Extrajudicial murder - good?

Crow: What is the point in believing in non-established governments, but oppose established states?
You can propose a non-established government that operates just like an established state. At that point, it becomes pointless since the only thing you oppose would be establishment.

Bi0Hazard: What is the point in believing in non-established governments, but oppose established states?

You are conflating governments and states again.

A state has a government, but a government doesn't need to have a state.

Establishment implies permanency and a lack of dynamics, It turns free interactions into systematic processes. It takes away choice, and forces people to work within the confines of a machine like system.

At that point, it becomes pointless since the only thing you oppose would be establishment.

Haven't I been saying the whole time that I am against established authority? It isn't rocket science.

Crow: You are conflating governments and states again.

A state has a government, but a government doesn't need to have a state.
No I wasn't.
This is what I said: What is the point in believing in non-established governments, but oppose established states?
Also, anarchists are against all forms of government.
Establishment implies permanency and a lack of dynamics, It turns free interactions into systematic processes. It takes away choice, and forces people to work within the confines of a machine like system.
So, your problem is with people working in the same system?
Haven't I been saying the whole time that I am against established authority? It isn't rocket science.
Yes, but I would think you would oppose any government as well.

Bi0Hazard: Also, anarchists are against all forms of government

There are different kinds of anarchists. I know the anarchist community far better than you, as I have been apart of it.

The universal thing that all anarchists believe is the abolition of states.

Classical anarchists, the original philosophers, all promoted forms of governments. You could classify it under classical anarchy.

So, your problem is with people working in the same system?

Same system. Powerful system. Involuntary system. Established system.

A system that establishes itself, can also produce laws that are rooted in establishment. Very destructive.

Crow: There are different kinds of anarchists. I know the anarchist community far better than you, as I have been apart of it.
Sure, different schools of thought, but anarchists are against hierarchy, which is in government.
The universal thing that all anarchists believe is the abolition of states.
True, but all for the same reason.
A system that establishes itself, can also produce laws that are rooted in establishment. Very destructive.
Laws can be used for order, not just destruction.

Bi0Hazard:
Sure, different schools of thought, but anarchists are against hierarchy, which is in government.

There is no definition of anarchism that says "against hierarchy" You make a million different generalizations about what anarchists want.

Anyways, I believe once again you are conflating states and governments. Something not rooted in establishment only as much power as the people give it. Part of avoiding establishment, is separating violence from governance.

Laws can be used for order, not just destruction.

Laws are not in the natural order of things.

Crow: No, its actually private governments and public governments(a great distinction).
There is no definition of anarchism that says "against hierarchy" You make a million different generalizations about what anarchists want.
Ah, now your denying that anarchism is against hierarchy. I look at anarchism as an ideology, anarchists want to abolish the state and for the same reason. This leads to an organized society without force or rule over the other and even no government. The people would govern(which can be called a government). I know you would probably disagree, but do you think we need a government(not state)?

Bi0Hazard: Ah, now your denying that anarchism is against hierarchy.

Some anarchists might be against hierarchy, but it is not inherent to anarchism. You are reading way too much into it.

I look at anarchism as an ideology, anarchists want to abolish the state and for the same reason.

Anarchists are individuals, and like the individuals they are, each has their own reasons for wanting the things that they do. Generalizations wont do you well.

I know you would probably disagree, but do you think we need a government(not state)?

Governance or governments. Not a government.

Bi0Hazard: Since you keep asserting yourself as an authority on anarchism, I feel it is only right to ask.

What anarchists are you getting your information from, respected anarchist philosophers or otherwise?

Crow: Just anarchism ideology. Not from any philosopher. I read on it before, its really not so much of a complex ideology. You look at anarchism in a complete different way than the ideology. What are some respected anarchist philosophers? If I read books on anarchism, it wouldn't be any different. It's not like anarchism is completely different in the respected philosophers perspective.

Bi0Hazard: Just anarchism ideology. Not from any philosopher

Anarchist philosophers write the actual doctrines, unlike whomever you get your information from.

If you don't want to go off of them, then at least go off of the anarchist community as a basis for what anarchism is, but you wont get a cohesive doctrine.

You read way too much into this.

You look at anarchism in a complete different way than the ideology.

Your interpretation of anarchism is just that, an interpretation. There are different sects of anarchism, and your attempts at generalizing and categorizing anarchism is really frustrating.

What are some respected anarchist philosophers?

Anarcho-communists like Leo Tolstoy.

Anarcho-capitalists like Noah Chomsky.

That is contemporary anarchism. Classical anarchists are numerous, whether from enlightenment or more notably post first international. There are also many large sects with notable philosophers, such as anarcho-feminism and Emma Goldman.

Many modern figures are also associated with anarchism, like Charles Chaplin, Mohandas Gandhi, and Tolkien.

All of them have very different doctrines and belief systems. The only thing all of the thousands of notable anarchists have had in common, is supporting the abolition of the state.

This is the third time I am telling you this, but if you are going to define anarchism in any way, then it should be that anarchists universally oppose states .

Crow: Do you understand that?
What's the difference? Both ways people do things outside the present law in accordance with what the president says.

he is not actually saying that the laws which make extrajudicial killings should be repealed.
Because he wants to be the only one with the right to kill arbitrarily.

If I go out and kill 20 serial murderers and rapists in the city of Chicago, would the rate of murder and rape in Chicago go down?
Well it would increase by a minimum of 20.

Crow: You are looking at anarchism the wrong way. Many philosophers advocate anarchy but may not be anarchists. Like communism, anarchism is a political philosophy. Your just giving the name "anarchist" to philosophers who advocate anarchy. The name "anarchism" has been taken, it is a name for a political philosophy.
Your interpretation of anarchism is just that, an interpretation. There are different sects of anarchism, and your attempts at generalizing and categorizing anarchism is really frustrating.
That is like saying capitalism being private ownership of production is just interpretation. Plain nonsense. It frustrates me that you keep trying to define anarchism as a category for ideologies that advocate for state abolition when it is really its own ideology.
Anarcho-communists like Leo Tolstoy.

Anarcho-capitalists like Noah Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist, not an anarcho-capitalist or anarchist(though they are very similar).
All of them have very different doctrines and belief systems. The only thing all of the thousands of notable anarchists have had in common, is supporting the abolition of the state.
Your just defining anyone who supports the abolition of the state as anarchist, but that is not the case.

Bi0Hazard: You are looking at anarchism the wrong way.

No, you are.

I have been apart of the anarchist community and studied the ideology for years. Besides me, I doubt you have even talked to another anarchist.

Many philosophers advocate anarchy but may not be anarchists.

Pretty sure people who advocate anarchy are anarchists.

It frustrates me that you keep trying to define anarchism as a category for ideologies that advocate for state abolition when it is really its own ideology.

Because I am right.


Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist, not an anarcho-capitalist or anarchist(though they are very similar).

You might be missing the point, but he is definitely an anarchist. He has been calling himself an anarchist for years. He has been in debates defending anarcho-capitalism.

Your just defining anyone who supports the abolition of the state as anarchist, but that is not the case.

I am stating the one common belief all anarchists have.

admin: What's the difference? Both ways people do things outside the present law in accordance with what the president says.

Okay, so you don't understand it. Let me clear it up for youz.

Extrajudicial has nothing to do with a president or any other official. It has to do with the law, and whether something is working outside of it, while it is still in existence.

The difference is that actually legalizing a law would no longer make it extrajudicial, because by definition extrajudicial is dealing with actions outside the law. Therefore it is a totally different matter for an entirely different discussion.

Because he wants to be the only one with the right to kill arbitrarily.

If he wanted to do that, he would abolish the laws which make extrajudicial killings illegal. He is not doing that, which implies either he does not have the power to do so, or that he wants those laws kept in place. It is a fundamental difference that separates extrajudicial killings from being legally sanctioned killings.

Well it would increase by a minimum of 20.

Okay, so explain this logic, in the face of millions of examples that say otherwise.

Crow: Please, go ahead and share these examples.

I feel like your prior point is entirely semantic and that in effect you're not substantively arguing whether this would mean a harm accrues or not.

admin: When Pablo Escobar died, the drug trade took a hit for quite some time.

Decrease in criminals = Decrease in crime

Hopefully you get the picture. I am waiting for you to justify how...

Decrease in criminals = Increase in crime

Crow: He wasn't killed extra-judicially though.

admin: So you think the difference between an increase and a decrease of crime is in whether the execution is extrajudicial?

Maybe you should.... EXPLAIN!

Damn.

Crow: There is "due process" to the law.