A common anti-anti-state position is that if the state disappears then criminals would run wild. This argument, however, fundamentally translates to "if the state disappears then another or more states would rise again." This argument is analogous to saying that we should not oppose rape because rape will occur anyway. However, if that position is to taken, then why oppose anything? Why does the anti-anti-statist oppose the anti-state argument if an anti-statist will argue against the state anyway?
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."
Oh, snap.
You are right though. What they're missing is that libertarians oppose all criminality. If we can bring down the state, surely we can bring down some small-time gang. All that matters is ideology. No ideological support, no chance of success.
The problem is that most people don't see a state police force being as evil as rape, or even other crimes that are prosecuted.
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
I think a lot actually see the evil, moreso now that brutality videos are online. The actual problem is that people can't conceive of any viable alternative. Almost every person unfamiliar with the subject of private police will say the same thing, "Rich people will just buy their way out of everything."
edit: That is #8 on Long's list of common objections.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
While I definitely agree that anarchy would be ideal, I think it is important to realize that there will be a transition phase if the state is ever ended. Because of the state, huge imbalances have built up, and it will take time for market forces to restore equilibrium. During the transition phase, violence and exploitation may occur, and may be temporarily worse in some areas than it was under the state. Many will seek to blame anarchy for this, which could cause more people to cling to statism and slow the transition.
Of course, in the long run there's absolutely no question that things would improve dramatically. In fact, civilization might not survive unless we manage to end the state. However, that transition phase will be a critical time, and IMO it will require the support of a much more enlightened population than we currently have if we are to persevere through it.
Daniel Muffinburg:This argument is analogous to saying that we should not oppose rape because rape will occur anyway.
There are many kinds of rape, some generally more preferable than others. There are also many kinds of mammals -- some (an elephant) you may oppose to being placed on top of your head, some (a hamster) you may not. Just saying.
Z.
E. R. Olovetto:edit: That is #8 on Long's list of common objections.
"Of course, in the long run there's absolutely no question that things would improve dramatically. In fact, civilization might not survive unless we manage to end the state. However, that transition phase will be a critical time, and IMO it will require the support of a much more enlightened population than we currently have if we are to persevere through it."
I would have to disagree with this -no transition phase that is stateless can possibly be a net-decline from a previously statist society. If the biggest engine of criminality is gone, then how can criminality be then bigger? only if the anarchy is actually chaotic -something that we know is not true. If we deregulated the farming industry, people wouldn't be aimlessly trying to find produce or spraying corn with random pesticides, instead the producers and sellers of produce would make sure to sell high to clear the market and the consumer of the final good would probably recieve greater variety and higher quality goods. The only "chaos" that would occur are price changes and the bidding up, or down of goods which is every bit as chaotic as buying/selling a happy-meal.
A common anti-anti-state position is that if the state disappears then criminals would run wild.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Lam:A common anti-anti-state position is that if the state disappears then criminals would run wild. Sadly, this is only the anti-anti-statist argument in the minds of the anti-statists who want an easy strawman to refute.
Empirical evidence, please.
As a non-anarchist myself, I have never once thought that this argument is sound, and I am sure that most non-anarchists here would agree with me.
Awesome.
Surely, your refutation of this argument may serve to bolster the confidence of anarchists, but you are merely singing to the choir.
Okay.
Z: Daniel Muffinburg:This argument is analogous to saying that we should not oppose rape because rape will occur anyway. There are many kinds of rape, some generally more preferable than others. There are also many kinds of mammals -- some (an elephant) you may oppose to being placed on top of your head, some (a hamster) you may not. Just saying. Z.
Which kinds of rape do you prefer more than others?
E. R. Olovetto:I think a lot actually see the evil, moreso now that brutality videos are online. The actual problem is that people can't conceive of any viable alternative. Almost every person unfamiliar with the subject of private police will say the same thing, "Rich people will just buy their way out of everything." edit: That is #8 on Long's list of common objections.
I think a lot of people are scared of the unknown. That's why they would rather live under the state than without it.
tonyfernandez:The problem is that most people don't see a state police force being as evil as rape, or even other crimes that are prosecuted.
That's definitely a problem.
Nielso:You are right though. What they're missing is that libertarians oppose all criminality. If we can bring down the state, surely we can bring down some small-time gang. All that matters is ideology. No ideological support, no chance of success.
Certainly. Being anti-all criminality includes being anti-state. <-- t-shirt idea. :D
Daniel Muffinburg:Which kinds of rape do you prefer more than others?
Ones that leave me with most organs intact or at least alive, for starters. Are you saying you're indifferent as to which mammal is sitting on top of your head? Elephant or hamster, same diff?
Lam:A common anti-anti-state position is that if the state disappears then criminals would run wild. Sadly, this is only the anti-anti-statist argument in the minds of the anti-statists who want an easy strawman to refute. Empirical evidence, please.
I don't need to cite examples to prove that this is a strawman for that should be self-evident to anyone who actually wanted to have intelligent debate. The point of your example is to simply say: "Look how stupid the statists are, and look how smart we anarchists are." Deny it if you wish, but its a blatant strawman.
Ones I that leave me with most organs intact or at least alive, for starters.
Would you rather not be raped at all?
Please leave the empiricism to those who actually know how to use it. I don't need to cite examples to prove that this is a strawman for that should be self-evident to anyone who actually wanted to have intelligent debate.
I don't need to cite examples to prove that this is a strawman for that should be self-evident to anyone who actually wanted to have intelligent debate.
Of what and who is it a straw man?
The point of your example is to simply say: "Look how stupid the statists are, and look how smart we anarchists are." Deny it if you wish, but its a blatant strawman.
Straw man.
Yes, wouldn't you?
Would you rather not be raped at all? Yes, wouldn't you?
Yes. Awesome for me that I haven't been.
Anyway, would you have no state than a little state?
Please leave the empiricism to those who actually know how to use it. I don't need to cite examples to prove that this is a strawman for that should be self-evident to anyone who actually wanted to have intelligent debate. Of what and who is it a straw man?
You really could only get away with such a strawman on such an insular community like this, I dare you to try it when most of the room doesn't agree with the strawman.
The point of your example is to simply say: "Look how stupid the statists are, and look how smart we anarchists are." Deny it if you wish, but its a blatant strawman. Straw man.
First, learn what a strawman is. In order to make a strawman, I would have to be taking an argument and emasculating it in order to be easilly refutable. I am not doing that here, for there is neither an argument to be emasculated, nor am I even challenging any of your arguments. Instead, I am calling your actions both arrogant and self-glorifying, call that an ad hominem if you wish, but it is no strawman by any stretch of the imagination.
*sigh* Then, I suggest that you learn the correct spelling of "straw man."
The strawman is that all statists are simply afraid of dissolving the state and letting the markets sell security.
Yes, that would be a straw man of my argument.
Your example simply takes all of the detail and theses of anti-anarchist positions just to make it easy for you to refute. And, guess what the definition of such a fallacy is called: a strawman.
I didn't do that.
I decline your dare. I have nothing to prove to you.
First, learn what a strawman is. In order to make a strawman, I would have to be taking an argument and emasculating it in order to be easilly refutable. I am not doing that here, for there is neither an argument to be emasculated, nor am I even challenging any of your arguments. Instead, I am calling your actions both arrogant and self-glorifying, call that an ad hominem if you wish, but it is no strawman by any stretch of the imagination. *sigh* Then, I suggest that you learn the correct spelling of "straw man."
Good. I thought you wrote a few posts ago about how everyone was being raped. My mistake.
The question is overloaded with nomenclature. Whether it's a "state", "little state", "itsy-bitsy state", "a Swiss canton", or "no state", I'll probably keep veering toward predicaments that I judge to be most beneficial (and least detrimental) to me and the ones I care about. Each of us builds a knowledge model of the universe upon which they base those judgments for themselves. Human action, and all that jazz.
I take it you agree with my argument, then.
I didn't realize you were making an argument.
Yes. Awesome for me that I haven't been. Good. I thought you wrote a few posts ago about how everyone was being raped. My mistake.
It's okay. People make mistakes, (for example, me in the title of this thread) and I think it is important to admit to making such mistakes.