Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of you totally abandoning the authors you initially quoted in favour of some last minute updates because you thought a Wiki article was in any way an adequate source of anything. — StreetlightX

You probably couldn't hear me because of your deafening retreat from the original thesis that it was Christians who invented it. Is the concept of free will concept a historical invention? Wow, who would have thought? Damn amazing, it must be the only one, the rest being platonic shit flowing somewhere out of history.

"Bobzien's unnamed and uncited 2nd century Platonists"? But you've read the fucking masterpiece (and her article), so you know it's there. Let me quote it for you though, not that it's needed, since you backed off from the initial claim.

If we want to find philosophers who are troubled by a free-will problem within their system, we need to turn to Platonists and Christian thinkers.

So, even in Bobzien's very restrictive sense, the free will thesis was clearly spelled out by non christians at the latest in the early second century. Long before Lactantius, far longer before Augustine. Also, funny how concepts originated in supposedly 'non-theological' discussions can give rise to 'theological' discussions, but the opposite can't happen for some reason.

Yet, per Bobzien, Alexander doesn't face a free will problem within his system simply because, against the Stoics, he rejects predetermination of human actions by divine providence. A totally non-theological issue. Otherwise, according to Bobzien again, 'he regards a concept of freedom to do otherwise as a prerequisite for moral responsibility'. And the Stoics, despite the fact that they had a doctrine of divine predestination, didn't face a free will problem within their system simply because, according to their doctrine and against Alexander, the freedom to do and choose otherwise is not a prerequisite of moral responsibility.

Lo and behold, all the necessary ingredients of the restrictive free will problem are here, just not all gathered unambiguously within one single system. It was a matter of time and historical circumstances for this to happen and the notion that it necessarily takes a hysteric christian theologian to make it happen is nothing but hysterical theology.

Nice editing. You forgot to quote her when she says that the concept of the will and therefore the problem of free will and of the compatibility of causal determinism and freedom to do otherwise can be found, besides Christians, in Platonists in the second century. Platonists who, according to her, were also trying to solve the problem of evil. Which denies Agamben's claim that all this was first introduced by the Christian Lactantius in the third century or Dihle's claim that Augustine came up with it.

You also forgot to quote her saying how influential Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus and Alexander were in subsequent thinkers and how the later formulated their doctrines based on the ideas of the former. Which denies Dihle's claim that Augustine, or the other Christians, had to find their sources of the concept of will in Old Testament. And deflates the importance of the notion that we have to search for the problem of free will within a specific thinker's system. Even today, no one besides libertarians or those who specifically argue against them, need to be troubled by free will within their own system; yet, they're still part of the same discussion, the way Alexander and subsequent Platonists or Christians were parts of the same discussion.

A basic internet search leads to the aptly named wiki article 'Free will in antiquity'. According to the first sentences...

Free will in antiquity was not discussed in the same terms as used in the modern free will debates, but historians of the problem have speculated who exactly was first to take positions as determinist, libertarian, and compatibilist in antiquity.[1] There is wide agreement that these views were essentially fully formed over 2000 years ago.

These are the sources...
Susanne Bobzien, Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy
Timothy O'Keefe, Epicurus on Freedom
R. W. Sharples, Alexander of Aphrodisias On Fate
David Furley, Two Studies in the Greek Atomists
Richard Sorabji, Necessity, Cause, and Blame

Later in the article, someone can read the following, attributed to Epicurus

...some things happen of necessity (ἀνάγκη), others by chance (τύχη), others through our own agency (παρ’ ἡμᾶς).

...necessity destroys responsibility and chance is inconstant; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.[

and this, attributed to Lucretius...

Again, if all motion is always one long chain, and new motion arises out of the old in order invariable, and if the first-beginnings do not make by swerving a beginning of motion such as to break the decrees of fate, that cause may not follow cause from infinity, whence comes this freedom (libera) in living creatures all over the earth, whence I say is this will (voluntas) wrested from the fates by which we proceed whither pleasure leads each, swerving also our motions not at fixed times and fixed places, but just where our mind has taken us? For undoubtedly it is his own will in each that begins these things, and from the will movements go rippling through the limbs.

and...

Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 150–210), the most famous ancient commentator on Aristotle, wrote in the age of Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics. He defended a view of moral responsibility we would call libertarianism today. Greek philosophy had no precise term for "free will" as did Latin (liberum arbitrium or libera voluntas). The discussion was in terms of responsibility, what "depends on us" (in Greek ἐφ ἡμῖν).

It seems that the christians were not the original 'hysterics' or 'theologians'. One wonders how Agamben and his readers managed to miss all that. Probably too mainstream to bother!

did not exist as a 'problem' — StreetlightX

As what did it exist?

It is not only that freedom is not opposed to equality, they can only co-arise. If you don't have one you can't have the other. And 'the state of nature' has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever; if anything, it's its antithesis.

In short, incoherent social darwinism 101. If 'the strong' exploiting 'the weak' is akin to exercising one's natural freedom, the 'weak' exploiting the 'strong' is equally akin to exercising one's natural freedom. Oh, what the heck, after all the strong was the weak and the weak was the strong.

Here's a simple way to put it: Is the world still organized in nation states? If not, what's the way it's currently organized?

"I was asking for alternatives to the State in the sense that "the State may be an outdated concept, and, so, what are political axioms to be levelled against?" is indeed a terrible way to put it.

My answer is that yes, the world is still organized in states. The states are still the proxies through which the ruling classes mainly act. Globalization is not new, it's just intensified both in space and time. In what way is the new concept of the 'Empire' distinct from the traditional concepts of 'empire', 'imperialism' and 'world sytem' and not just an elaboration on them?

I posted the link to the Wikipedia article so that I wouldn't have to explain what it was — thewonder

The wikipedia article is just bad and it's just an article in an encyclopedia, it's not theory or philosophy. That's why it can fit under the same category systems as different as the Athenian democracy or the russian dictatorship. Which is dumb.

What I'm trying to explain is that I wasn't asking for alternatives for the State in the sense that "the State is bad and, so, what can effectively replace it?" I was asking for alternatives to the State in the sense that "the State may be an outdated concept, and, so, what are political axioms to be levelled against?" — thewonder

I didn't consider the State bad and in need of replacement. You asked for an alternative concept and I gave you one. Another one could be feudalism. What does it mean that the state is an outdated concept?

I don't need to find out what it is. You asked for a discussion on the conceptual level and I gave you a basic conceptual analysis. Why don't you just provide further conceptual analysis instead of sending me to wikipedia? I'm arguing that as long as distinct political levels exist, I have no good reason to call that a democracy. 'Participatory democracy' might be a genuine step towards democratization though. Having said that, we need to distinguish between furthering democratic practice within a democracy and trying to establish democratic processes in a non-democratic system. Even if at some point there might be a society which is effectively and essentially democratic in its processes while still maintaining the distinct political levels on paper, as a relic from its past (the reverse is possible too, of course). I know of no such examples. Do you know any?

Your wikipedia link in its 21st century participatory examples section, says:

In recent years, social media have led to changes in the conduct of participatory democracy. In the 2016 United States elections social media spread news and many[quantify] politicians used social-media outlets like Twitter to attract voters. Social media has helped to organize movements to demand change. Mainly through hashtags, citizens join political conversations with differing view-points.[22] To promote public interest and involvement, local governments have started using social media to make decisions based on public feedback.[23]

or

In the Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin's annual Direct Line television Q&A sessions, wherein he answers a selection of the hundreds of thousands of questions which Russians submit via telephones or social media, provides a degree of participation for ordinary citizens[25] - an updated, more interactive version of fireside chats.

That these things are examples of 'participatory democracy' (or simply democracy) is but a joke. And putting together contemporary USA and Russia, the Athenian democracy, the Paris Commune, as examples of participatory democracy is a conceptual mess. Funnily enough, the go-to example of contemporary 'participatory democracy', Switzerland, is not even mentioned in the article!

I just don't have a working definition of "the State" right now. I think that you know what it is, however. — thewonder

What I don't know is what you have in mind as the anarchist conception of the State.

Democracy is not participatory, it is self-governance. Participation implies other actors beyond the people. Who are these actors? In a typical liberal representative system these actors are 'the politicians' (or the State), who let the electorate 'participate' in the political decision making, usually through referenda. So, the electorate "participates" in the mechanism. In democracy these levels are flattened, there's no separate political class beyond the citizen. The citizens are the mechanism, they do not participate in it. All battles are given on this level. That's the conceptual analysis. In practice different outcomes are possible, but usually different conceptions of governance favor some outcomes more and some other less.

I don't know how to adequately define "the State" right now. It's like an almost purely negative assessment of a nation state. — thewonder

You asked for an alternative to the anarchist conception of the state. If you don't provide a working definition to what conception of the State am I supposed to give an alternative to?

Participatory democracy is that. — thewonder

No, it's not. 'Participatory democracy' is the State's leasing of decision making to its subjects.

I mean the concept of the State from a more or less Anarchist framework. Like, I'm not asking what to substitute the State with; I'm looking for an alternative to the Anarchist concept of the State. — thewonder

What's the anarchist concept of the State?

No, it's not. It necessarily includes people so it can't be a machine.

No, I don't mean participatory democracy. I mean democracy. Like the self-rule of the people. So, in this case, the alternative to the concept of the State is the concept of the self-governed Demos.

An alternative to the State? Democracy.

wow.

What I got from the above is artificial system = regulated system. Sticking to the question, who sets the prices in a non-artificial or an unregulated system?

I'm a little amazed that you believe this. It isn't true. What I'd like you to do is consider what would happen if it was true. — frank

Many would be in medical related debt. Others would seek insufficient or no medical help for their health issues. Hopefully most Americans aren't facing such issues?

You can google Medicare. — frank

Wiki says:

"Medicare is a national health insurance program in the United States, begun in 1966 under the Social Security Administration (SSA) and now administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It provides health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older, younger people with some disability status as determined by the Social Security Administration, as well as people with end stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease).

In 2018, Medicare provided health insurance for over 59.9 million individuals—more than 52 million people aged 65 and older and about 8 million younger people.[1] On average, Medicare covers about half of healthcare expenses of those enrolled.[citation needed] Medicare is funded by a combination of a payroll tax, beneficiary premiums and surtaxes from beneficiaries, co-pays and deductibles, and general U.S. Treasury revenue."

I'd ask the same thing to the one who wrote this.

Medicare pays set prices by diagnosis. So they pay a certain amount for a pneumonia diagnosis no matter how much the healthcare provider spends. There's a set payout for attack by killer whale (believe it or don't).

All private insurance companies set their payouts by Medicare's rates. — frank

If this is an answer to the question "by whom are they set in a non artificial environment", I do not get the answer.

Are they? Who's Medicare and by whom are they set in a non artificial environment?

"Αn inevitable side effect of creating an artificial economic environment".

Because the price system, or any other economic environment, is carved out of nature. Like, totally not artificial.

Market forces must also be a physical force. Like, the opposite of gravity, which skyrockets prices. Libertarian folk are so scientific. Beautiful minds!

So what's your do-able suggestion, aside from 3 or 4 billion people leaving the planet aboad space ships? — Bitter Crank

Stop the discourse on overpopulation and start the discourse on poverty. Then do something about poverty, like, I don't know, kill the rich. Oh, you said do-able! Shit! I don't know, kill the poor, maybe?

Gonna kill kill kill kill kill the poor, kill kill kill kill kill the poor, kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight.

But who's gonna work then? Fuck, we're doomed!

it is hidden deep within the movement — Wittgenstein

It's not hidden, it sets the tone. The only way it is hidden is by being hidden in plain sight. And it's hidden in plain sight precisely because it's the framework. Take as an example the user above who chastised identity politics and then wrote "The stakes here are differential and clear: political and juridical autonomy from the state apparatus of the PRC". As if that's any different from what localists say.

Also, it's not "a bunch of teenagers". The demonstrations are quite massive and there was a big general strike (at last). It's not a cohesive movement either, but the tone is set by localists and deluded liberals. Which is also the position promoted by USA and Co. The CCP couldn't be more satisfied with that. Also, it couldn't care less if Hong Kong were to turn into a full-blown pseudo-democratic liberal representative system. The dynamics between the elites and the working people would remain pretty much the same in HK. The reason the CCP does not want that is because it would disturb the dynamics between itself and the mass of the working people in the mainland. Which apparently should be the aim and the framework of the movement. But it's not. And most probably it won't be in the foreseeable future. So, even in case that protests escalate, the movement will just be crashed in a few days, some people will die and all will return to normal until next time.

Your nose is beautiful.

Oh, I'm sorry you're hurt. Don't worry, everything's well be fine.

I knew you'd agree.

No, there aren't. — Terrapin Station

That means that there are. It seems that everyone agrees.

The more one thinks about the current situation in HK, the more one realizes that there's nothing really new here.

The stakes here are differential — StreetlightX

Like "Oh, we don't wanna be like you, chinese worker, student, businessman. Our fight is not your fight and your fight is not our fight"? This kind of differential?

No. The administrators and moderators have total control over what is written here. There is no countervailing force except for their commitment to good philosophy, fairness, and open discussion and their desire to have a successful and active forum. As I said, that is as it should be. — T Clark

They set the rules (according to the laws of the state they fall under) and enforce them. Other actors exert power to the best of their ability. What does this remind me? Oh, a state!

Decide that rights apply to you all you want. That doesn't mean anything without a force of some kind to back you up. That force may be legal, moral, practical, political.... — T Clark

Didn't you read what I wrote? States decide who has rights. That's the force you're looking for.

As I said, this forum is owned and controlled by private parties who are in complete control of it. It's public only in that they allow access to it. Just because I invite you onto my property, that doesn't mean you have any rights of access. I can tell you to leave, ban you, vote you off the island, any time I want. — T Clark

This is a business. Businesses are run according to laws. These laws are not directly decided by the businesses. They are decided by states and their lawmakers which are under the influence of various actors. What are we even discussing?

Again, you are mixing up what is a right and what is allowed. As for my precious Constitution, and constitutions in general, no, it does not primarily act to apply restrictions. The US Constitution does two primary things 1) it sets the rules and procedures for government and political action and 2) it provides protections against government action. 2) is primarily accomplished in what is known as "The Bill of Rights," the first 10 amendments ratified along with the original Constitution, as well as additional amendments added later. The Bill of Rights was specifically added to prevent the types of government intrusion which took place before the Revolution. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without it. — T Clark

I'm not mixing up anything.

I see. Rules, procedures and protections are not restrictions. Who would have guessed!

There are no free speech rights on the forum. — T Clark

Of course there are, as there are restrictions. Just like everywhere.

As I said, rights apply to governments. — T Clark

"Rights apply to governments". Nonsense. Rights apply to whomever states decide they apply.

In private communications such as the forum — T Clark

This is a public forum. The communication here is public, not private.

dems whats in charge can restrict what we say as much as they want, which is as it should be. The rest of us get to choose whether or not we participate. — T Clark

Your speech is already restricted and these restrictions are already misapplied. What you fear so much is already happening. Your precious constitution does that, that's generally what constitutions do. :scream:

I don't care what the state bans, what the law says and all that. Written words have no power. And the cops should not care if the judge orders them to lock me in, the judge's words have no power over them, they're just pigs who hate me and want to see me behind bars. So, I don't care if hate speech is banned. Makes no difference.

I understand what you’re saying — Possibility

No, you don't.

Νο, no. You must take advantage of your free speech rights and answer 'Fuck you, you dumbfuck'! By the way, on another thread, fellow Americans argued that the U.S. is not a democracy, it's a republic!

There's even scholarship on it (e.g. Freedom of Speech: Words are Not Deeds, Harry M. Bracken); legal cases as well (e.g. Cohen v. California)

As Marchesk points out, it is irrational to ask for democratic institutions just because every politician in the U.S. uses appeals to democratic institutions. Why can't Americans flatter themselves as being democratic even if they're not?

You may think you do. I do not think you do.

First you seem to complain that he does not have a systematic political proposal based on first principles. Then you say that this problem can be traced back to his mentor but here the complain is no longer the absence of a systematic proposal based on principals. The complain now is that he takes as granted that capitalism and statism are coercive. Of course, one can take that as granted and still be able to propose a political philosophy based on principals. In this case, the principal (or one of them) seems to be non-coercion. Building a proposal upon this is one thing, arguing why capitalism does not satisfy these criteria is another.