As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

1111214161740

Posts

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Yeah that's always one big problem staring down extreme Libertarianism or Objectivism - people tend value their families more than they value right, wrong and money. We aren't always so easily modeled as merely individual nodes acting rationally upon an economic graph. Blood really is thicker than water.

    Ayn Rand tried to say that children pay for their caregiving services via their love and affection and cuteness. If you can pay for food with love, that pretty much upends the whole philosophy right there. The actuality is that a parent providing care for their child (among other things) utterly transcends and defies any possible analysis about creating value or about individualism or voluntary association.

    However, I'm still hopeful that people can learn to accept Libertarianism as other than just the extreme. A Republican doesn't necessarily strive for theocratic fascism. A Democrat isn't necessarily striving for hedonistic socialism. And believe it or not, there are moderate libertarians, even ones who are running for office, who are nowhere near the kind of anarcho-capitalists or whatever that often get equated with Libertarianism. What would you call a candidate who was not advocating major changes in anything about government structure, but was for gay marriage, a more open immigration policy, and more privatization and choice in health care? What would you call a candidate who was against many of our foreign wars and is fiscally conservative? Most candidates of this nature would probably be some sort of moderate Dem or moderate Pub, but basically all those positions don't come together under either of the two-party houses. They are all Libertarian, though.

  • SparvySparvy Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I am just having fun. That is allowed, isn't it? Anywho, I may spend some time eventually constructing an OP similar to Ray's, because its really the only way to go about it. There is proof, there is logical and philosophic consistency. Hell, there is even a rational proof of ethics someone designed from scratch. Don't let my whimsical attitude convince you otherwise.

    I don't think anybody is accusing you of philosophical inconsistency. Its the inconsistency with reality that is the main point of contention.

    EDIT: Actually I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable about philosophy than me that would have some serious disagreement. But the point remains.

    Sparvy on
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    LadyM wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    That is a what-if question, but the answer is pretty much "Be smarter than the Moriori".

    Which we are, if you haven't noticed.

    Wow, nice.

    Why exactly do you think you are smarter than the Moriori?

    Clearly the answer is that we have a strong central government with a large standing army paid for with taxes. But, you know, gloss over that.

    Also, does anyone else find it comically offensive that a group of people espousing this Libertarian doctrine are now nearly extinct as a people, and the best response its proponent can come up with is "Be smarter!" What a horrible response to a group of people butchered for their resources.

    If "be smarter" is the best you can do, why are you even arguing in this thread?

  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I may spend some time eventually constructing an OP similar to Ray's, because its really the only way to go about it.

    This is probably the surest sign that your argument is bad.

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I am just having fun. That is allowed, isn't it? Anywho, I may spend some time eventually constructing an OP similar to Ray's, because its really the only way to go about it. There is proof, there is logical and philosophic consistency. Hell, there is even a rational proof of ethics someone designed from scratch. Don't let my whimsical attitude convince you otherwise.

    So you're just being a goose who refuses to actually defend his/her viewpoints, relying on us to look for it ourselves as per
    Shurakai wrote: »
    That is a what-if question, but the answer is pretty much "Be smarter than the Moriori".

    Which we are, if you haven't noticed. There is actually an answer to this puzzle which is quite ingenious. If you spend time looking into these sorts of wonderful topics you will find it. I know I am a tease, so sue me. :p .

    Good to know.

    At least Ray had the decency to not be horribly pretentious about it.

    EDIT: Wow that was an egregious grammatical error. I blame being particularly tired as well as hopped up on Airheads.

    MechMantis on
  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Живу за выходные American ValhallaRegistered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Yeah that's always one big problem staring down extreme Libertarianism or Objectivism - people tend value their families more than they value right, wrong and money. We aren't always so easily modeled as merely individual nodes acting rationally upon an economic graph. Blood really is thicker than water.

    Ayn Rand tried to say that children pay for their caregiving services via their love and affection and cuteness. If you can pay for food with love, that pretty much upends the whole philosophy right there. The actuality is that a parent providing care for their child (among other things) utterly transcends and defies any possible analysis about creating value or about individualism or voluntary association.

    However, I'm still hopeful that people can learn to accept Libertarianism as other than just the extreme. A Republican doesn't necessarily strive for theocratic fascism. A Democrat isn't necessarily striving for hedonistic socialism. And believe it or not, there are moderate libertarians, even ones who are running for office, who are nowhere near the kind of anarcho-capitalists or whatever that often get equated with Libertarianism. What would you call a candidate who was not advocating major changes in anything about government structure, but was for gay marriage, a more open immigration policy, and more privatization and choice in health care? What would you call a candidate who was against many of our foreign wars and is fiscally conservative? Most candidates of this nature would probably be some sort of moderate Dem or moderate Pub, but basically all those positions don't come together under either of the two-party houses. They are all Libertarian, though.

    Objectivism is anarcho-capitalism with some philosophical flim-flam, that's all.

    I feel that in the US, most libertarians, or at least, most people who call themselves libertarian, are Ron Paul supporters. He has some good policies, then goes and spoils it all by being an ornery old racist. Seeing as he named his son Rand, he obviously holds objectivist beliefs too, which are morally repugnant.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I may spend some time cutting and pasting images from various ill-intentioned and failed movements, footnoted with a youtube video rife with logical fallacies.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »

    Which we are, if you haven't noticed. There is actually an answer to this puzzle which is quite ingenious. If you spend time looking into these sorts of wonderful topics you will find it. I know I am a tease, so sue me. :p .


    fuck that, stop being condescending and just tell us this ingenious solution.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    LadyM wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    That is a what-if question, but the answer is pretty much "Be smarter than the Moriori".

    Which we are, if you haven't noticed.

    Wow, nice.

    Why exactly do you think you are smarter than the Moriori?

    Clearly the answer is that we have a strong central government with a large standing army paid for with taxes. But, you know, gloss over that.

    Also, does anyone else find it comically offensive that a group of people espousing this Libertarian doctrine are now nearly extinct as a people, and the best response its proponent can come up with is "Be smarter!" What a horrible response to a group of people butchered for their resources.

    If "be smarter" is the best you can do, why are you even arguing in this thread?
    Well it is unfair to call the Moriori libertarian, but I am not an expert in their culture or anything. They had a pretty small population and lived off the ocean in a pretty inhospitable enviornment. There are plenty of examples of societies like this existing without really needing a formal government structure just because their polulation is so small and no one is really a specialist. What makes the Moriori an interesting/sad case to me is that they were total pacificts who ended up getting slaughtered. It is pretty much what we would expect to happen if the Amish lacked the protection of a larger society.

  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Furu wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I may spend some time eventually constructing an OP similar to Ray's, because its really the only way to go about it.

    This is probably the surest sign that your argument is bad.

    Well I could keep throwing anecdotes and ethics lessons at you, but that doesn't seem to go over too well. It's almost as if people are curious and want factual evidence!

    I totally get that, guys.

    I'll leave you with this. Its a short section followed by a FAQ from a pretty decent book on the subject (Practical Anarchy, Stefan Molyneux). Being a rather large block of text, If you actually read this, you rock.

    Part 1

    When considering statist objections to anarchic solutions, the six questions below are most useful.

    Does the government actually solve the problem in question?

    People often say that government courts “solve” the problem of injustice. However, these courts can take many years to render a verdict – and cost the plaintiff and defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Government courts are also used to harass and intimidate, creating a “chilling effect” for unpopular opinions or groups. Thus I find it essential to question the embedded premises of statism:

    - Do State armies actually defend citizens?

    - Does State policing actually protect private property?


    - Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?

    - Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?


    - Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?

    It can be very tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that the existing statist approach is actually a solution – but I try to avoid taking that for granted, since it is so rarely the case.

    Can the criticism of the anarchic solution be equally applied to the statist solution?

    One of the most common objections to a stateless society is the fear that a political monopoly could somehow emerge from a free market of competing justice agencies. In other words, anarchism is rejected because it contains the mere possibility of political monopoly. However, if political monopoly is such a terrible evil, then a statist society – which is founded on just such a political monopoly – must be rejected even more firmly, just as we would always choose the mere possibility of cancer over actually having cancer.

    Is anarchy accepted as a core value in nonpolitical spheres?

    In my last book, “Everyday Anarchy,” I pointed out the numerous spheres in society where anarchy is both valued and defended, such as dating, career choices, education and so on. If anarchy is dismissed as “bad” overall, then it also must be “bad” in these other spheres as well. Unless the person criticizing anarchy is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the value of anarchy in certain spheres must at least be recognized. Thus anarchy cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.

    Would the person advocating statism perform State functions himself?

    Most of us recognize and accept the right to use violence in an extremity of self-defense. Those who support statism recognize that, in this realm, State police merely formalize a right that everyone already has, namely the right of self-defense. A policeman can use force to protect a citizen from being attacked, just as that citizen can use force himself. However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?

    Can something be both voluntary and coercive at the same time?

    Everyone recognizes that an act cannot be both “rape” and “lovemaking” simultaneously. Rape requires force, because the victim is unwilling; lovemaking does not. Because no action can be both voluntary and coercive at the same time, statists cannot appeal to the principle of “voluntarism” when defending the violence of the State. Statists cannot say that we “agree” to be taxed, and then say that taxation must be coercive. If we agree to taxation, the coercion is unnecessary – if we do not agree to taxation, then we are coerced against our will.





    Shurakai on
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Part 2
    Does political organization change human nature?

    If people care enough about the poor to vote for state welfare programs, then they will care enough about the poor to fund private charities. If people care enough about the uneducated to vote for state schools, they will care enough to donate to private schools. Removing the State does not fundamentally alter human nature. The benevolence and wisdom that democracy relies on will not be magically transformed into cold selfishness the moment that the State ends. Statism relies on maturity and benevolence on the part of the voters, the politicians, and government workers. If this maturity and benevolence is not present, the State is a mere brutal tyranny, and must be abolished. If the majority of people are mature and benevolent – as I believe – then the State is an unnecessary overhead, and far too prone to violent injustices to be allowed to continue. In other words, people cannot be called “virtuous” only when it serves the statist argument, and then “selfish” when it does not.

    There are a number of other principles, which are more specific to particular circumstances, but the six described above will show up repeatedly.

    We will now take a quick tour through an overview of anarchism, and sketch in broad strokes the beginnings of our solutions to the horrors of worldwide violence.


    Anarchism – Frequently Asked Questions

    Isn’t Anarchism ‘Bad’?

    Unfortunately, the term has been degraded through mythology to mean “a world without rules” – usually garbed in post-apocalyptic outerwear and riding a well-armed motorbike. This is nonsense, of course. “Anarchy” is merely the logically consistent application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong. If violence is a bad way to solve problems, then the government is by definition immoral, since “government” always means a group of individuals who claim the right to initiate violence against everyone else, in the form of taxation, regulations etc.
    But if there is no government, how can the inevitable conflicts in human society be resolved?

    The most important thing in philosophy is to consistently question the premises of propositions. For instance, embedded in the above question is the premise that conflicts within human society are currently being resolved by governments. This is pure nonsense. Governments are agencies of force – governments do not persuade, governments do not reason, governments do not motivate, governments do not encourage, governments do not resolve disputes. Governments have no more power to create morality then rape has to create love. A gun is only useful in self-defense; it cannot be used to create virtue.
    For somebody who is an anarchist, you sure do sound like a politician! Wasn’t that just a complete dodge of the question?

    Excellent catch! Here is as good a place as any to introduce you to the concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs). This concept cannot answer every conceivable question you might have about dispute resolutions within a stateless society, but rather is a framework for understanding the methodology of dispute resolution – just as the scientific method cannot answer every possible question about the natural world, but rather points towards a methodology that allows those questions to be answered in a rational manner.

    DROs are companies that specialize in insuring contracts between individuals, and resolving any disputes that might arise. For instance, if I borrow $1,000 from you, I may have to pay $10 to a DRO to insure my loan. If I fail to pay you back your money, the DRO will pay you instead. Obviously, as my credit rating improves, the cost of insuring my contracts will decline.

    The DRO theory can be as complex as any other free market theory – and a lot of intellectual effort has gone into resolving how particular transactions might occur, such as multimillion dollar international contracts. Credible DRO theories have also been advanced that solve problems ranging from abortion to child abuse to murder to pollution. For more on DRO theory and practice, please see “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives” below.
    But what about the roads?

    The most important thing to understand about anarchism is that it is a moral theory which cannot logically be judged by consequences alone. For instance, the abolition of slavery was a moral imperative, because slavery as an institution is innately evil. The abolition of slavery was not conditional upon the provision of jobs for every freed slave. In a similar manner, anarchic theory does not have to explain how every conceivable social, legal or economic transaction could occur in the absence of a coercive government. What is important to understand is that the initiation of the use of force is a moral evil. With that in mind, we can approach the problem of roads more clearly.

    First of all, roads are currently funded through the initiation of force. If you do not pay the taxes which support road construction, you will get a stern letter from the government, followed by a court date, followed by policemen coming to your house if you do not appear and submit to the court’s judgment. If you use force to defend yourself against the policemen who are breaking into your home, you will very likely be shot down.

    The roads, in other words, are built at the point of a gun. The use of violence is the central issue, not what might potentially happen in the absence of violence.

    That having been said, roads will be built by housing developers, mall builders, those constructing schools and towns – just as they were before governments took them over in the 19th century. For more on this, please see the section on “Roads” below.
    Okay – here’s a scenario for you: a guy builds a road that completely encircles a suburban neighborhood, and then charges $1 million for anyone to cross that road. Isn’t he holding everyone who lives in that neighborhood hostage?

    This is fundamentally impossible. First of all, no one is going to buy a house in a neighborhood unless they are contractually guaranteed access to roads. Thus it will be impossible for anyone to completely encircle the neighborhood. Secondly, even if it were possible, it would be a highly risky investment. Can you imagine going to investors with a business plan that said: “I’m going to try to buy all the land that surrounds the neighborhood, and then charge exorbitant rates for anyone to cross that land.” No sane investor would give you the money for such a plan. The risk of failure would be too great, and no DRO would enforce any contract that was so destructive, unpopular and economically unfeasible. DROs, unlike governments, must be appealing to the general population. If a DRO got involved with the encircling and imprisonment of a neighborhood, it would become so unpopular that it would lose far more business than it could potentially gain.
    All right, smarty-pants – what about this: the company that supplies water to a neighborhood suddenly decides to increase its rates Tenfold – people are going to be forced to pay the exorbitant price, right?

    First of all, if you are so concerned about people paying increasingly exorbitant prices for services, then it scarcely seems logical to propose the government as the solution to that problem! Taxes have risen immensely over the past 30 years, while services have declined.

    However, even if we accept the premise of the problem, it is easily solved in a stateless society. First of all, no one will buy a house in a neighborhood without a contractual obligation that requires the supply of water at reasonable rates. Secondly, if the water company starts charging exorbitant prices, another company will simply move in and supply water in another form – in barrels, bottles or whatever. Thus, raising prices permanently costs the water company its customers – and makes every potential customer back away, for fear that the same predation will happen to them. Investors will quickly realize that the water company is shooting itself in the foot, and will align themselves with other shareholders, resulting in a takeover of the price-gouging water company, and a reduction in rates, accompanied by rank apologies and base groveling. Given that this result will be known in advance, no CEO would be allowed to pursue such a self-destructive course. Only governments that can be manipulated by corporations to prevent competition truly endanger consumers.
    Okay – what if two DROs have different rules – isn’t that just going to result in endless civil war?

    First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible. Internet service providers exchange data with other service providers, passing e-mails and other data back and forth. Like evolution, the free market is more about cooperation than pure competition. If a DRO wants to create a new rule, that rule will be fairly useless unless other DROs are willing to cooperate with it – just as a new e-mail program is fairly useless unless it uses existing protocols. This need for interoperability with other DROs will inevitably keep the number of new rules to the most economically efficient minimum. Customers will prefer DROs with broader reciprocity agreements, just as they prefer credit cards that are valid in a large number of locations.

    New rules will also add to the costs for DRO subscribers – and if it costs them more money than it saves, the DRO will lose business.
    But – won’t the most successful DRO just arm itself, violently eliminate all the other DROs, and emerge as a new government?

    First of all, if the potential emergence of a new government at some point in the future is of great concern, then surely the elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthy goal. If we have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it in the present, even though we may get cancer again at some point in the future.

    Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violent institutions. DROs will be primarily populated by white-collar workers: accountants, mediators, executives and so on. DROs are about as likely to become paramilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely to become an elite squad of ninja death warriors. Given the current existence of governments that possess nuclear weapons, I for one am willing to take that risk.

    Thirdly, if a DRO tries to turn itself into a government, the other DROs will certainly act to prevent it. DROs would simply refuse to cooperate with any DRO that refused to submit to “arms inspections.” Furthermore, DRO customers would also not take very kindly to their DRO becoming an armed institution – and their rates would certainly skyrocket, because their DRO would have to provide its regular services, as well as pay for all those black helicopters and RPGs. Any DRO that was paying for goods or services that its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly go out of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates. For more on this, please see “War, Profit and the State” below.
    Are There Any Examples Of Anarchic Societies Being Successful In The Past?

    There are, but that is not the essential question. Again, the essential aspect of anarchic theory is the moral rule banning the initiation of the use of force. Anarchists advocate a stateless society because governments are evil. When slavery was abolished for the first time in human history, there was no prior example of a successful slave–free society — if that had been a requirement, then slavery would be with us still.

    That having been said, I can confidently point towards a nonviolent society that you’re intimately aware of – you. I am guessing that you do not use violence directly to achieve your aims. It seems likely to me that you did not hold your employer hostage until you got your job; I also doubt that you keep your spouse locked in the basement, or that you threaten to shoot your “friends” if they do not join you on the dance floor. In other words, you are the perfect example of a stateless society. All of your personal relationships are voluntary, and do not involve the use of force. You are an anarchic microcosm – to see how a stateless society works, all you have to do is look in the mirror.
    How can a society without a government pay for national defense?

    Many people, when first hearing the concept of a stateless society, cannot imagine how collective defense could possibly be paid for in the absence of taxation. I have already briefly discussed this above – here are some more details.

    This is an important question to ask, but there is a way of answering it that also answers many other questions about collective action.

    In any society, there are four possibilities that can occur in the realm of collective defense. The first is that no one wants to pay for collective defense. The second is that only a minority of people want to pay for collective defense; the third is that the majority of people want to pay for collective defense; and the fourth is that everyone wants to pay for collective defense.

    Let’s compare how these four possibilities play out in a state-based democracy:

    No one wants to pay for collective defense. In this case, voters will universally reject any politician who proposes collective defense of any kind.
    Only a minority of people want to pay for collective defense. In this case, no politician who proposes paying for collective defense will ever get into office, because he will never secure a majority of the votes.
    The majority of people want to pay for collective defense. In this case, pro-defense politicians will be voted into office, and spend tax money on defense.
    Everyone wants to pay for collective defense. This achieves the same outcome as number three.

    Thus, all other things being equal, a democracy produces almost the same outcome as a stateless society – with the important exception of #2. If only a minority of people want to pay for defense, they cannot do so in a democracy, but can do so in a stateless society.

    In a stateless society, if the majority of people are interested in paying for collective defense, it will be paid for. The addition of the government to the interaction is entirely superfluous – the equivalent of creating a Ministry devoted to communicating the pleasures of candy to children, or sex to teenagers.

    However, the possibility exists that people are willing to pay for collective defense only if they know that everyone else is paying for it as well. This argument fails on multiple levels, both empirical and rational.

    People tip waiters and give to charity, even though they know that some people never do.
    There is no reason why, in a stateless society, people should not have full knowledge of who has donated to collective defense. Agencies providing collective defense could easily issue a “donor card,” which certain shops or employers might ask to see before doing business. Names of donors could also be put on a website, easily searchable, creating social pressures to donate.
    When the money required for collective defense is stripped from taxpayers at the point of a gun, a basic moral tenet – and rational criterion – is violated. Citizens institute collective defense in order to protect their property – it makes no sense whatsoever to create an agency to protect property rights and then invest that agency with the power to violate property rights at will.
    When collective defense is paid for by the initiation of the use of force, there is no rational ceiling to costs, and no incentive for efficiency – thus ensuring that costs will escalate to the point where they become unsustainable, causing a collapse of the economic system and leaving the country vulnerable.

    What about education?

    The question of education follows the same pattern as the question of collective defense outlined above. However, there are certain additional pieces of information that can strengthen the case for a free market in education.

    First of all, it is important understand that State education was not imposed because children were not being educated. Prior to the institution of government-run education, the functional literacy rate of the average American was over 90% – far better than it is now, after hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent “educating” children. Before the government forcefully took over the schools, there was almost no violence in schools, there were no school shootings, no violent gangs, no assaults on teachers – and it did not take more than two decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a reasonably-educated adult. Most of the intellectual giants of the 18th and 19th centuries – the Founding Fathers included – did not even finish high school, let alone go to college.

    Government education in America was instituted as a means of cultural control, due to rising tribal fears about the growing number of non-Protestants in society – the “immigrant issue” of the time.

    There are a number of core reasons that government education cripples children’s minds; for the sake of brevity, we will deal with only one here.

    It is reasonable to assume that the majority of parents want to give their children a good education – and this education must necessarily include the teaching of values, or the relationship between personal ethics and real-world choices. In any multicultural society, however, a common curriculum cannot include any fundamental values, for fear of offending various groups. Thus values must be stripped from education, turning its focus to rote memorization, bland technical skills (geometry, sports, wood shop), and neutral and propagandistic views of society and politics (“Democracy is good!” “Respect multiculturalism!” “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!”). This effectively kills the energetic curiosity of the young, turns school into a mind-numbing series of empty exercises, creates frustration among those needing stimulation, and engenders deep disrespect for the educational system – and its teachers – who remain institutionally indifferent to the welfare of the students. Combine this hostility and frustration with the easy money available through drug sales – and the possibility of surviving on welfare – and entire generations of youths become mentally crippled. The costs of this are beyond calculation, since the damage goes far beyond economics.
    Yes, but how will poor children get an education if it is not paid for through taxes?

    This reminds me of the old Soviet cartoon – two old women are standing in an endless line-up to buy bread. One says to the other: “What a terribly long line!” The other replies: “Yes, but just imagine – in the capitalist countries, the government doesn’t even distribute the bread!”

    Whenever I argue for a stateless society, I say: “The government should not provide ‘X’.” The response always comes back: “But how will ‘X’ then be provided?”

    As mentioned above, the answer is simple: “Since everybody is concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.” In other words, since everyone is concerned that poor children might not get an education because it costs too much, those children will be provided an education as a direct result of everyone’s concern.

    Look, either you will help poor children get an education, through charity or volunteering, or you will not. If you will help poor children get an education, you do not have to worry about the issue. If you will do nothing to help poor children get an education, it is pure hypocrisy to raise it as an issue that you claim to be concerned about.

    That having been said, there are a number of ways that a free society can provide education that is far superior to the mess being inflicted on children now.

    First of all, poor children are not currently getting any sort of decent education. The perceived risks of a stateless society cannot be rationally compared to a perfect situation in the here-and-now. Those most concerned with the education of the poor should be the ones most clamouring for the abolishment of the existing system. The educational statistics for poor children are absolutely appalling – and this should raise the urgency of finding a solution. It is one thing to say, “You should never cross a road against the lights, even if there is no traffic.” It is quite another thing to say, “You should never cross a road against the lights, even if you are being chased by a lion!” Those who oppose a stateless society always ignore the existence of the lion, thus adding their intellectual inertia to the weight of the status quo.

    Secondly, much like the question of collective defense, the cost of education will be far lower in a free society. The $10,000-$15,000 a year currently being spent per-pupil in public schools is ridiculously overinflated. Year-round accelerated education would help the child graduate several years earlier – and with tangible job skills to boot! The resulting increase in earnings would more than pay for the education – and many companies would scramble to offer loans to such children, knowing that they would be paid off soon after graduation. Thus education would be more beneficial – and, since there would be no war on drugs or automatic “welfare” in a free society, fewer self-destructive options would be available.

    As for higher education, it is either recreational or vocational. If it is recreational, then it is about as necessary as a hobby, and cannot be considered a necessity. If it is vocational, such as medicine, then additional earnings will more than pay for the costs of the education. Businesses need accountants – thus those businesses will be more than happy to fund the college expenses of talented youngsters in return for a work commitment after graduation. (This is how my father received his doctorate.)

    Talented but poor children will be sought after by schools, both for the benevolence they can show by subsidizing them, and also because high-quality graduates raise the prestige of a school, enabling it to increase fees.

    In a stateless society, a tiny minority of poor children may slip through the cracks – but that is far better than the current situation, where most poor children slip through the cracks. The fact that some non-smokers will get lung cancer does not mean that we should encourage people to smoke. A stateless society is not a utopia, it is merely a utopia compared to a government society.

    Shurakai on
  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    I will simply add that areas densely populated with humans need dense amounts of rules and regulations. If there were ten people in the world, with limited amounts of technology, then they could theoretically do whatever they wanted without doing long term damage to their surroundings. (Whether they would do long term damage to one another is a different story.)

    But with the current population of the US? Sorry, no. The sewage situation alone would sink the Libertarian enterprise. You can't just have everyone doing their own thing. You have to organize and carefully plan the system. You need a regular schedule of repairs and maintenance--BEFORE anything breaks. You need to make sure none of the pipes are dumping into a source of drinking water or by a beach. This takes a lot of top-down decision-making and making sure everyone complies--GOVERNING them, if you will.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I am just having fun. That is allowed, isn't it? Anywho, I may spend some time eventually constructing an OP similar to Ray's, because its really the only way to go about it. There is proof, there is logical and philosophic consistency. Hell, there is even a rational proof of ethics someone designed from scratch. Don't let my whimsical attitude convince you otherwise.
    Perhaps you could spend some of that time actually replying to the posts demonstrating your and ray's ideas have never worked.

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    LadyM wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    That is a what-if question, but the answer is pretty much "Be smarter than the Moriori".

    Which we are, if you haven't noticed.

    Wow, nice.

    Why exactly do you think you are smarter than the Moriori?

    Clearly the answer is that we have a strong central government with a large standing army paid for with taxes. But, you know, gloss over that.

    Also, does anyone else find it comically offensive that a group of people espousing this Libertarian doctrine are now nearly extinct as a people, and the best response its proponent can come up with is "Be smarter!" What a horrible response to a group of people butchered for their resources.

    If "be smarter" is the best you can do, why are you even arguing in this thread?
    Well it is unfair to call the Moriori libertarian, but I am not an expert in their culture or anything. They had a pretty small population and lived off the ocean in a pretty inhospitable enviornment. There are plenty of examples of societies like this existing without really needing a formal government structure just because their polulation is so small and no one is really a specialist. What makes the Moriori an interesting/sad case to me is that they were total pacificts who ended up getting slaughtered. It is pretty much what we would expect to happen if the Amish lacked the protection of a larger society.

    Let me clarify, I don't believe that this group of people held Libertarian philosophy in any high regard. In fact, it would be unsurprising to me if their belief structure was entirely unrelated and they were more socialist in nature. The point I was trying to make, was that they shared commonalities with Libertarian beliefs, such as Non-Aggression, communal harmony, and lack of a centralized government structure. Those are some of the key principles that Anarchist/Libertarians attempt to claim are functional substitutes for "monopolistic" government.

    And, sadly, once a group came along that didn't share their belief system, they butchered them. This is a fundamentally sound counter-argument to the idea that Anarchism/Libertarianism can thrive on its own merits. My umbrage was rather than Shurakai offering us anything worth of intellectual value as to why that may be an exception, or why that would not happen - all we get is "Be Smarter."

    I found that insulting, both to those people and to the people here trying to give both Ray And Shurakai the benefit of the doubt by arguing in good faith.

    "Be smarter" is the worst kind of dismissive, callous, intellectual elitism that makes me wonder how this thread had gone more than 2 pages.

  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    We do have DROs in real life. They are called collection agencies and/or insurance companies.

    Turns out they have to be heavily regulated by the government so they don't abuse their positions.

    Neofly on
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    Read the FAQ, it is pretty much as terrible as those videos posted early. It makes the same argument you do, that voluntary charity will compensate from for a lack of government systems like social security but this isn't true. Once again we know this because we tried it, we had a system where there was no welfare or social security and people starved to death.

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    "DROs are companies that specialize in insuring contracts between individuals, and resolving any disputes that might arise. For instance, if I borrow $1,000 from you, I may have to pay $10 to a DRO to insure my loan."

    It's cool bro. I print my own money.


    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    whooooboy

    - Do State armies actually defend citizens?

    YES. If you have an army, no one is going to roll right over you for no particular reason. See also: Moriori getting wiped out by the Maori.

    - Does State policing actually protect private property?

    YES. If there's a decent police force around, things generally stay quieter. Also, they can help retrieve stolen/lost private property: See any number of times police have tracked down something stolen.

    - Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?

    IT DAMN WELL DOESN'T HURT.

    - Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?

    Sidestepping the issue, just because a government does something idiotic occaisonally doesn't mean the all government, everywhere needs to be dismantled. This is called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    - Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?

    See above.

    Also, the entire block seems to ignore that governments existed well before the 19th century. See: "That having been said, roads will be built by housing developers, mall builders, those constructing schools and towns – just as they were before governments took them over in the 19th century. For more on this, please see the section on “Roads” below. "

    Have you, by chance, heard of Rome? They, through conquest and through some political skulduggery, ended up at the head of a thing called the Roman Empire. They built a system of roads. We shall call them Roman Roads.

    They were funded in part by taxes, and were in fact a military responsibility. Municipalities were required to maintain them. Not unlike our current Interstate System, which was planned primarily to make troop movements easier.

    You don't get to appeal to "pre-19th century" anything when there's still-used extant examples of publicly funded roads from Five hundred BC.

    MechMantis on
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    Shuraki, there are a number of statements in that faq which are 100% historically false. Never mind his opinionson how people would act there is simple flat out incorrect information.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    The FAQ also hand waves away details. As if details aren't the most important part of running a society. It's the details that are what prevent people starving in the street.

  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    Shurakai, there are a number of statements in that faq which are 100% historically false. Never mind his opinionson how people would act there is simple flat out incorrect information.

    I never claimed it was perfect or accurate. In fact I am still figuring this shit out, myself. I am glad to see you guys are able to wield your might swords of intellect in its general direction!

    Debate is fun! Hence why you all post here.

    It seems I have received an infraction for participating in this thread. How fun! I guess I learned my lesson. I shall now go lurk in the dark, sheltered corners of obscurity once again. Nice talking to you all.


  • AmphetamineAmphetamine Registered User regular
    MechMantis nailed it. That... diatribe or whatever is provably and demonstrably horrible and wrong.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    You didn't receive an infraction for posting here. You received one for breaking the rules.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Shurakai, there are a number of statements in that faq which are 100% historically false. Never mind his opinionson how people would act there is simple flat out incorrect information.

    I never claimed it was perfect or accurate. In fact I am still figuring this shit out, myself. I am glad to see you guys are able to wield your might swords of intellect in its general direction!

    Debate is fun! Hence why you all post here.

    It seems I have received an infraction for participating in this thread. How fun! I guess I learned my lesson. I shall now go lurk in the dark, sheltered corners of obscurity once again. Nice talking to you all.

    It is because you aren't actually debating, you are saying things like that the solution is to be smarter and that you have a solution to a problem but you won't tell us.
    Edit: Here is the thing. I think it would be great if anarchist collectives could work. I think it would be great if we could all just be pacifist and not worry about getting invaded and if government welfare could be replaced by private charity in a way that no one would get left behind. All of these would be nice, I just don't think they would ever actually happen. It is like you came here and talked about a car that ran on water and when you were criticized acted like we all think that it would be a bad thing if it worked. A car that ran on water would be awesome, it is just also impossible.

    Neaden on
  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The reason we are shitting on your ideas and the reason you received an infraction are the same.

    I know what it is, but I won't tell you.

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Furu wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I may spend some time eventually constructing an OP similar to Ray's, because its really the only way to go about it.

    This is probably the surest sign that your argument is bad.

    Well I could keep throwing anecdotes and ethics lessons at you, but that doesn't seem to go over too well. It's almost as if people are curious and want factual evidence!

    I totally get that, guys.

    I'll leave you with this. Its a short section followed by a FAQ from a pretty decent book on the subject (Practical Anarchy, Stefan Molyneux). Being a rather large block of text, If you actually read this, you rock.

    Part 1

    When considering statist objections to anarchic solutions, the six questions below are most useful.

    Does the government actually solve the problem in question?

    People often say that government courts “solve” the problem of injustice. However, these courts can take many years to render a verdict – and cost the plaintiff and defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Government courts are also used to harass and intimidate, creating a “chilling effect” for unpopular opinions or groups. Thus I find it essential to question the embedded premises of statism:

    - Do State armies actually defend citizens?

    - Does State policing actually protect private property?


    - Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?

    - Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?


    - Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?

    It can be very tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that the existing statist approach is actually a solution – but I try to avoid taking that for granted, since it is so rarely the case.

    Can the criticism of the anarchic solution be equally applied to the statist solution?

    One of the most common objections to a stateless society is the fear that a political monopoly could somehow emerge from a free market of competing justice agencies. In other words, anarchism is rejected because it contains the mere possibility of political monopoly. However, if political monopoly is such a terrible evil, then a statist society – which is founded on just such a political monopoly – must be rejected even more firmly, just as we would always choose the mere possibility of cancer over actually having cancer.

    Is anarchy accepted as a core value in nonpolitical spheres?

    In my last book, “Everyday Anarchy,” I pointed out the numerous spheres in society where anarchy is both valued and defended, such as dating, career choices, education and so on. If anarchy is dismissed as “bad” overall, then it also must be “bad” in these other spheres as well. Unless the person criticizing anarchy is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the value of anarchy in certain spheres must at least be recognized. Thus anarchy cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.

    Would the person advocating statism perform State functions himself?

    Most of us recognize and accept the right to use violence in an extremity of self-defense. Those who support statism recognize that, in this realm, State police merely formalize a right that everyone already has, namely the right of self-defense. A policeman can use force to protect a citizen from being attacked, just as that citizen can use force himself. However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?

    Can something be both voluntary and coercive at the same time?

    Everyone recognizes that an act cannot be both “rape” and “lovemaking” simultaneously. Rape requires force, because the victim is unwilling; lovemaking does not. Because no action can be both voluntary and coercive at the same time, statists cannot appeal to the principle of “voluntarism” when defending the violence of the State. Statists cannot say that we “agree” to be taxed, and then say that taxation must be coercive. If we agree to taxation, the coercion is unnecessary – if we do not agree to taxation, then we are coerced against our will.





    Ok, so now you are actually using evidence and attempting to argue in good faith. I'm glad we got out of Gooseryville. There are so many problems with this person's assertions, from the first sentence onward. There are a number of assumptions and logical fallacies at play throughout this text (and yes, to humor you, I did read it), but most importantly there is a severe disconnect between what this person believes government is, and what it actually is.

    Here are some choice examples:
    "Does the government actually solve the problem in question?"

    Very few "statists" will ever make the claim that Government is a panacea. The argument is NEVER Government intervention will 100% fully and unequivocally solve the problem. It is almost always, "Does the Government regulating this activity provide a better solution than nothing?" In some cases, the answer is yes! In others, the answer is no! But a centralized Government does not imply a complete and full solution to any problem.
    "People often say that government courts “solve” the problem of injustice. However, these courts can take many years to render a verdict – and cost the plaintiff and defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Government courts are also used to harass and intimidate, creating a “chilling effect” for unpopular opinions or groups.

    There are some severe logical impediments here, but namely: just because something doesn't fully solve injustice, does not mean that the alternative (no court whatsoever) is better. There is a fundamental gap of logic here - that if something isn't working 100% correctly all the time, clearly it is broken and should be replaced. That is not how most things work; there are acceptable tolerances for failure in a number of social areas, Government being one of them. So long as your court system is still better than nothing, you opt to improve it rather than smash it with a hammer.

    Additionally, I do not know what court system he is citing, but individuals in the U.S. have a right to a fair and speedy trial. I don't know what this talk about "years" non-sense is, unless he specifically citing appellate cases, in which case that is strong indicator that the process is working. The wealth issue is a problem, and one of the weakest areas of our system that needs to be addressed.

    Roz on
  • CapfalconCapfalcon Tunnel Snakes Rule Capital WastelandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    All right, let's take a look at this solution.
    - Do State armies actually defend citizens?
    Yeah, actually. I have a hard time remembering the last time the United States got invaded. Probably because I wasn't alive when it happened.

    - Does State policing actually protect private property?
    Yep.

    - Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?
    No, it doesn't solve it. But it's better than the Gilded Age.

    - Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?
    Nope.

    - Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?
    How would an anarchy deal with crime without coercive methods?

    It can be very tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that the existing statist approach is actually a solution – but I try to avoid taking that for granted, since it is so rarely the case.
    Can the criticism of the anarchic solution be equally applied to the statist solution?

    One of the most common objections to a stateless society is the fear that a political monopoly could somehow emerge from a free market of competing justice agencies. In other words, anarchism is rejected because it contains the mere possibility of political monopoly. However, if political monopoly is such a terrible evil, then a statist society – which is founded on just such a political monopoly – must be rejected even more firmly, just as we would always choose the mere possibility of cancer over actually having cancer.
    No. That's not it at all. The problem isn't with having a monopoly on force. It's the face that it's literally "Strongest Makes The Rules." Right now, the strongest is the government, and that's pretty much never going to change. But, I think most people will agree that the current situation is better than a dictatorship.
    Would the person advocating statism perform State functions himself?

    Most of us recognize and accept the right to use violence in an extremity of self-defense. Those who support statism recognize that, in this realm, State police merely formalize a right that everyone already has, namely the right of self-defense. A policeman can use force to protect a citizen from being attacked, just as that citizen can use force himself. However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?

    It is moral for an elected government to enforce its decrees, as long as the decree itself isn't immoral. I don't think charging for a service is that immoral. And if you're asking if I want to work for the IRS or the police, well no, I don't want to work for them. But that's because that isn't what I want to do with my life.
    Can something be both voluntary and coercive at the same time?

    Everyone recognizes that an act cannot be both “rape” and “lovemaking” simultaneously. Rape requires force, because the victim is unwilling; lovemaking does not. Because no action can be both voluntary and coercive at the same time, statists cannot appeal to the principle of “voluntarism” when defending the violence of the State. Statists cannot say that we “agree” to be taxed, and then say that taxation must be coercive. If we agree to taxation, the coercion is unnecessary – if we do not agree to taxation, then we are coerced against our will.

    So? Coercion is not inherently evil. Seriously, coercion is the basis of the human interaction. If you don't do something your group likes, there will be punishment. The punishment may be physical (you get suckerpunched), social (you get shunned or blacklisted from the good parties), or even verbal (someone curses you out). Until you can prove to me that coercion is inherently wrong, I don't even accept this as an argument.

    And the answer to pretty much the entire second half is "Gilded Age."

    EDIT: Boy am I late to the party.

    Capfalcon on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Shurakai, there are a number of statements in that faq which are 100% historically false. Never mind his opinionson how people would act there is simple flat out incorrect information.
    I never claimed it was perfect or accurate. In fact I am still figuring this shit out, myself. I am glad to see you guys are able to wield your might swords of intellect in its general direction!
    If you didn't intend for it to be accurate... then why did you post it?

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Would a Libertarian society consider joining the UN? It seems like refusal to take part in global treaties might make them even more of a target for brigands and carpet baggers than simply lacking a centralized defense force and legal system.

    Ash/Shurakai?

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Yeah. Your not doing much to disprove my second post if you don't even know what you're posting.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited April 2012

    It also uses some pretty transparently weak logic
    However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?
    Fallacy of Division

    Everything boils down to
    What is important to understand is that the initiation of the use of force is a moral evil.
    This is not supported, nor is "initiation" defined. One must presupposed that government is illegitimate before this is true.


    "DRO"s is foolishness that handwaves away how these entities would come into effect, enforce their decisions or maintain fairness.
    DROs are companies that specialize in insuring contracts between individuals, and resolving any disputes that might arise. For instance, if I borrow $1,000 from you, I may have to pay $10 to a DRO to insure my loan. If I fail to pay you back your money, the DRO will pay you instead. Obviously, as my credit rating improves, the cost of insuring my contracts will decline.

    The DRO theory can be as complex as any other free market theory – and a lot of intellectual effort has gone into resolving how particular transactions might occur, such as multimillion dollar international contracts. Credible DRO theories have also been advanced that solve problems ranging from abortion to child abuse to murder to pollution. For more on DRO theory and practice, please see “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives” below.
    But what about the roads?
    ...
    First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible. Internet service providers exchange data with other service providers, passing e-mails and other data back and forth. Like evolution, the free market is more about cooperation than pure competition. If a DRO wants to create a new rule, that rule will be fairly useless unless other DROs are willing to cooperate with it – just as a new e-mail program is fairly useless unless it uses existing protocols. This need for interoperability with other DROs will inevitably keep the number of new rules to the most economically efficient minimum. Customers will prefer DROs with broader reciprocity agreements, just as they prefer credit cards that are valid in a large number of locations.

    New rules will also add to the costs for DRO subscribers – and if it costs them more money than it saves, the DRO will lose business.
    But – won’t the most successful DRO just arm itself, violently eliminate all the other DROs, and emerge as a new government?

    First of all, if the potential emergence of a new government at some point in the future is of great concern, then surely the elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthy goal. If we have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it in the present, even though we may get cancer again at some point in the future.

    Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violent institutions. DROs will be primarily populated by white-collar workers: accountants, mediators, executives and so on. DROs are about as likely to become paramilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely to become an elite squad of ninja death warriors. Given the current existence of governments that possess nuclear weapons, I for one am willing to take that risk.

    Thirdly, if a DRO tries to turn itself into a government, the other DROs will certainly act to prevent it. DROs would simply refuse to cooperate with any DRO that refused to submit to “arms inspections.” Furthermore, DRO customers would also not take very kindly to their DRO becoming an armed institution – and their rates would certainly skyrocket, because their DRO would have to provide its regular services, as well as pay for all those black helicopters and RPGs. Any DRO that was paying for goods or services that its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly go out of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates. For more on this, please see “War, Profit and the State” below.
    "DROs are not violent" is unsupported. Yet these nonviolent entities are supposed to be able to enforce contractual disputes with no ability to actually do anything about it if someone tells them to fuck a duck.

    The reputation of DROs is supposed to prevent them from abuse, but they never explain how this reputation could be appropriately spread, and how there would be any guarantee this information would be accurate.

    The competition from other DROs is supposed to prevent DROs from seizing power, but there's nothing on what would happen if DROs colluded or if all DROs but one were out-competed out of existence.

    This:
    First of all, if the potential emergence of a new government at some point in the future is of great concern, then surely the elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthy goal. If we have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it in the present, even though we may get cancer again at some point in the future.
    Is insulting in its dishonesty. The emergence of a potential violent dictatorship is a great concern, that doesn't mean a democratically elected government should be eliminated.

    Its crap. Its not philosophy. Its not political science or economics. Its not even good speculative fiction. Its half-thought out, masturbatory, poorly formulated bullshit.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Furu wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I may spend some time eventually constructing an OP similar to Ray's, because its really the only way to go about it.

    This is probably the surest sign that your argument is bad.

    Well I could keep throwing anecdotes and ethics lessons at you, but that doesn't seem to go over too well. It's almost as if people are curious and want factual evidence!

    I totally get that, guys.

    I'll leave you with this. Its a short section followed by a FAQ from a pretty decent book on the subject (Practical Anarchy, Stefan Molyneux). Being a rather large block of text, If you actually read this, you rock.

    Part 1

    When considering statist objections to anarchic solutions, the six questions below are most useful.

    Does the government actually solve the problem in question?

    People often say that government courts “solve” the problem of injustice. However, these courts can take many years to render a verdict – and cost the plaintiff and defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Government courts are also used to harass and intimidate, creating a “chilling effect” for unpopular opinions or groups. Thus I find it essential to question the embedded premises of statism:

    - Do State armies actually defend citizens?

    - Does State policing actually protect private property?


    - Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?

    - Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?


    - Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?

    It can be very tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that the existing statist approach is actually a solution – but I try to avoid taking that for granted, since it is so rarely the case.

    Can the criticism of the anarchic solution be equally applied to the statist solution?

    One of the most common objections to a stateless society is the fear that a political monopoly could somehow emerge from a free market of competing justice agencies. In other words, anarchism is rejected because it contains the mere possibility of political monopoly. However, if political monopoly is such a terrible evil, then a statist society – which is founded on just such a political monopoly – must be rejected even more firmly, just as we would always choose the mere possibility of cancer over actually having cancer.

    Is anarchy accepted as a core value in nonpolitical spheres?

    In my last book, “Everyday Anarchy,” I pointed out the numerous spheres in society where anarchy is both valued and defended, such as dating, career choices, education and so on. If anarchy is dismissed as “bad” overall, then it also must be “bad” in these other spheres as well. Unless the person criticizing anarchy is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the value of anarchy in certain spheres must at least be recognized. Thus anarchy cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.

    Would the person advocating statism perform State functions himself?

    Most of us recognize and accept the right to use violence in an extremity of self-defense. Those who support statism recognize that, in this realm, State police merely formalize a right that everyone already has, namely the right of self-defense. A policeman can use force to protect a citizen from being attacked, just as that citizen can use force himself. However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?

    Can something be both voluntary and coercive at the same time?

    Everyone recognizes that an act cannot be both “rape” and “lovemaking” simultaneously. Rape requires force, because the victim is unwilling; lovemaking does not. Because no action can be both voluntary and coercive at the same time, statists cannot appeal to the principle of “voluntarism” when defending the violence of the State. Statists cannot say that we “agree” to be taxed, and then say that taxation must be coercive. If we agree to taxation, the coercion is unnecessary – if we do not agree to taxation, then we are coerced against our will.





    You haven't been giving the forum anecdotes or ethic lessons, you've given vague responses that have been logically taken apart. If you can't articulate your theories property to convince a video-game message board that your politics are worthy enough to gain converts you've already lost the argument. Also, enough with repeating stuff other people wrote or did to defend your political theories, explain your thought process yourself we're not going to do that for you.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    I started going through this, but then I started hating life.

    Part 1

    When considering statist objections to anarchic solutions, the six questions below are most useful.

    Does the government actually solve the problem in question?

    The question should really be 'Does the government alleviate the problem better/more efficiently than any other known method'.
    People often say that government courts “solve” the problem of injustice. However, these courts can take many years to render a verdict – and cost the plaintiff and defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Government courts are also used to harass and intimidate, creating a “chilling effect” for unpopular opinions or groups.

    Here it implies problems with the 'statist' method without actually discussing better methods, or whether it actually is a 'problem' at all. No one claims that the government has 'solved' injustice, because anyone who claims they can 'solve' injustice is an idiot, and the fact that this author keeps discussing 'solving' problems makes him sound like a huge idiot. The fact that courts can take years to render a verdict is not particularly a negative, as the courts focus more on fairness than expediency (as they should). There are also substantial safeguards in place to prevent legal harassment and intimidation, which this does not address.

    Thus I find it essential to question the embedded premises of statism:

    - Do State armies actually defend citizens?

    - Does State policing actually protect private property?


    - Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?

    - Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?


    - Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?

    It can be very tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that the existing statist approach is actually a solution – but I try to avoid taking that for granted, since it is so rarely the case.

    Again, more condescension with nothing to back it up. This author sounds like a windbag. Also more questions of 'solving' poverty and crime, showing that the author is approximately 13 years old.
    Can the criticism of the anarchic solution be equally applied to the statist solution?

    One of the most common objections to a stateless society is the fear that a political monopoly could somehow emerge from a free market of competing justice agencies. In other words, anarchism is rejected because it contains the mere possibility of political monopoly. However, if political monopoly is such a terrible evil, then a statist society – which is founded on just such a political monopoly – must be rejected even more firmly, just as we would always choose the mere possibility of cancer over actually having cancer.

    Political monopoly is not always a terrible evil, but having a political monopoly which is not democratic is. The statist approach ensures that the monopoly is one chosen by the people it governs, and the people can ensure the dominance of that one. In a society with competing, uncertain political forces, it is easier for a non-democratic force to gain power, as it can grow in power quickly, and overwhelm others.

    Ensuring a dominant democratic state is a form of self-defense in the political sphere.
    Is anarchy accepted as a core value in nonpolitical spheres?

    In my last book, “Everyday Anarchy,” I pointed out the numerous spheres in society where anarchy is both valued and defended, such as dating, career choices, education and so on. If anarchy is dismissed as “bad” overall, then it also must be “bad” in these other spheres as well. Unless the person criticizing anarchy is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the value of anarchy in certain spheres must at least be recognized. Thus anarchy cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.

    I have no idea what anarchy in the dating or education spheres even means, so I'll just pass this by.
    Would the person advocating statism perform State functions himself?

    Most of us recognize and accept the right to use violence in an extremity of self-defense. Those who support statism recognize that, in this realm, State police merely formalize a right that everyone already has, namely the right of self-defense. A policeman can use force to protect a citizen from being attacked, just as that citizen can use force himself. However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?

    Most people wouldn't go around with the gun physically in hand because that's just silly and childish. Just because something is required in a society doesn't mean is has to be done in an intimidating manner.

    At any rate, the two moral categories can be justified very easily, by saying that the state police work as the arm of the people as a whole, and the people have granted them more power than the average citizen is allowed. Each citizen who lives in that society agrees to give up that power, and to grant the police that authority. It's not a huge point of confusion, as just about every society on earth does this.
    Can something be both voluntary and coercive at the same time?

    Everyone recognizes that an act cannot be both “rape” and “lovemaking” simultaneously. Rape requires force, because the victim is unwilling; lovemaking does not. Because no action can be both voluntary and coercive at the same time, statists cannot appeal to the principle of “voluntarism” when defending the violence of the State. Statists cannot say that we “agree” to be taxed, and then say that taxation must be coercive. If we agree to taxation, the coercion is unnecessary – if we do not agree to taxation, then we are coerced against our will.

    When someone signs a contract, that contract contains both rights and duties to the other person. You could just as easily argue that you have no duty to follow a contract you signed, as if the contract coerces you into a duty (by punishing you if you do not fulfill it), then you did not do that duty voluntarily. As such, no contract is performed voluntarily.

    The difference is that both for contracts and societies, you have agreed to the terms, both by signing the document, and by taking part in society and enjoying its benefits. As you have agreed to the terms, you are expected to perform your obligations just the same. As long as the society is fair and democratically chosen by the people, then you are not coerced against your will.


    I think that's enough, part 2 just has more bullshit.

    sig.gif
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Very tangentially related to the current discussion, but what sort of resources are good for self-education about effective methods of debate and/or formal logic? I find myself having a hard time identifying the various logical fallacies, both in my own arguments and in arguments presented by others.

    chrisnl on
    steam_sig.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    But – won’t the most successful DRO just arm itself, violently eliminate all the other DROs, and emerge as a new government?

    First of all, if the potential emergence of a new government at some point in the future is of great concern, then surely the elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthy goal. If we have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it in the present, even though we may get cancer again at some point in the future.

    Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violent institutions. DROs will be primarily populated by white-collar workers: accountants, mediators, executives and so on. DROs are about as likely to become paramilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely to become an elite squad of ninja death warriors. Given the current existence of governments that possess nuclear weapons, I for one am willing to take that risk.

    Thirdly, if a DRO tries to turn itself into a government, the other DROs will certainly act to prevent it. DROs would simply refuse to cooperate with any DRO that refused to submit to “arms inspections.” Furthermore, DRO customers would also not take very kindly to their DRO becoming an armed institution – and their rates would certainly skyrocket, because their DRO would have to provide its regular services, as well as pay for all those black helicopters and RPGs. Any DRO that was paying for goods or services that its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly go out of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates. For more on this, please see “War, Profit and the State” below.

    The first point is just a straw man. It's the nature of these potential new governments(aka warlords), that people object to, not that there will be governments again. Although the non-equalibria of the system makes it inherently flawed.

    Second point is garbage as well. 1) the government is primarily populated by non-warriors, hell the military is as well to a great degree. Every plane needs something like 10-50x the flight time in man-hours worth of maintenance. Then there's all the logistics, admin, etc. No disrespect to the supply officers, mechanics, etc 'An army marches on its stomach' after all.

    2) A group of accountants is not terribly likely to be useful in protecting their own DRO. So DROs(being loaded with $) will at a minimum require armed security. Additionally being made up of substantially non-combatants doesn't weigh for DROs stability. A large non-combatant DRO is prone to being subsumed, by a substantially smaller, but heavily militant DRO. Just how it would only take a relatively small number of people to take over a 2 branch local bank.

    Third Point: 1) One doesn't need that large of a budget to equip a fighting force. Look at Africa, where its mostly light infantry weapons and stuff mounted on the back of pick-ups. Now compare that to say the cost of a Gulfstream, and tell me again that these DROs(which are basically insurance companies) wouldn't be able to fund it. Corporations spend tons of money of their executives, and still stay in business fine
    2) You know what many consumers would want. Police protection. And it's not much of a step from having a police force, to having an army. After all, the police don't do me much good if they won't stop that asshole across the creek from dumping stuff. Or you know, my scum workers from picketing...ohh wait.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    You haven't been giving the forum anecdotes or ethic lessons, you've given vague responses that have been logically taken apart. If you can't articulate your theories property to convince a video-game message board that your politics are worthy enough to gain converts you've already lost the argument. Also, enough with repeating stuff other people wrote or did to defend your political theories, explain your thought process yourself we're not going to do that for you.

    Here I thought I was going to slink into a hidey hole, and you guys are masters at goading me back out again.

    I admit I may have had too much fun in my posts, I apologize for any offense. I'll explain a few things.

    My comment about the Moriori was not meant to be racist or insulting. What I meant (but poorly phrased) was that if there were a solution, it may have been that they did not find it simply because it didn't occur to them. In other words, their destruction may not have been inevitable. We shall never know for sure, of course.

    Thanatos, I posted it because I felt it was well written and fairly convincing, however I knew that its always better to get a second opinion and more pairs of eyes generally lead to a more thorough examination of a subject matter. I could have asked "Could you please give me a second opinion on this piece of writing." But I knew that you guys would do that anyway, because you are awesome.

    I am not out to prove anything. I am here to play with ideas. I have settled on a few conclusions in my life time.. but exposure to the idea that "a government" is not, in fact, a benevolent entity like they teach you in grade school does not allow me to settle so easily into either camp.

    I have already made the most critical argument, which is that, currently, we give 'permission' for a group of people to commit acts of violence against us and others *in the name of good and justice*. I feel there is something very wrong with that.

    From these first principles, I branched outward, exploring whether or not it was truly as 'necessary' to be party to this essential evil. I think most of you here, even if you do realize how abhorrent it is, believe that it is necessary. Arguing that it isn't necessary.. well.. it causes discomfort, which I understand. If suddenly there is an alternative, then supporting every terrible thing we understand to be inherent to the current system is now a choice. A choice which none of us would make, given that humans, for the most part, enjoy being good.

    I want to be a good person. So if there a chance that there is an alternative.. and I don't have to work in order to pay for the slaughter and imprisonment of my fellow human beings, I feel its necessary to look for it, and expose it if possible.



    Shurakai on
  • BehemothBehemoth Compulsive Seashell Collector Registered User regular
    I think the fundamental problem with this thread, and with anarchist arguments in general, is that they are all about asking questions. "Question your assumptions!" they say, because they assume that if people do, they will realize that all governments are immoral, because everyone is rational and should be able to follow the same logic. However, many people, when questioning their assumptions, come back with a different answer.

    "Governments are coercive and coercion is always wrong!"

    Eh, I disagree. Sure, governments are coercive, but they are coercive in a way that benefits me more than it harms me. I don't have to personally go around threatening people just because I support a government, and I don't have to have a gun waved in my face either. The problem is distant and philosophical, and thus doesn't particularly bother me.

    Is the government perfect? Hell fucking no! That's why we should have a conversation about what the government should do differently. Granting that governments have to exist for society to function for the foreseeable future allows you have a much more productive conversation about what government should and should not do. You cannot have that conversation if you're starting from a position that governments are inherently immoral and shouldn't exist at all.

    Let's take an example from the FAQ. The War on Drugs. Do I think it's horribly misguided? Yes. Do I think that every drug should be legalized and sold on the free market? No! No no no! That would be terrible and cause unfathomable human suffering. Maybe society would eventually create some natural, non-coercive method for dealing with violent drug addicts, but in the meantime there would be awful consequences. There has to be some middle ground, and it has to involve government regulation. You can't just say "the government does a horrible thing a terrible way inefficiently. Therefore, it shouldn't exist at all!" It's short-sighted and naive.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    In this thread, there have been illogical, insincere and indefensible arguments from one side, and mostly well-reasoned, well-formed rebuttals on the other side. At no point has anything even approaching a valid argument been provided by one entire side of the debate. At what point does this cease to be a useful debate and just become a practice of tilting at strawmen in order to feel good about ourselves? I mean, I'm enjoying the read, but I think one of the useful things about the D&D forum is that we attempt to hold debaters to a high standard to prevent insanity and ridiculousness from overwhelming the things actually worth discussing.

    What is this I don't even.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible.

    Cell phone companies use similar protocols because governments forced them to. Railroad companies had huge problems settling on gauge [iirc until regulation].

    If you're a company, segregating your customers from others is a valuable strategy, and using different protocols is actually a good thing in many instances. Its not economically efficient, but that is because its market failure!

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?

Sign In or Register to comment.