"anarchism has been tried and failed."
that's news to me... Because all around I can see a massive state failures.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I consider myself an intellectual light-weight on the matter, and with all due respect to all parties, as I have read some excellent arguments from both sides; but wasn't Iceland anarchistic for some 900 years or so? Yet other more statist structures lasted 100 to 3000 years. My point being that all past societies and social structures no longer exist. Doesn't this constitute failure? So, I have set the premise that societies are destined to fail. Then why not take the most moral approach to this failure?
No No NO. As had been said numerous times, directly to Retopper on numerous occasions. Appeals to tradition and similar logical fallacies do not prove or condemn neither anarchy nor statism.
What do you people have against logic?
History is a poor tool for proving anything. Theory helps us analyze the data we record prior to recording. We don't invent theories based on the data as an after thought. The theory and/or logic comes first not the other way around.
The argument isn't whether or not Statism or Anarchy can perpetuate itself. Which is all your proving when you use history. This is the strawman Retopper has consistently put forth for the past two years and you just sparked it again by the above comments.
Retopper wants us to argue from a position of utopianism. We aren't. We are arguing from a position of logic. For me it's primarily the calculation issue that he continues to ignore.
What do you mean, "you people." ? hehe.
I have nothing against logic. My appeal to tradition was to highlight that its a pointless argument, and to show the fact that all past societies clearly failed eventually. I actually agree that history is a poor tool to prove something is viable. From my understanding its as easy or easier to prove it's not viable. So its pointless to argue it. I was arguing to ignore the viability, and make a value judgment on its morality. Then pick the system that is the most moral. Since this is different from person to person, the only logical solution is to form a stateless society and allow individuals to choose for themselves. Most likely this too would also fail, but at least it was the most moral in its failure. Am I allowed to argue from dystopianism, or is it as irrational and the former?
notP:Am I allowed to argue from dystopianism, or is it as irrational and the former?
It depends on what you are trying to argue.
Retoppers argument is that An anarchist society cannot work. The argument he presents however can only claim that an anarchist society possibly may not prevail, not that it cannot work.
You have already shown Retopper where is argument logically falls apart. Since his own argument, when applied to his position, reveals how liberal democracies are equally not capable of prevailing. But s stated the entire structure of the argument is logically flawed.
The real irony here is that the type of "Liberal Democracy" that Retopper thinks we should have is just as sparse as Anarchy if not more so. In fact the occasions on which its existed, acknowledged by Retopper in past threads, in all cases was a precursor to a larger socialist state. In every instance its life cycle was dwarfed when compared to more succesful historical anarchist societies.
What Retopper doesn't understand is the fundamental governance he advocates is inherently designed to undermine the goal he thinks it achieves. A Liberal Democracy will always vote itself into something non-liberal. Politics is not a game of liberty but the opposite. It is a game of theft, plunder, and the legitimization of violating your neighbors rights. For that matter the very term, liberal democracy, is contradictory and confused. Retopper should be spending more time explaining to himself why liberal democracies fail and have consistently failed rather then tryign to argue why its a perfect alternative to anarchy. Retopper falls victem to a painfully and embarassingly obvious logical fallacy. That democracy somehow equals freedom. Its something you are taught in gradeschool and folks who are incapagble of thinking for themselves seem to cling to it.
The problems he points out regarding anarchy are miniscule compared to the problems that an alleged "liberal democracy" presents.
@ Centinel
To maintain a small liberal democracy and not allow the people to vote themselves benefits and favors, wouldn't there need to be revolutions very few years. We allowed our liberal democracy to go unchallenged for ~300 years and the smallest government on the planet became the largest state in short order. What forces do you propose would limit this growth? Surely, a supreme law of the land meant little to our benevolent care takers. Is there an other method that doesn't require bloody uprisings every few years?
filc:What Retopper doesn't understand is the fundamental governance he advocates is inherently designed to undermine the goal he thinks it achieves.
Also note that he has consistently failed to explain just exactly how "constitutional federal republicanism" provides a "cage" for "statists". His argument is intellectually bankrupt. I take his refusal to engage me to be evidence of this.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
^^
Yup. Agreed.
So apparently you have mutliple personalities and need to lose weight? Good to know.
Indeed, our civil and political liberties have expanded sinc 1787, primarily due to the Bill of Rights.
You keep posting this. At first I thought you were joking, as it's so blatantly false, but it seems I was wrong. Seriouly, this could not be more wrong. The high point of our civil and political liberties was the passage of the Bill of Rights, and they have been eroding ever since. Since the 1790's, we've had a war fought over the right to secceed, personal income taxes, central banks, confiscation of gold, seat belt laws, smoking bans, gun bans, blue laws, the war on drugs... This is just off the top of my head. There is no manner in which we have more freedom today than the average citizen had in 1800.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
To add to this, the Bill of Rights per se did nothing to give women or former slaves the right to vote.
JackCuyler: Indeed, our civil and political liberties have expanded sinc 1787, primarily due to the Bill of Rights. You keep posting this. At first I thought you were joking, as it's so blatantly false, but it seems I was wrong. Seriouly, this could not be more wrong. The high point of our civil and political liberties was the passage of the Bill of Rights, and they have been eroding ever since. Since the 1790's, we've had a war fought over the right to secceed, personal income taxes, central banks, confiscation of gold, seat belt laws, smoking bans, gun bans, blue laws, the war on drugs... This is just off the top of my head. There is no manner in which we have more freedom today than the average citizen had in 1800.
this. 1000 times this. It's funny how average state apologist always misses this point. They imagine 18 century like wild wild west with random shootings etc. and 21 century like utopia. When everything is almost vice versa. Yeah, technological progress etc. is all good, but speaking of LIBERTIES, we have much much less. Only a fool doesn't see it and can keep ignoring this fact after it was stated many times.
Good point. I should ament my original statement to say, "There is no manner in which we have more freedom today than the average white guy had in 1800."
Arguments for Centinel's case:
In 1830:
- 16% of people were slaves (2 million)
- Women and minorities couldn't vote
Note that under our point of view, no one should be able to vote in a coercive monopoly of force, so only the first point is valid.
Let's look at government spending:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1830USmn_13ms1n#usgs302
Less than 10% of GDP. Let's say it was 10%.
Hence, in 1830 we had 2 million slaves and 10% government theft.
Now, arguments in favor of opposing case:
In 2011:
- Government spending is 40% of the GDP
- People jailed due to drug use: half a million
Do you really see us as that free?
Alternatively, for the sake of argument, would you argue that white men are freer? This is not to say that only white people matter, of course, but would you argue that?
Yes, our political and civil Bill of Rights is oh-so-sturdy...
What's that? National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012? It allows for indefinite detention of US citizens based on mere accusation of "substantially supporting" terrorism?
Um...
I'd like to resurrect this thread because I finally looked over Retopper's Centinel's "logical" arguments. Here they are again:
Centinel:1) Peaceful exchange to acquire valued resources (elements of production) is not possible (the owner won't sell). 2) Peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to take the resource (the owner wants too much for the asset). 3) The costs of using armed force to take the resource is less than the expected gain (the staple of capitalism, gaining a positive return on investment).
2) Peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to take the resource (the owner wants too much for the asset).
3) The costs of using armed force to take the resource is less than the expected gain (the staple of capitalism, gaining a positive return on investment).
It seems that the first proposition is really just a sub-case of the second proposition. However, there can be no objectivity attributed to the phrase "more costly". Whether a person thinks peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force is up to him - that is, it's his subjective judgement. The same applies to the third proposition. So Retopper's Centinel's position can be restated as the following: at all times, there exists at least one person and at least one resource for which 1) the person considers peaceful exchange to be more costly than the use of physical force to take the resource, and 2) the person's perceived/expected benefits from possessing the resource exceed the perceived/expected costs of acquiring it by using physical force.
The only problem I have with about the above is that it's impossible to prove that at least one such person and resource exist at all times. If one simply treats the proposition as a premise, however, proof is unnecessary. Even then, however, it's impossible to predict just which people and which resources the proposition holds true for at any given time.
Essentially, Retopper's Centinel's argument is that, because men aren't angels (or, at the very least, not all men are angels), a monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion is necessary. I fail to see how this follows. As I've stated before, I think coercion (here defined as "the use or threat of violence") is sometimes legitimate. However, that in no way means to me that such legitimate coercion must be monopolized - as it's done, by definition, by the state.
People are inherently evil/dumb. Therefore we should manage them by evil/dumb people.
"Once again, I am not denying gang violence in Somalia. I admit it. But do YOU have the same intelectual honesty to admit that STATE CAUSES much more violence and even on a GLOBAL SCALE? Do you have honesty to admit, that the biggest wars were caused by the states? Do you have honesty to admit that state kills it's people if they do not obey the "master"? Do you have hoensty to admit, that state puts non-violent people in prisons, where they get LEGALLY raped and beaten to death there and all of this is funded through extertion racket called "taxation"? Are you willing to admit this or are you in denial, like 9/11 truther? :)"
I should keep that on my mind for discussiosn to come. How true this is. For me the order of "violance" starts with
1) states
2) religious fanatics.
And then there is a long time nothing and then maybe comes this "gang" stuff.
You stopped making sense after "Until libertarians learn how to play the game and fight dirty -- they will continue to be marginalized." But at least you got that far. Everything after is a straw man.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Centinel:Politics is dirty business. Until libertarians learn how to play the game and fight dirty -- they will continue to be marginalized.
Until libertarians learn how to play the game and fight dirty -- they will continue to be marginalized.
I'm gonna go a step farther than Muff and say you had me up through the first sentence. That second one doesn't even work, depending on what you mean by "fight dirty". If you mean fraud, unfounded accusations, and insults, I would say that's not the best strategy to gain legitimacy.
After that, I agree the rest of that post is largely unintelligable pretense.
No, no, we should be taxing people and starting wars!
Centinel: Amusingly and paradoxically, the anarchist fringe exposes itself as clueless by condemning the very means that are used to subjugate them.
Amusingly and paradoxically, the anarchist fringe exposes itself as clueless by condemning the very means that are used to subjugate them.
Martin Luther King, Jr.: The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
Centinel,
Why are you here? I thought that there was a whole thread dedicated to your arguments with the anarchists.
King got is wrong.
And yet no more forced segregation - and with minimal violence from blacks to boot!
In many cases it is an effective means to an end, King's subjective moralizing notwithstanding. Indeed, if African slaves had resorted to violence at the beginning of the slave trade instead of submission then many generations of their kin would not have suffered the degradations of chattel slavery.
If only this were true. Unfortunately, a lot of Africans were enslaved by rival African tribes, and then they were sold to Europeans. There was a lot of effort from the colonies to ensure the slaves could not revolt.
It is a purely subjective value judgment on whether it is moral or not. Indeed, pacifism in the face of statist enslavement, torture, and murder is immoral.
There is nothing wrong with the desire to live, even in the face of enslavement. I would not fault anyone for this desire. Of course, I do admire those who fight for liberty, even in the face of death, but as I said, I would not fault anyone for desiring to live.
Moreover, quoting King on this issue probably goes a long way to explain why utopian anarchist movements utterly fail.
As far as I know, there has only been one libertarian anarchist movement, and it is only about 60 years old, perhaps 70. Seeing as it is actually a growing movement, I would think it is not failing...
In sum, the statist welcomes anarchist pacifism and moral handwringing since it insures their continued hold on power -- and allowing statists to continue to plunder generation after generation when the means to stop their schemes is possible is immoral in my opinion.
Anarchists are not necessarily pacifists, and I don't think there are many pacifists on this forum...
Let me pose a question to you, Centinel, what is a more effective method of achieving liberty - having all maybe 100,000 (this is a generous number) of anarchists in America go to war against the Leviathan that is the American State - and essentilly commit suicide, or try to convert as many people to their cause as possible through essays and speaches etc...?
Since you clearly have a plan in mind, why don't you go to war against the pentagon and save us all the trouble?
Centinel:The statist is not the least concerned by your defintions of legitimacy. Disregarding your empty indiginant protests, they nonetheless gain power by what you call illegitimate means and plunder your labor and liberties at their leisure.
Again, how very grandiloquent of you.
That second one doesn't even work, depending on what you mean by "fight dirty". If you mean fraud, unfounded accusations, and insults, I would say that's not the best strategy to gain legitimacy. - john james if fraud, unfounded accusations,insults and other coercive methods were not effective -- then please explain how statists gain power ???
That second one doesn't even work, depending on what you mean by "fight dirty". If you mean fraud, unfounded accusations, and insults, I would say that's not the best strategy to gain legitimacy. - john james
if fraud, unfounded accusations,insults and other coercive methods were not effective -- then please explain how statists gain power ???
Wow...three question marks. You must be really interested. Read carefully and you'll notice a difference between what I said, and what you infer I said. I mean, you quoted it yourself. One would think you could read it. I never said anything about "effective". You put words those words in my mouth so that you might have a straw man to attack with all your question marks.
Which is kind of interesting that you would continue with the same fallacy after Muffinburg called you out on it. But what's even more interesting is the way you chose to attack me with your bombastic drivel, when most of my post was simply to voice agreement with the statement he already made.
Your [sic] not likely to convert more than a few on the fringe.
Should I take this to mean that you want all of us to go commit suicide?
Indeed, von Mises and all of our founding fathers (pretty smart dudes) rejected anarchism and recognized the utility of government because mankind was prone to abuses. Hence, society needed to install intentional and institutionalized mechanisms to balance, limit, decentralize, and make transparent the elements of armed force in society.
It has been stated and demonstrated that Mises was essentially an anarchist, what with unlimited secession and all...
Moreover, the American Constitutional Federal REpublicanism has been the most effective bulwark against statist civil and political abuses yet known to mankind. Indeed, civil and political liberties have increased markedly for even the most subjugated minorities since 1787 -- African-Americans for example.
Just no. Liberties for blacks has certainly improved, seeing as they were slaves. Liberty has descreased for everyone else.
In addition, liberal democracy has expanded from a single nation in 1776 to over 50 higher order democracies today -- and these free trading nations are utterly peaceful toward each other.
Great. So the Powers That Be have expanded their ability to steal from us regular people. And they work together at it too you say? Wonderful.
Lastly, capitalism has best flourished under liberal democracy which has seen dramatic increases in technological advances, standards of living and life expectancy since 1776.
Really? See Pinochet. He sure knew how to get capitalism going without a liberal democracy.
Why would a citizenry want to destroy the American society ??? Indeed, this view is so absurd, 90% of Americans would laugh at it.
Why would a citizenry want to destroy the American society ???
Indeed, this view is so absurd, 90% of Americans would laugh at it.
Why do you keep telling us libertarians that we need to start using violence more if you think it is so laughable?
Quite inconsistent.