Thought you all might like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me2wQAQCip8
I need a lot more evidence than a video to accept his thesis. He is saying that the evils of statism flow from how kids are raised by their parents. Prove it, please.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
What a propaganda video that may contradict itself?
Ok, just thought you'd be interested. What do you mean William? Do you think the video is propaganda or contains contradictions?
i didnt see the video. But the parent/child analogy seems reasonable. I have gotten that impression from a lot of people about how they view the government.
I have gotten that impression from a lot of people about how they view the government.
I really liked the "states as farms" argument we discussed here.
Propaganda may be a bit strong a word if it is just an "advetrisment" or introductory video to a series of lectures or whatever, but if that is it the video is void of any content.
The contradiction: If he claims that worshiping a god is funny to people, or statism is funny and bizarre to people for whatever reason, it has to be stated that antistatism can have the same outcome. This is how logic works with these types of claims.
I don't think he is saying that religion or the state seem funny.
I think he is saying that for primitivists there is no such thing as comparative religion or even religion at all. It just is. Only when people see the bigger world do people see something 'strange' in other cultures called a religion. Today, religions -- for other people -- seem incomprehensible. Even other people's governments seem ridiculous.
Then he is saying that the state is just another religion. Granted, this relies on appealing to people who have already rejected religion.
I would be very surprised to hear an anarchist parent -- at least a principled one (which may include any of the types of anarchism) -- having a statist child. Could you imagine if Murray Rothbard or Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Lew Rockwell or Walter Block or Jeffrey Tucker had a son or daughter who grew up to be some politician or bureaucrat or an annoying wonk or a 'strategist' or whatever? Unthinkable.
Rothbard's friend Howard Buffett begat the statist Warren, although in fairness Howard was a congressman.
Smiling Dave: I need a lot more evidence than a video to accept his thesis. He is saying that the evils of statism flow from how kids are raised by their parents. Prove it, please.
I'm not quite sure that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the ideas we have about government and its role, and how we feel about the state overall...those things mostly come from our parents. At least that's what I got from it. I don't think it's a coincidence that Ted Kennedy spent his entire life in government while Patri Friedman is a founder of the Seasteading Institute.
he says it very explicitly from the 4 minute mark in the video. when kids are bullied etc by their parents, they then accept the bullying of the state. If they arent bullied by their parents, they will reject the bullying of the state.
That sounds different from saying "the evils of statism flow from how kids are raised by their parents." Maybe if you clarified what you meant by that. What is it exactly that you don't agree with?
I'm not disagreeing, as in stating the contrary. I'm saying that what he claims is an unproven assertion.
I think kids may be bullied etc by their parents and yet reject the state, and also that kids who are not bullied by their parents may accept the state. In other words, that the two bullyings are unrelated.
I am not saying for sure that it is so. But his assertion to the contrary, correlating the two bullyings, is a huge statement and needs a lot of evidence that I don't think he has provided.
Okay, perhaps he's going a bit too far to claim pointedly "if kids don't get bullied by their parents they won't accept the state" (if that is indeed what he's saying)...but I don't really gather that that is his actual intention...to make some sort of concrete "if-then" claim of total scientific certainty. I was under the impression his whole contention was that if you don't raise children in the manner of the state, then the state's behavior will be foreign to them. In other words, if you do not act with your children in the manner the state acts with citizens, then the nature of the state will no longer be seen as a legitimate authority figure to be respected and revered (like one's parents...or a religious figure), but it will instead be mostly unknown to the children...to the point of being almost silly and laughable (like the stone cows in National Geographic that look like comic book characters)...and the children will therefore be much less likely to redily accept a state and its encroachment on liberty and its dictates on everyday life.
Much like Americans today are much less likely to accept the notion that a black man is less than a full person, or a woman has less rights than a man. Those ideas are silly and completely primitive to us now...whereas they were taken with total seriousness only a few generations ago. The only difference is each generation grew up in an environment where those notions were less and less accepted. The point the producer of the video is trying to make is that the same is true of the notion of a state...that if children were not fed pro-statist rhetoric and treatment from their parents and schools (where they are forced to write letters to themselves on how they can help the President, or literally sing his praises) then they wouldn't be so likely to accept the blatent violations of rights we are constantly seeing more and more of....and eventually would grow to reject the state all-together.
Full of assertions, short on facts.
This whole "statism as a religion" argument reminds me of how Richard Dawkins and a few other famous atheists claim that Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other "atheist" dictators weren't really atheist, but followers of political religions (e.g. fascism, communism, etc.). Of course, Dawkins has never seemed to realize that he's calling for anarchism...
Anyway, the central argument of this video just seems... wrong. There are plenty of libertarians and anarchists who grew up in a strict household. Besides, the way this guy advocates raising children seems more likely to raise spoiled brats than responsible individuals with respect for the property of others.
I don't even see how this pacifist method of raising children is compatible with libertarian anarchism. In a libertarian anarchist society, you still get punished if you commit a crime. In this model of raising children, it seems like no physical force can be used on children - which makes other tools of punishment (such as time outs) completely meaningless, as the child can easily refuse.
Political Atheists Blog
(I guess this is bump week. Came across this old thread and felt a response)
krazy kaju:Of course, Dawkins has never seemed to realize that he's calling for anarchism...
Anyway, the central argument of this video just seems... wrong. There are plenty of libertarians and anarchists who grew up in a strict household.
So? He never claimed that one couldn't or wouldn't end up libertarian or anarchist if they were raised in a strict household. It sounded to me like all he was implying is that people would be more likely to end up that way if they weren't raised that way...or, more accurately, that they would be less likely/willing to openly, freely, and so easily accept the state's infringement and overbearingness.
Besides, the way this guy advocates raising children seems more likely to raise spoiled brats than responsible individuals with respect for the property of others. I don't even see how this pacifist method of raising children is compatible with libertarian anarchism. In a libertarian anarchist society, you still get punished if you commit a crime. In this model of raising children, it seems like no physical force can be used on children - which makes other tools of punishment (such as time outs) completely meaningless, as the child can easily refuse.
Besides, the way this guy advocates raising children seems more likely to raise spoiled brats than responsible individuals with respect for the property of others.
That's an interesting point. I'm really curious what someone like Patri Friedman's rearing was like...and how someone like Bob Murphy is raising his children. He openly says he's a pacifist anarcho-capitalist...but he's also quite Christian. So I'm wondering how exactly that all works out. Same thing with Tom Woods, who I'm not sure if he's a pacifist, but I'm pretty sure he's ancap, and he's definitely Catholic.
Anyone have any info/links that shed some light on this?