I'm having a debate with a friend of mine. I'm on the anarchy side. Does anybody have any comments on either of our points? Perhaps something one of us overlooked, a fallacy, some sort of jump in reasoning?
"Thats no law, thats just a sword. Happens I got one too"
Alex the Amused: If there is no government, no laws, we would descend into nothing better than tribal warfare.
1. He assumes that law implies government, which is simply not true.
2. Non-sequitor assumption that lack of law implies tribal warfare. It may or may not happen.
Alex the Amused: The government need not justify themselves. "Consent of the governed", goes a certain document based on the writings of John Locke. The man who wrote that was the last politician to have the point of view of "laissez-faire everything".
The first claim is silly, do I not need to justify myself if I am the government? Second, consent of the governed is icky, you should ask him to define consent. The third statement appears to be a red herring.
Alex the Amused:No government would certainly put us at risk. Think of the honest disagreements that take place each day. Think of the desperate criminal stealing and killing only for self-preservation. Think of the corrupt security force that could quickly move into an area and set up any sort of dictatorship they wish. Without an objective arbiter chosen based on a meritocratic method, these disputes could never be resolved. While there is bit more than a SWAT team keeping me from killing my neighbors, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone thinks that way.
1. He asserts that an objective arbiter/government is the only way to solve this.
2. If threat of force kept people from agressing, good defense solutions would incorporate this, such as PDAs.
Schools are labour camps.
Thank you. I'l forward him this page. Any comments on my defense?
And heres the conversation up to date:
Alex the Amused: The Friend: Man is a rational being, but not all are moral rational beings. You will have the bad ones out there that would feel no remorse in initiating force any number of times. If there is no government, no laws, 1 - (i think this was already said) government does not equate law 2 - if there are bad people then why are people given power and control over others and it is ok for them to even initiate coercion upon others, and on top of it people vote them in to exercise this initiated physical aggression over others "Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19 | Post Points: 5
Alex the Amused:I'm having a debate with a friend of mine. I'm on the anarchy side. Does anybody have any comments on either of our points? Perhaps something one of us overlooked, a fallacy, some sort of jump in reasoning?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Alex the Amused:I'm having a debate with a friend of mine. I'm on the anarchy side. Does anybody have any comments on either of our points? Perhaps something one of us overlooked, a fallacy, some sort of jump in reasoning?Other than his emotional appeals and blatant assertions which you've countered quite nicely: no.
Apparently, there is a down side to making a good argument. Theres less to talk about.
Wow you know most people who ask for help on this forum don't know what they're talking about. Can I just say that so far you are doing quite a good job on him. Some things to point out:
Where you are losing:
He said there needs to be an objective law of the land. You don't really address this argument. There are two ways to go about addressing it: If people agree to the laws binding them, then they are legitimate even if they are not the same everywhere. For example I cannot swear on a christian forum and will be banned immediately. But I can swear on other forums, so there is no objective law. Is this a problem? No; because I have agreed to their rules by posting on their forums. Alternatively you can say that a state is no guarantee of objectivity... just look at all the competing interpretations of law in America. I would say that there is less objectivity under state law than private law because the state has zero incentive to do anything for the general good. There are more laws written than any team of lawyers could ever read. The tax code is something like 125lbs. In a society where nobody knows what the rules are, there is chaos, and this is what we have right now. The historic cases of private law like the law merchant yielded homogeneous and voluntary law. You can look it up somewhere on mises. So objective law is possible under a state, but it isn't likely. It is also possible under anarchy that everyone will reach the same conclusions about law. But even if there were an objective standard for law, you would want people competing to interpret it better and better. Even very simple laws like the NAP are difficult to apply in weird circumstances.Where you are winning:Government will grow: Hammer this. Explain why it causes him to lose the argument. You just kind of say it but don't get any offense out of it. This is why he is ignoring it.
Private Firms will not do battle: Good defense. Now for offense. States are more likely to engage in conflict because they externalize their costs onto the citizenry. Nuff said.
Where you can go:Ask him to point out specific historical examples of failed private law. If he can actually find one, research it to make sure there isn't something wierd about the region. Like Somalia is not what anarchy is supposed to look like for a good reason.
Ask him how he thinks he can check government, and even if you could, why would you want to risk it when failure is so catastrophic? Would he ever make a contract with someone else where they got to be judge in their own case?
Alex the Amused:A rather interesting situation. B accidentally may or may not of stolen the car. Well, if either company can't get sufficient evidence, its in their interest to drop the claim, especially if it would end up in full war
Alex the Amused:Apparently, there is a down side to making a good argument. Theres less to talk about.
Ah, just beautiful Snowflake. A truly delicious amount of information. Excellent work! Sincerely, thank you.
Now, to figure out how to best modify my arguments...
Snowflake:I would say that there is less objectivity under state law than private law because the state has zero incentive to do anything for the general good.
sorry, but that is a non-sequitor. Private law may try to be more or less objective than state law when it is implemented, it all depends on how people want their law interpreted. Also, there needs to be a distinction between subjectivity between different law systems and within the same system.
Snowflake:In a society where nobody knows what the rules are, there is chaos, and this is what we have right now.
People may not know the letters of every rule, but many have a general knowledge of the law. Also, how much of the law you cite is actually enforced? Can people get by when they ignore most of it? This statement is an exaggeration of the truth.
I just wanted to clarify some errors that I noticed.
eliotn:but that is a non-sequitor.
eliotn:Private law may try to be more or less objective than state law when it is implemented, it all depends on how people want their law interpreted
eliotn: Also, there needs to be a distinction between subjectivity between different law systems and within the same system.
eliotn:People may not know the letters of every rule, but many have a general knowledge of the law. Also, how much of the law you cite is actually enforced? Can people get by when they ignore most of it? This statement is an exaggeration of the truth.
This is insane! If I have a company, and everyone is trying their best to follow the law, we still probably do something illegal. Oh well... thanks for your response. I get kind of annoyed too when people advocating what I believe in do it carelessly. Perhaps my rhetoric was too strong.
Given where your friend is, I'd say this article would push him over the edge to anarchy. It also, importantly, explains why the better we can detail a justice system in anarchy, the more we argue for minarchy or central planning. So it's a situation where it's precisely because there are so many thorny questions to deal with that minarchy cannot work.
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/gtwebsite/MythWeb.htm
Why anarchy fails
AJ: Given where your friend is, I'd say this article would push him over the edge to anarchy. It also, importantly, explains why the better we can detail a justice system in anarchy, the more we argue for minarchy or central planning. So it's a situation where it's precisely because there are so many thorny questions to deal with that minarchy cannot work. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/gtwebsite/MythWeb.htm
I've only read about a 1/3rd of it so far, but I must say it is quite satisfactory. However, when he speaks of objective ruling he's referring specifically to ruling based on natural rights, which would be much harder to manipulate, in theory at least. Although I suppose in the declaration of independance we outlined natural rights that we said were being violated. Those were ignored almost immediately.
Yeah, I think you got the idea.
You know I don't think we have ever got into a discussion about punishment specifically something like Block's 'reparations plus' theory or I *think* Roderick Long's 'Just reparations' [ I remember him saying in passing that equilibrating justice means returning the individual to the state he was before the crime took place ]
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Personally, what kicked me over the edge was Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I would recommend you listen to his lecture series Economy, Society & History available here at mises. It's quite a lot of material, 15 hours spread over 10 lectures, but it's a magnificent treatise on the history of humanity. What defines us as humans, why property rights are natural rights, and why a coercive government is not needed in order to protect those rights. As I understand the argument, because they are completely natural to us, a monopoly on the arbitration of justice is not necessary in order to have a civil society.
But I think the most devastating argument he makes against the state comes in regard to common law. A common complaint about a society based on natural order (Hoppe's term for anarchy - has a nice ring to it doesn't it?) is that it would be impossible to achieve a system of laws that apply equally to everyone in society. But as justice would in effect be provided through insurance agencies, the market would eventually, as in all other cases on the market, homogenize, so to speak. That is, different insurance agencies would harmonize their contracts because it will simplify arbitration and thus make it more cost-effective for the agency. So even in a system completely devoid of any written law, the market is perfectly capable of providing arbitration of justice.
I could go on and on about this, because I think his work is so incredibly fascinating and revolutionary, and there's so much of it! :) There is much more to it than this, for instance how the time preference of justice arbitrators is affected based on whether they exist in a natural order society, a monarchy or a democracy. I think this is where he truly excels because he brings in the most fundamental concept of Austrian economic theory, time preference, and uses it to explain why it is more desirable to have a free market-based justice system than a monopolized one.
Sorry if I got lengthy, it's just a subject that excites me a lot :)
"...how does this group justify themselves having power? Do they have special rights?"
Governments are ELECTED. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If you have a problem with democracy, then please feel free to go into more detail.
"Secondly, what's wrong with hiring your own security?"
Nothing. You are free to do so even in our current, rather illiberal society. However, not everyone can afford private security, so what you are proposing is actually security for the rich and the law of the jungle for everybody else.
"The only thing that keeps you from murdering your neighbour is the threat of violence from the government?"
No, but prison is certainly a major deterrent for me.
"The idea of anarchy=murder is just state-induced indoctrination at its best."
Somalia?
""I'm perfectly trustworthy, but look out for that guy over there.""
Yeah, there are no criminals in our society. They're a statist myth, right?
VanDoodah: Governments are ELECTED. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If you have a problem with democracy, then please feel free to go into more detail.
Being elected doesn't mean that a politician actually represents someone. A better word for democracy is majoritarianism.
Some good stuff on this is Casey's The Indefensibility of Representation and the Hōppe fettschrift from Ch. 4/pg 235 of the PDF.
VanDoodah:Nothing. You are free to do so even in our current, rather illiberal society. However, not everyone can afford private security, so what you are proposing is actually security for the rich and the law of the jungle for everybody else.
We can have private security to some extent (limited arms), but certainly not many aspects of private justice. States hold a monopoly on violence and justice. Purely arbitrary civil legislation creates uncertainty, as compared to more traditional forms of common law.
The Bill Gates/Hobbesian jungle fallacy is the overwhelmingly most common objection people have when faced with the subject of private security. These people would be trying to operate in the same manner as states, so the approach is the same.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
VanDoodah: "The idea of anarchy=murder is just state-induced indoctrination at its best." Somalia?
The prisoners of the Somali pirates are the best treated of any prisoners of any state. As far as I can tell they have not inflicted a single death so far.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power