Posts

Total: 55
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
The question is: Are people equal, or are peoples equal?

 I'd like to hear from the following perspectives: 
What is the US currently?
What should the US be?
Which is religiously correct?
Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

I'd also appreciate explanations supporting each of your perspectives so that others can clearly understand why.

For a clear explanation of peoples: The word “peoples” is the plural of “people” and is used to refer to groups of people by nation, religion, belief, or an aternative aspect of divide.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 358
Posts: 10,742
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Everyone outside of America is technically an arab.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Would you elaborate?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,106
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
Are people equal, or are peoples equal?

None of the above.....But this depends upon how one chooses to define equal.....Or more accurately, which definition of equal one chooses.....And to what aspects of peoplehood one is applying the term equal.


In physiological terms we are only similar but compatible 


Socially, we start globally and sub-divide from thereon in, and I would say that there is no point at which any two groups are equal.

Because the factors that define sub-groups are many and variable, and as such variability is the essence of the sub-group and therefore also the essence of inequality.

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,205
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
"Equality" is an ill defined concept today, the presumption when it entered the political discourse in the 1750s was "equality under the law" political or moral equality. That context can not be assumed, thus it becomes an empty vessel to be filled with any madness. "all men are created equal so why don't we have equal doses of ice cream HUHHUH?"

Equality in the coherent political sense is equality of rights. On that subject:

Individuals being the only concrete instances are the only ones with concrete rights. Abstractions don't have rights.

Peoples don't have rights, cultures don't have rights, races don't have rights, clubs don't have rights, even families don't have rights. Just persons.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 358
Posts: 10,742
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Would you elaborate?
Its a line from a movie "The Dictator".

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,298
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Equality in the coherent political sense is equality of rights.
The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
The question is: Are people equal,
The question is... WILL IIIIIIIIIII EVER LEAV... Sorry, I got sidetracked. No people are not equal.

or are peoples equal?
No, peoples aren't equal either.

What is the US currently?
A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.

What should the US be?
Anarchy. Particularly, Anarcho-Capitalism. But any voluntary arrangement should suffice.

Which is religiously correct?
Christianity of course!

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?
Christianity of course.

1 & 2: People aren't equal because individual value creates a constellation and market for individual behaviors. Individuals acknowledge their own estimations of the most attractive; the most talented; the smartest; the most athletic, etc. Equality would necessitate the streamline of individual values, and/or making individual value objective. And objectivity is irrational.

3: The United States is a hodgepodge of diverse demographics in order to indoctrinate the diverse cultures around the globe with the Luciferian a.k.a. Babylonian mysteries which was brought in by this nation's Masonic "Founding Fathers." As far as my description of "Communist," you need only look into the history of this nation's central banks, as well as Joseph McCarthy's "Red Scare." You can also look into project paperclip.

4. All associations should be voluntary--even at the societal level. Involuntary associations are immoral and should be condemned.

5 & 6: I'm joking for the most part with this one. I'm not religious. If I had to provide an answer, I would state that they're all "correct," in the absence of an alternative term, even if they contradict each other.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Critical-Tim
What is the US currently?
A nation.
What should the US be?
A nation.
Which is religiously correct?
???? Out of what?
Which is correct from the perspective of human value?
Oh I get it.

people equal, or are peoples equal?

Which is religiously correct?
Neither, sinners inferior to good-doers.

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?
Neither, those closest to one's 'tribe' are valued most this is axiomatically true even if the tribe one identifies with is not blood-related.

You can say I am lying since we don't operate this way in hospital transplant lists or human right but our species is held above other species due to this in the first place. We alienate criminals from the general populace as another means of tribal lines etc etc
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,205
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Equality in the coherent political sense is equality of rights.
The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity
Opportunity to do what? (Eat ice cream?)
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,660
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Everyone outside of America is technically an arab.
Do you think B.K might be Bobby Lee?
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
The question is: Are people equal,
The question is... WILL IIIIIIIIIII EVER LEAV... Sorry, I got sidetracked. No people are not equal.
or are peoples equal?
No, peoples aren't equal either.
Would you explain why you believe they are not? Are you basing your decision on lack of empirical equality or human value, and do you believe regardless of human values existence it would be better for society to act as though it does or doesn't exist?

What is the US currently?
A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.
You gave a very clear explanation of what you perceive, but can you back this up with any suggestive evidence or relative comparisons? Additionally, do you believe that people are aware that they are as you described, or do you believe they perceived themselves differently, and how so? 

What should the US be?
Anarchy. Particularly, Anarcho-Capitalism. But any voluntary arrangement should suffice.
I am certain that not every voluntary arrangement would suffice to hold together a society. However, I am interested in hearing more about your description of how the government should be run, and why.

Which is religiously correct?
Christianity of course!
I clearly understand you suggest Christianity, but I don't receive your implication as you seem to expect. Can you explain why?

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?
Christianity of course.

1 & 2: People aren't equal because individual value creates a constellation and market for individual behaviors. Individuals acknowledge their own estimations of the most attractive; the most talented; the smartest; the most athletic, etc. Equality would necessitate the streamline of individual values, and/or making individual value objective. And objectivity is irrational.

3: The United States is a hodgepodge of diverse demographics in order to indoctrinate the diverse cultures around the globe with the Luciferian a.k.a. Babylonian mysteries which was brought in by this nation's Masonic "Founding Fathers." As far as my description of "Communist," you need only look into the history of this nation's central banks, as well as Joseph McCarthy's "Red Scare." You can also look into project paperclip.

4. All associations should be voluntary--even at the societal level. Involuntary associations are immoral and should be condemned.

5 & 6: I'm joking for the most part with this one. I'm not religious. If I had to provide an answer, I would state that they're all "correct," in the absence of an alternative term, even if they contradict each other.
I wasn't expecting a joke, LOL. I already put my responses above anyways. Would you further explain how individual value being objective is irrational?
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman

Which is religiously correct?
Neither, sinners inferior to good-doers.
You classify individuals as sinners and good doers, but then describe how they are neither is religiously inferior. By what standard is your estimation for classifying them as such? Do you believe there is such a thing as good and evil, or are they merely human constructs, and why?

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?
Neither, those closest to one's 'tribe' are valued most this is axiomatically true even if the tribe one identifies with is not blood-related.

You can say I am lying since we don't operate this way in hospital transplant lists or human right but our species is held above other species due to this in the first place. We alienate criminals from the general populace as another means of tribal lines etc etc
I would never suggest anyone is lying about what they believe, I don't know any of you personally and therefore I have no basis to suggest otherwise. I don't always agree with everyone's perspectives, but I respect the mentality of continuous improvement and understanding others in order to accumulate more knowledge than one had originally.

Do you believe that human value is merely a human construct, and do you believe that it is beneficial to society to act as if it exists regardless of its existence or not? Would you further elaborate on how our species is held above others, how we alienate criminals from the general populace for tribal reasons, and what you believe these suggest.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,298
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity
Opportunity to do what? (Eat ice cream?)
Are you really being serious?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
Would you explain why you believe they are not? Are you basing your decision on lack of empirical equality or human value, and do you believe regardless of human values existence it would be better for society to act as though it does or doesn't exist?
I bear no expectation that human value can be quantified; only expressed through emotion, opinion, and abstract behaviors. People aren't "equal" because that would suggest homogenizing individual value. In any social interaction, each individual will be treated and will act with respect to a composite of their respective  individual values, and thus treat others and be treated by others differently. Case in point: I do not treat strangers the same as I do my siblings. Because of my affection (individual value) for my siblings, my behavior toward them as well as my mere association with them will undoubtedly express favor. This can manifest in many ways--e.g. more willing to provide my time, labor, and resources in maximizing my estimation of their utility. I wouldn't do that for mere strangers. What I can do, and have done for strangers is respect their individual discretion and their capacity to act in their own interests so long as it does not or did not interfere with another's capacity to act in service to their individual interests.

You gave a very clear explanation of what you perceive, but can you back this up with any suggestive evidence or relative comparisons?
Suggestive evidence or relative comparisons for which part? Or do you request evidence and comparisons for all of it?

Additionally, do you believe that people are aware that they are as you described, or do you believe they perceived themselves differently, and how so? 
Best assumption? Not generally.

I am certain that not every voluntary arrangement would suffice to hold together a society.
Why not?

However, I am interested in hearing more about your description of how the government should be run, and why.
If there is to be government, it should operate in the private sector subject to its market decisions and the satisfaction of its consumers.

I clearly understand you suggest Christianity, but I don't receive your implication as you seem to expect. Can you explain why?
Just a joke.

I wasn't expecting a joke, LOL. I already put my responses above anyways. Would you further explain how individual value being objective is irrational?
No worries. As far as the irrationality of individual value being objective, it will be contingent on our unresolved dispute over the description of objectivity.



Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
Would you explain why you believe they are not? Are you basing your decision on lack of empirical equality or human value, and do you believe regardless of human values existence it would be better for society to act as though it does or doesn't exist?
I bear no expectation that human value can be quantified; only expressed through emotion, opinion, and abstract behaviors. People aren't "equal" because that would suggest homogenizing individual value. In any social interaction, each individual will be treated and will act with respect to a composite of their respective  individual values, and thus treat others and be treated by others differently. Case in point: I do not treat strangers the same as I do my siblings. Because of my affection (individual value) for my siblings, my behavior toward them as well as my mere association with them will undoubtedly express favor. This can manifest in many ways--e.g. more willing to provide my time, labor, and resources in maximizing my estimation of their utility. I wouldn't do that for mere strangers. What I can do, and have done for strangers is respect their individual discretion and their capacity to act in their own interests so long as it does not or did not interfere with another's capacity to act in service to their individual interests.
Do you then believe that humans have no objective or intrinsic value, but that they have subjective value, which varies between person and context?
Do you believe that everyone should be treated as if they have an equal intrinsic value, and what do you believe would be the consequences of implementing or opposing this?

What is the US currently?
A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.
You gave a very clear explanation of what you perceive, but can you back this up with any suggestive evidence or relative comparisons?
Suggestive evidence or relative comparisons for which part? Or do you request evidence and comparisons for all of it?
I suppose I was looking for something that would rigidify your claim. I don't have any particular suggestion on how you could measure or prove your statement, but you claim it as if it's a matter of fact.

I am certain that not every voluntary arrangement would suffice to hold together a society.
Why not?
An example would be the founding of the 13 colonies by the pilgrims' voluntary arrangement. We had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation and furthermore implement the US Constitution as a result of how our voluntary arrangement was not sufficient to hold our society together. Moreover, I cannot name a single nation that has neither evolved nor crumbled.

However, I am interested in hearing more about your description of how the government should be run, and why.
If there is to be government, it should operate in the private sector subject to its market decisions and the satisfaction of its consumers.
You provided a clear description of how you believe the government should run, but you didn't explain why.

 Would you further explain how individual value being objective is irrational?
No worries. As far as the irrationality of individual value being objective, it will be contingent on our unresolved dispute over the description of objectivity.
I see, objective seems to be interpretable. How about intrinsic?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you then believe that humans have no objective or intrinsic value,
Objective is not synonymous with intrinsic. And while I do subscribe to the concept of intrinsic human value, I do not believe it's immune to examination.

Do you believe that everyone should be treated as if they have an equal intrinsic value, and what do you believe would be the consequences of implementing or opposing this?
It's not a subject of equal. Everyone has intrinsic value, and this is best expressed at least in my estimation through individualist philosophy. The consequences of opposing this would the relegation of individuals as objects, as opposed to subjects, in their own lives.

I suppose I was looking for something that would rigidify your claim. I don't have any particular suggestion on how you could measure or prove your statement, but you claim it as if it's a matter of fact.
Most of that which I state about the adoption of Luciferianism, especially on a world-wide scale, is based on my conjecture (naturally I'm not a Psychic and cannot claim with any verifiable data what a person truly believes.) I can only piece things to together based on what I estimate is plausible and likely. So for example, can I "rigidify" that the Pope is a Luciferian? No. But I am willing to gamble on being embarrassingly wrong that the Pope is in fact a Luciferian. So my statements are based on my readings (mostly books) and my knowledge of mythology. As for my description of Communism, you need only look into project paper clip, Joseph McCarthy and his suspicious death, and the progression of Central Bank Policy since this nation's inception.

An example would be the founding of the 13 colonies by the pilgrims' voluntary arrangement.
That was not a voluntary arrangement. The clue in that is the 13 colonies were colonies.

We had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation and furthermore implement the US Constitution as a result of how our voluntary arrangement was not sufficient to hold our society together.
Not in the least bit true. This was mostly a result of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist campaign against it.

Moreover, I cannot name a single nation that has neither evolved nor crumbled.
And the anarchy I've described has never been practiced on a societal or even global scale. There were societies which approximated an "anarchy," but still not anarchy.

You provided a clear description of how you believe the government should run, but you didn't explain why.
Because of sovereign individuality. No individual should have a final authority as it concerns one's self, time, labor, and resources other than oneself.

I see, objective seems to be interpretable. How about intrinsic?
See above.

Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
An example would be the founding of the 13 colonies by the pilgrims' voluntary arrangement.
That was not a voluntary arrangement. The clue in that is the 13 colonies were colonies.
While it is true that the pilgrims did form separate colonies and they did not all agree on their beliefs, they did agree to respect each other as independent colonies, which is a form of voluntary agreement.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
We had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation and furthermore implement the US Constitution as a result of how our voluntary arrangement was not sufficient to hold our society together.
Not in the least bit true. This was mostly a result of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist campaign against it.
Do you believe it was sufficient, and that Alexander's campaign is not evidence of its insufficiency? As I understand it, if anything requires another to evolve or be destroyed it is evidence it was insufficient (It was required to change or be destroyed).
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
You provided a clear description of how you believe the government should run, but you didn't explain why.
Because of sovereign individuality. No individual should have a final authority as it concerns one's self, time, labor, and resources other than oneself.
Do you then believe that individual sovereignty should be the highest virtue of a society or government?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,205
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity
Opportunity to do what? (Eat ice cream?)
Are you really being serious?
I seriously intended to expose what I believe is the very high chance that what you are alluding to is imprecisely defined and the resulting blurriness of all moral logic is a recipe for social conflict that has and will continue to manifest.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,298
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I seriously intended to expose what I believe is the very high chance that what you are alluding to is imprecisely defined and the resulting blurriness of all moral logic is a recipe for social conflict that has and will continue to manifest.
Yeah, that’s called politics.

Congrats, I guess you got me on that
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,205
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
All the sources of irrationality (bias) may explain how a precise concept is mutilated into a blurry one and leads to confusion, but even the most reasonable people cannot use a poorly defined (imprecise) concept and make anything but conflict out of it.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,298
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You mean like wokeness or transgenderism?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
While it is true that the pilgrims did form separate colonies and they did not all agree on their beliefs, they did agree to respect each other as independent colonies, which is a form of voluntary agreement.

A colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule. Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state (or "mother country"), within the shared imperialist administration.
What about a colony is a voluntary arrangement? Even if you argue that the colonies respected each other's independence, they were still subject to British rule.

Do you believe it was sufficient, and that Alexander's campaign is not evidence of its insufficiency? As I understand it, if anything requires another to evolve or be destroyed it is evidence it was insufficient (It was required to change or be destroyed).
Since I'm proposing anarchy, naturally my position would be against any form of State. But the reason Alexander Hamilton campaigned against the Articles of Confederation was that independent sovereign states would have made it difficult to create a national bank a.k.a. Central Bank, the proposal for which he made in 1790 (a year or two after the Articles of Confederation was replaced with "the Constitution") if I remember correctly. I suppose one can say a voluntary arrangement would have been insufficient for the prospects of a Central Bank. But your suggestion that the voluntary arrangement (which wasn't voluntary by the way) had some inescapable flaw couldn't further from the truth--or my estimation of "the truth."

Do you then believe that individual sovereignty should be the highest virtue of a society or government?
Of a society, yes.




Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
In an anarchist society, how would the code of conduct and the rule of law be enforced? How would the society defend itself from foreign invasion? Do you think that anarchy would hinder progress and development, making the society vulnerable to more advanced and organized countries that might have religious motives to destroy it?

Above was just my first thought, but here are some other concerns to address:
  • How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?
  • How would anarchy ensure the protection of human rights, such as freedom, equality, and dignity, without any legal or moral framework?
  • How would anarchy foster cooperation, trust, and solidarity among people, without any common values or norms?
  • How would anarchy promote social progress, innovation, and development, without any education, science, or technology?
  • How would anarchy cope with the challenges of diversity, complexity, and interdependence in the modern world, without any communication, coordination, or integration?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
In an anarchist society, how would the code of conduct and the rule of law be enforced?
In an anarcho-capitalist society, laws would be subject to mechanisms of a free-market. Dispute Resolution Organizations would operate in the private sector.

How would the society defend itself from foreign invasion?
Private contractors or private armies.

Do you think that anarchy would hinder progress and development, making the society vulnerable to more advanced and organized countries that might have religious motives to destroy it?
No.

How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?
Dispute Resolution Organizations can handle tort and mediate disputes among individual parties; wrongful acts can also make one subject to Outlawry.

How would anarchy ensure the protection of human rights, such as freedom, equality, and dignity, without any legal or moral framework?
Why do you assume there's no moral framework?

How would anarchy foster cooperation, trust, and solidarity among people, without any common values or norms?
The free market will bring together consumers, whether it be of values or norms, and a free flowing price system will dictate where said individuals intend to dedicate their time, labor, and resources.

How would anarchy promote social progress, innovation, and development, without any education, science, or technology?
Why do you assume there's no education, science, or technology? Are you under the impression that government is solely responsible for the aforementioned?

How would anarchy cope with the challenges of diversity, complexity, and interdependence in the modern world, without any communication, coordination, or integration?
Nothing about anarchy suggests individuals can't communicate, coordinate, or even integrate. As long as it's voluntary, it should meet the stipulations, for lack of a better term, of an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist environment.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,205
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You mean like wokeness or transgenderism?
Yes actually, those words are placeholders for the conceptual chaos characterizing a political enemy tribe. Like saying "religion" or "zealotry" or "theocracy", it can never be more precisely defined than the limits of what the ones giving existence to the fog happen to do.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
In an anarchist society, how would the code of conduct and the rule of law be enforced?
In an anarcho-capitalist society, laws would be subject to mechanisms of a free-market. Dispute Resolution Organizations would operate in the private sector.
If private contractors were the ones upholding the law that means they are driven by money, do you not see this as becoming an issue?

How would the society defend itself from foreign invasion?
Private contractors or private armies.
Who would be responsible for funding these private armies?

How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?
Dispute Resolution Organizations can handle tort and mediate disputes among individual parties; wrongful acts can also make one subject to Outlawry.
Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?

How would anarchy ensure the protection of human rights, such as freedom, equality, and dignity, without any legal or moral framework?
Why do you assume there's no moral framework?
Without any uniformity of a government standardization people would be free to create their own religions and beliefs. Having said that, the moral structure for every individual would be at least slightly different, so who would be the judge of which moral structure is standard and will be used in prosecution?

How would anarchy foster cooperation, trust, and solidarity among people, without any common values or norms?
The free market will bring together consumers, whether it be of values or norms, and a free flowing price system will dictate where said individuals intend to dedicate their time, labor, and resources.
I don't see how anarchy could cultivate uniformity. The more freedom a society has the freer people are to be and therefore the less likely they will be unified and seemingly uniformed. As a result, societies that are driven by strict governments that are tyrannical or oppressive are very uniform and powerful such as the Nazis. Whereas people not driven by uniformity are not very uniform, and therefore do not work in uniformity.

How would anarchy promote social progress, innovation, and development, without any education, science, or technology?
Why do you assume there's no education, science, or technology? Are you under the impression that government is solely responsible for the aforementioned?
I suppose there could be education along with science and technology. Though the question still remains, who would create the standard of education and would everyone within the society be required to accept certification?

How would anarchy cope with the challenges of diversity, complexity, and interdependence in the modern world, without any communication, coordination, or integration?
Nothing about anarchy suggests individuals can't communicate, coordinate, or even integrate. As long as it's voluntary, it should meet the stipulations, for lack of a better term, of an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist environment.
There definitely can be coordination between individuals in an anarchist society, but as I said before, the more free individuals of a society are the more variance there is between members of that society and the more variance between members of the society the less they seem like members of the society to others. Therefore, societies that are freer have a greater variance between the differences of members and have less uniformity. As a result, freer societies are less uniform and less organized because of the lack of cooperation and expectation of trust of individuals of a more respectable group which would be people and others who you agree with rather than a great variance of other people who do not truly unify with your own.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
If private contractors were the ones upholding the law that means they are driven by money, do you not see this as becoming an issue?
No. Because consumers in a free market can opt out if dissatisfied.

Who would be responsible for funding these private armies?
The private armies would naturally sell their services.

Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?
The free market.

Without any uniformity of a government standardization people would be free to create their own religions and beliefs.
Okay...

Having said that, the moral structure for every individual would be at least slightly different, so who would be the judge of which moral structure is standard and will be used in prosecution?
Each party involved can agree to terms which they believe will resolve their dispute. Private mediation, for example, is quite effective and successful.

I don't see how anarchy could cultivate uniformity.
What does uniformity have to do with one's capacity to cooperate?

The more freedom a society has the freer people are to be
Is this not ideal?

and therefore the less likely they will be unified and seemingly uniformed.
Is this not a non sequitur?

As a result, societies that are driven by strict governments that are tyrannical or oppressive are very uniform and powerful such as the Nazis. Whereas people not driven by uniformity are not very uniform, and therefore do not work in uniformity.
Your criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that it's not Nazism?

Though the question still remains, who would create the standard of education and would everyone within the society be required to accept certification?
The free market; the best standards will emerge in a competitive market.

There definitely can be coordination between individuals in an anarchist society, but as I said before, the more free individuals of a society are the more variance there is between members of that society and the more variance between members of the society the less they seem like members of the society to others. Therefore, societies that are freer have a greater variance between the differences of members and have less uniformity. As a result, freer societies are less uniform and less organized because of the lack of cooperation and expectation of trust of individuals of a more respectable group which would be people and others who you agree with rather than a great variance of other people who do not truly unify with your own.
Again, is this not a non sequitur?