only pretend to be a hypocrite.  And I enjoy yanking chains also.  My full id name is Shenonymous Hyperbole Meticulous.  A lot of e-people just call me She.  Anybody who can throw 50-lb. bags of Sanskrit around on days off ought to get some sort of prize.  I can only offer an electronic cup of coffee.  And while I am charming I am not naive.  My advanced degree is in critical thinking.  Research is my thing and am a stickler for backing up general accusations.  Resorting to generalities is the biggest fallacy trap, and if you are terminal degreed, you would know that.

The definition of jargon I am working with, I realize there are many and some may not have a large enough vocabulary to be able to make the contextual distinction, is: Speech or writing having unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, and vague meaning, my specific focus is on the word “vague.”

In particular, starting with your comment, What I mean, of course, is that what goes on in the schools is governed by those who have power (including the power of wealth). My comment:  Completely vague and nonsensical.  Who exactly are the “those who have power”?  Also I’ve already mentioned it, but it is worth repeating, your words, phrases like “ruling class” or “bourgeoisie” is outdated and not in common usage and hence rides the jackass of jargon.  It is a pity to have to repeat your entire post of Oct. 1, at 9:40am as it is almost in its entirety full of jargon.  But seems necessary.  I will bold some words that betray it as full of nonsense.