http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110118.CL31921&show_article=1
In my libertarian opinion, this is good if it means no one needs to pay taxes. In my conservative opinion, this is bad news it is means a somehow legal expansion of the government.
Some time ago there was a judge who granted a woman's request to sterilize her daughter on the basis of promiscuity, which was ultimately carried out under the guise of an appendectomy. When she tried to get somebody held accountable for this travesty, the court ruled that the hospital couldn't be held liable because they were operating under court order, the mother was faultless since she'd gotten a court order and, while the trial court ruled the judge had overstepped his bounds and need to pay, the appeals court ruled that judges aren't liable for judicial actions, no matter how heinous. Just further proof that relying on the courts to police government action is foolhardy.
the constitution was voided pretty much before the ink was dry. the federal government instituted some kind of mandatory health insurance for sailors within a few years of 1783. it is said that the soviet union's constitution as worded did a better job of guaranteeing civil liberties than ours did. governments will never be restrained by pieces of paper, its illusory.
mouser98:the constitution was voided pretty much before the ink was dry. the federal government instituted some kind of mandatory health insurance for sailors within a few years of 1783. it is said that the soviet union's constitution as worded did a better job of guaranteeing civil liberties than ours did. governments will never be restrained by pieces of paper, its illusory.
Governments will not be restrained by pieces of paper. But governments will be restrained by the people, especially if they have guns. The ink tells the government what line it can't cross, and the people what to put up with. It's up to the people to enforce that. It might not work forever, but it slows down the encroachment of government. That America had one kind of government since the late 18th century, while France had 15, shows that the US constitution has been a remarkable success.
Government will always exist. Even with the best of intentions, the do-gooders will create it and attempt to limit it with a Constitution. But restraint cannot last beyond the lifespan of the Constitution's authors. The more diverse a populace becomes in its values, the smaller to no government must prevail. While the intention to create and restrain government (to defend against the unconstrained government of evil men) is honorable, no government (read: market solutions) in one's defense is offered as a viable alternative by Hans Herman-Hoppe and others of the Austrian School.
I can't help but notice that the source for this story was the defendant himself. So this appears to be a highly biased story. When I have time, I'll look up the actual Supreme Court case.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Lyle:Government will always exist.
Nice to see a clairvoyant among us.
I am no clairvoyant but I've never read of a time in the past when government did not exist. Of course, there are theories that the first society was a governmentless society just as there are theories of a future without government. I agree with Hazlitt that we must not rely on a priorism only, but experience and a priorism.
To say that there will always be government implies clairvoyancy. Otherwise you would've said "I think there will always be government." Either way, of course society precedes government -- how else could government have come about?
> governments will never be restrained by pieces of paper, its illusory.
Win.
Is this any better:
Government will always exist because it has always existed. It has always existed because society has always had enough powerful, intellectually and economically, idiots to create it and society always will.
Really? Government has always existed? Otherwise, you're still implying clairvoyancy. So no, it's not any better. Why would it be? Or was that a rhetorical question?
I try again:
Government will always exist as a solution to the discomfort of powerful idiots in society because it has always existed as a solution to the discomfort of powerful idiots in society.
You don't know whether government has always existed as such a solution, and you certainly don't know whether government will always exist as such a solution. Furthermore, even if government has always existed as such a solution, that has no bearing on whether it will continue to exist as such. To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance.
So government is not the best method of plunder ever devised by mankind. It can yet be perfected and, therefore, I cannot say that it has always been the preferred method of plunder or that it always will be. I see where you are going and, consequently, have to agree that since this is the case, I have been arguing from ignorance.
I take it you're being sarcastic? If so, then unfortunately I can't parse your actual point. Can you please be more straightforward?
I can't conceive of a better way to plunder than by government, but hell, I am no clairvoyant (just ignorant).
Perhaps you'd like to actually demonstrate how you haven't been making an argument from ignorance, rather than snidely and mockingly imply that you haven't?
Who's to say that plunder will always be preferred by the most powerful, let alone anyone else?
I stated a conclusion without premise: Government will always exist. Then, I added a premise: 1. Government is (has been and will be) the solution to the discomfort of some of the powerful. The conclusion is false because the premise is false. The premise is false because, as you stated, it is an argument from ignorance. It is not known that government has always been the solution to the discomfort of some of the powerful or that it always will be. Why? It may be that some of the powerful have used more primitive methods of force than government to solve their discomfort. It may be that some of the powerful will invent more advanced methods of force than government to solve their discomfort. Or that all the powerful have not (at some time) and may not (in the future) resort to force! I simply do not know. Since the premise is an argument from ignorance, it follows that the conclusion is ignorant.
You're right. To argue against utopian idealism is to argue from ignorance. One simply cannot know or state that there will always be at least one pied piper capable of leading the masses into government. Of course, one cannot know or state that there will not always be at least one pied piper capable of leading the masses into government. Therefore, to argue that I am a clairvoyant is to argue from ignorance.
In short, I am arguing from ignorance to state that Government will always exist. You are arguing from ignorance to sardonically suggest (by my clairvoyancy) that it will not always exist.
Is it an argument from ignorance to state a possibility? If not, then neither of us has argued from ignorance. Government will always exist is a possibility to me, though it may not be a possibility to you. However, a priori, the insistence that stating a possibility cannot be stated as such is a true argument from ignorance.
It was not an argument from ignorance for me to state: Government will always exist. It was an argument from ignorance for me to state: Government will always exist because it has always existed. As you so eruditely showed, society precedes government and, thus, the past has nothing to bear on the future, especially when the past is grossly misinterpreted. I should have left well-enough alone by stating "It's a possibility that government will always exist."
Lyle:I stated a conclusion without premise: Government will always exist. Then, I added a premise: 1. Government is (has been and will be) the solution to the discomfort of some of the powerful. The conclusion is false because the premise is false. The premise is false because, as you stated, it is an argument from ignorance. It is not known that government has always been the solution to the discomfort of some of the powerful or that it always will be. Why? It may be that some of the powerful have used more primitive methods of force than government to solve their discomfort. It may be that some of the powerful will invent more advanced methods of force than government to solve their discomfort. Or that all the powerful have not (at some time) and may not (in the future) resort to force! I simply do not know. Since the premise is an argument from ignorance, it follows that the conclusion is ignorant.
Thanks, I think. I hope you're being serious with the above.
With that said, do you think the "powerful" always use force to solve their discomfort? Why or why not?
Also, premises aren't arguments themselves. They're assumptions used for arguments.
Lyle:You're right. To argue against utopian idealism is to argue from ignorance.
This makes me think you weren't quite serious in your last post. Please explain to me how I was arguing for utopian idealism, as you seem to imply.
Lyle:One simply cannot know or state that there will always be at least one pied piper capable of leading the masses into government.
That's correct.
Lyle:Of course, one cannot know or state that there will not always be at least one pied piper capable of leading the masses into government. Therefore, to argue that I am a clairvoyant is to argue from ignorance.
You misunderstand me. I wasn't asserting that there won't always be government -- simply that we don't know one way or the other. The future is inherently uncertain. So no, I made no argument from ignorance, but you did just knock down a straw man.
Lyle:In short, I am arguing from ignorance to state that Government will always exist. You are arguing from ignorance to sardonically suggest (by my clairvoyancy) that it will not always exist.
As I showed above, you're wrong in your claim that I'm also arguing from ignorance. You also seem to be committing the tu quoque fallacy here.
Lyle:Is it an argument from ignorance to state a possibility? If not, then neither of us has argued from ignorance. Government will always exist is a possibility to me, though it may not be a possibility to you. However, a priori, the insistence that stating a possibility cannot be stated as such is a true argument from ignorance.
You did not state that you think it's possible that government will always exist. You stated that government will always exist. The latter statement implies certain knowledge of the future -- in this case, until the end of time. Now you're falsely representing your own previously stated position. Why is that?
Lyle:It was not an argument from ignorance for me to state: Government will always exist. It was an argument from ignorance for me to state: Government will always exist because it has always existed.
I maintain that both are arguments from ignorance.
Lyle:As you so eruditely showed, society precedes government and, thus, the past has nothing to bear on the future, especially when the past is grossly misinterpreted. I should have left well-enough alone by stating "It's a possibility that government will always exist."
Of course, simply stating that it's possible that government will always exist would not be in line with your point, which is that you assume that government will always exist and, in order to convince others to make that assumption, you state it as though it's fact.
Not all the powerful and not all the time. I believe those who see the market economy as a zero-sum game are tempted to use force to "maximize their profits," so to speak. Some think only of the short term benefits to themselves rather the the long term costs to society. But this perspective is not limited to some of the powerful. Others resort to force for the same reasons, but in a more direct manner than the indirect one of government. It is a possibility that government will always exist for several reasons: 1) Other forms of force are less effective to accomplish the task at hand 2) More effective forms of force than government may not be forthcoming 3) The desire to "maximize profits" in the short term by whatever means necessary may always exist amongst some people 4) The conscious trade off against society in the long term for self in the short may be too tempting for some inducing them to go against better judgment 5) Ignorance may persist amongst some as to the trade off between short term versus long term.
Please explain to me how I was arguing for utopian idealism, as you seem to imply.
IMO, AnCap would be the ideal society. IMO, any ideal society is utopian. I have made the assumption that you are a proponent of AnCap, not only because you are a member of this forum, but also because your quick and negative response to the singular statement: Government will always exist. I am clairvoyant, after all. But I never said you were arguing FOR utopian idealism, regardless your Ad Hominem. I said that you were implying that to argue against AnCap is to argue from ignorance. Why? My statement was premised on never having read of an AnCap society (or, be it, never having read of a time when government did not exist).
I wasn't asserting that there won't always be government. So no, I made no argument from ignorance.
You're correct w/o exception considered in my post following the one you have cited. When I read a statement like, "Government will always exist," I first consider whether it is a possibility before I jump down the posters throat with Ad Hominems and my overwhelming ability in logic. If it is a possibility, then the OP would not have to clarify, "I think...." A possibility is a possibility regardless what one thinks. To suggest otherwise is an argument from ignorance.
Also, I don't need to be clairvoyant to make the assertion that "Government will always exist." As a possibility, it is a truth, a priori, that requires neither proof nor the ability to divine the future. The whole foundation of AnCap is an argument from ignorance otherwise. There are so many factors that can cause human action that we are ignorant to know them all and, therefore, must not oversimplify the market or allow the government to intervene in it. AnCap asserts, a priori, certain propositions (ie. laws of economics) to be necessarily true (ie. axioms) that cannot be proven (ie. they are non-experimental). But that is the point: AnCap is not an argument from ignorance because the axioms need not be proven to be true! "Government will always exist" need not be proven to be true (strictly speaking, as a possibility)! I also conditioned the possibility on whether mankind continues to see government, albeit constrained, as a necessary evil to check against crime and other governments. I then conditioned the possibility (with your help) on whether some people, powerful or otherwise, will always see government as a solution to minimize their discomfort (ie. "maximize their profits"). So the statement was not an absolute certainty. It was conditional and, therefore, only an absolute possibility.
You also seem to be committing the tu quoque fallacy here.
I am not proving you wrong by any attempt at hypocricy. I am not saying you're wrong, therefore, I am right. It is not the tu quoque fallacy to suggest that we are BOTH wrong. However, as I will demonstrate below, that you are right because I led you into your wrong.
I don't agree with your rules of how statements MUST be written in a relative rather than absolute manner. Since the future is as uncertain as you say it is, then common sense dictates that "government will always exist" is mere possibility and there exists no need for me to state "it is a possibility..." or "i think..." It need not be true to be possible. Nevertheless, according to your rules (the way you decided to interpret the statement), I did argue from ignorance. You interpreted "government will always exist" as an absolute certainty and not as an absolute possibility.
In a sense, your interpretation of the statement set up a straw man to knock down. But literally, it did not because I committed the fallacy of ambiguity.
You did not state that you think it's possible that government will always exist. You stated that government will always exist.
Again, while it is less ambiguous for me to state "It is possible that government will always exist" versus "Government will always exist" does not excuse your Ad Hominem (that I am clairvoyant) or assumption (ie. straw man) that I meant the statement as an absolute certainty and not an absolute possibility. "Government will always exist" is only an argument from ignorance IF we interpret it as you have, an absolute certainty, rather than as I intended it, an absolute possibility. That is why I do not commit the Tu Quoque fallacy, relatively speaking. It is a FACT, a priori, that, as a possibility, Government will always exist. If so, how is this an argument from ignorance? Simply because I did not premise the statement "I think..." or "It's a possibility that..."?
I do apologize for not having been less ambiguous and more clear in what was meant. If I am guilty of anything, it is the fallacy of ambiguity, possibly of presumption, but not of arguing from ignorance.
I would like to preface my statement by saying that I am not advocating a theocracy, but unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the Bible teach that man existed in a state of statelessness for a time before he appealed to God for government? If I am correct and this is true, then there was a time when government did not exist.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
Lyle:Not all the powerful and not all the time. I believe those who see the market economy as a zero-sum game are tempted to use force to "maximize their profits," so to speak. Some think only of the short term benefits to themselves rather the the long term costs to society. But this perspective is not limited to some of the powerful. Others resort to force for the same reasons, but in a more direct manner than the indirect one of government. It is a possibility that government will always exist for several reasons: 1) Other forms of force are less effective to accomplish the task at hand 2) More effective forms of force than government may not be forthcoming 3) The desire to "maximize profits" in the short term by whatever means necessary may always exist amongst some people 4) The conscious trade off against society in the long term for self in the short may be too tempting for some inducing them to go against better judgment 5) Ignorance may persist amongst some as to the trade off between short term versus long term.
Remember that saying it's possible that government will always exist is not the same as saying government will always exist. The former refers to possibility, while the latter refers to certainty.
Lyle:IMO, AnCap would be the ideal society. IMO, any ideal society is utopian.
Can you please provide your definition of "ideal"? I suspect it's different from my own.
Lyle:I have made the assumption that you are a proponent of AnCap, not only because you are a member of this forum, but also because your quick and negative response to the singular statement: Government will always exist. I am clairvoyant, after all. But I never said you were arguing FOR utopian idealism, regardless [of] your Ad Hominem. I said that you were implying that to argue against AnCap is to argue from ignorance. Why? My statement was premised on never having read of an AnCap society (or, be it, never having read of a time when government did not exist).
Where did I make an ad hominem argument against you?
Where did I make the implication that arguing against anarcho-capitalism is arguing from ignorance? That's not what I said and it's not what I meant to imply at all. My point was that the claim "government will always exist" is an argument from ignorance, as it's a positive claim about the future (indeed, about all future points in time). Neither of us knows, in fact, whether government will exist at any particular point in the future, let alone at all points in the future.
Referring to never having read of an anarcho-capitalist society, or of a time when government did not exist, makes it sound like you're going back to your other argument -- namely, that because government has (presumably) always existed in the past, it will always exist in the future. This is another argument from ignorance, as I've already shown.
Lyle:You're correct w/o exception considered in my post following the one you have cited. When I read a statement like, "Government will always exist," I first consider whether it is a possibility before I jump down the posters throat with Ad Hominems and my overwhelming ability in logic. If it is a possibility, then the OP would not have to clarify, "I think...." A possibility is a possibility regardless what one thinks. To suggest otherwise is an argument from ignorance.
Again, please point out where I made an ad hominem argument against you.
From what I could tell, you did not claim a possibility. You claimed a certainty. I'm sure you can tell the difference.
Lyle:Also, I don't need to be clairvoyant to make the assertion that "Government will always exist." As a possibility, it is a truth, a priori, that requires neither proof nor the ability to divine the future. The whole foundation of AnCap is an argument from ignorance otherwise. There are so many factors that can cause human action that we are ignorant to know them all and, therefore, must not oversimplify the market or allow the government to intervene in it. AnCap asserts, a priori, certain propositions (ie. laws of economics) to be necessarily true (ie. axioms) that cannot be proven (ie. they are non-experimental). But that is the point: AnCap is not an argument from ignorance because the axioms need not be proven to be true! "Government will always exist" need not be proven to be true (strictly speaking, as a possibility)! I also conditioned the possibility on whether mankind continues to see government, albeit constrained, as a necessary evil to check against crime and other governments. I then conditioned the possibility (with your help) on whether some people, powerful or otherwise, will always see government as a solution to minimize their discomfort (ie. "maximize their profits"). So the statement was not an absolute certainty. It was conditional and, therefore, only an absolute possibility.
If you're assuming that government will always exist, then I suggest you make that clear. Otherwise, it sounds like a conclusion based on other (unstated) assumptions. But I certainly will not let you get away with masquerading your claim of certainty as a claim of possibility.
Strictly speaking, axioms (also known as premises) can be neither proven nor disproven. They can only be accepted or rejected.
Lyle:I am not proving you wrong by any attempt at hypocricy. I am not saying you're wrong, therefore, I am right. It is not the tu quoque fallacy to suggest that we are BOTH wrong. However, as I will demonstrate below, that you are right because I led you into your wrong.
Then what was your point in claiming that I'm also arguing from ignorance? It seemed you were trying to distract me from continuing to refute your original claim, that government will always exist. Regardless of whether I was arguing from ignorance myself, your original claim has still been exposed as being entirely without logical standing.
Lyle:I don't agree with your rules of how statements MUST be written in a relative rather than absolute manner. Since the future is as uncertain as you say it is, then common sense dictates that "government will always exist" is mere possibility and there exists no need for me to state "it is a possibility..." or "i think..." It need not be true to be possible. Nevertheless, according to your rules (the way you decided to interpret the statement), I did argue from ignorance. You interpreted "government will always exist" as an absolute certainty and not as an absolute possibility.
You don't agree with that? Really? How do you think most people would take such a statement? If you tell someone, "It will always rain at 5 PM in New York City", he's supposed to take that as a mere possibility? I'm sorry, but this seems like blatant dishonesty on your part.
Lyle:In a sense, your interpretation of the statement set up a straw man to knock down. But literally, it did not because I committed the fallacy of ambiguity.
Explain to me why I should've interpreted "Government will always exist" as a claim of possibility instead of a claim of certainty. Grammatically speaking, it does not refer to possibility at all. And I'm sure you know that already. So no, I didn't knock down a straw man. I knocked down your literal statement. You can call it "jumping down your throat" all you want -- it won't change anything.
Lyle:Again, while it is less ambiguous for me to state "It is possible that government will always exist" versus "Government will always exist" does not excuse your Ad Hominem (that I am clairvoyant) or assumption (ie. straw man) that I meant the statement as an absolute certainty and not an absolute possibility. "Government will always exist" is only an argument from ignorance IF we interpret it as you have, an absolute certainty, rather than as I intended it, an absolute possibility. That is why I do not commit the Tu Quoque fallacy, relatively speaking. It is a FACT, a priori, that, as a possibility, Government will always exist. If so, how is this an argument from ignorance? Simply because I did not premise the statement "I think..." or "It's a possibility that..."?
Calling you clairvoyant was not an ad hominem argument. The point was, since no one is or can be clairvoyant, your claim that government will always exist must be logically rejected on its face. But now I will make an ad hominem argument, so to speak, and say that I think you're lying when you say you meant the statement as a possibility. It seems clear to me that you did originally mean it as a claim of certainty and you didn't expect it to be attacked.
Government will always exist.
Government does not exist.
Explain to me why I should've interpreted "Government will always exist" as a claim of possibility instead of a claim of certainty.
I conditioned the statement, when read in context with the entire paragraph in which it is found, on whether mankind continues to see government, albeit constrained, as a necessary evil to check against crime and other governments. Conditional statements are possibilities.
Caley,
It is definitely a possiblity that, at present, government does not exist. But in what context? Religious organizations, companies, fraternities and other social clubs? Please clarify.
The constitution was an agreement between the federal government and the colonial governments to create the USA under specific terms. On the colonial governments withdrew from the USA in the secessionary war and the federal government conquered them, the constitution became null and void - the federal government ruled by pure force.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
EmperorNero: " The ink tells the government what line it can't cross, and the people what to put up with. It's up to the people to enforce that." It's never happened and due to the nature of the state is impossible. "It might not work forever, but it slows down the encroachment of government. " Hasn't so far anywhere in the world. "That America had one kind of government since the late 18th century, while France had 15, shows that the US constitution has been a remarkable success." EEEEkkkk.Constitution worship.
" The ink tells the government what line it can't cross, and the people what to put up with. It's up to the people to enforce that."
It's never happened and due to the nature of the state is impossible.
"It might not work forever, but it slows down the encroachment of government. "
Hasn't so far anywhere in the world.
"That America had one kind of government since the late 18th century, while France had 15, shows that the US constitution has been a remarkable success."
EEEEkkkk.Constitution worship.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Lyle: I am no clairvoyant but I've never read of a time in the past when government did not exist.
I am no clairvoyant but I've never read of a time in the past when government did not exist.
1. Why would government want to allow people to know of this.
2. As Rothbard said anarchist societies didn't really keep records.
3. people said the same about monarchy and slavery of afro-caribbeans.Look what happened there.
They said what about monarchy and slavery?
To say that "government always existed therefore it will always exist" is just some bizarre appeal to antiquity. If we could clrealy define what is government first and then work with that, then we could see that either smallest government can be called an individual (it would be nonsensical) or it could be a group of individuals (modern usage). So nope, government didn't always exist.
Even if it DID that wouldn't constitute as an argument that it should/will/ought to exist.
Violence always existed therefore it willl always exist. Humans always existed therefore they will always exist.. damn, such assertions remind me discussions with creationist people I had in a past. Luckily, I am no longer so much interested in religions as I used to be.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)