Arguing with a friend on facebook, he says human nature is evil:
"Ideally farmers would be protected by the government (helping them when natural disaster ruins crops, finding better technologies for more efficient growing, etc). I would say that is a way society respects farmers..Oh and by buying their goods. And whether you like it or not, humans are mostly needed to be governed by some sort of force. Humans are lazy. They would not do things if they were not forced to do them. Hell they don't even do things when they ARE forced to do them. It would be nice to trust everyone to do the right thing without some sort of authority figure there, but that is not reality. In absence of government, there will be chaos, and because of chaos people will start to band together to protect each other, and essentially what you have now is more governments being formed. It will start off with protection, then lead to someone being a ruler to enforce stability within that group. Human nature is not pretty."
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
If humans are lazy how did we get the necessary capital and all the structure needed for government to operate in the first place?
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't human beings and human nature present in government?
Whatever you think are the inherent failings of human nature, they are present within government, except with the addition of a monopoly on legal aggression to carry out whatever the consequences of those failings might be.
Edit: Removed an assumption about the OP's friend.
Humans sure are lazy apes, but never underestimate the power of incentives.
Why do people grind hundreds of hours of their lives on World of Warcraft?
Why do people work out for long hours in a gym?
Why do people campaign for politicians?
Heck, how does Wikipedia, founded by libertarian Jimmy Wales, function? Voluntary addition of information without your name showing up on the front page?
Why do people join afterschool clubs in school?
How do other current free-market things, like http://www.naturallygrown.org/about-cng (AnCap food certification), work?
Heck, how do any companies function? How do frickin unions function?
Next, look at his argument and challenge the assumption:
there will be chaos, and because of chaos people will start to band together to protect each other
He assumes there will be chaos, and from there it is easy to come up with doomsday scenarios (will a free society look like this: http://blog.kirkebykvalitet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Fallout3-11.jpg)
There is not chaos. Because people know that chaos sucks and society is nice.
Don't let him win the chaos argument. We do not institute AnCap through a snap of the fingers. To change from democracy to AnCap we need a change in the culture and education of the public. Really, we need at least 51% to change things through the democratic system (though check out this article showing that 10% support is key http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725190044.htm). Achievement of AnCap comes through education about 1) self-ownership 2) Non-aggression 3) property rights 4) contract rights.
Consider the alternative. Should we instead institute a 20% theft rate, institute kidnapping (resisting taxes and getting jailed), institute abuse for exercising of freedoms (drinking raw milk, doing drugs, committing suicide, having multiple wives).
Does the guy not think? He wants to institutionalize aggression to eliminate it. Really?
Assume the crime rate jumps 400% percent in the US. This is better than the current government. Assume a 10x increase. Still better.
Now, why is the above consideration pointless anyway? Private protection companies are more efficient that the government due to competition. Crime would not increase in AnCap.
A free society is not a stupid society. It could indeed look very, very much like the current society minus the institutionalized aggression.
Rhermida: great point to add! Humans are evil, so let's put some in charge over us and believe they will do the best for us?
About another of your points:
Seems to me he is skating close to the Nirvana fallacy, personally.
Not yet, I don't think. He's not saying the system is not perfect, he is saying it is worse than the current one. It would be nice to push him into this fallacy.
If humans are "bad" then no government is possible. Government are just people with forcefully institutionalized exemptions to supposedly universal moral rules (because for some reason people think you can have "good" outcomes by using "bad" methods - wars bring peace, stealing,counterfeiting,destruction brings prosperity etc). Government is where bad moral rules are prevalent by definition (government as double moral standard). If humans are "bad" and need to be governed by force then who governs the government? If humans can't be trusted then how you can trust people that make government? Slightly offtopic for another discussion: define human nature and explain why you think your definition is objective. Why there must neccessarily emerge forceful ruler? Why are you ignoring other possibility (bias,argument from ignorance)? Basically his argument ascribes magical properties to government institution - people in government magically are immune to all failings of supposedly "bad" human nature - they become demigods to lead us to nirvana.
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." Robert LeFevre
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." - Murray N. Rothbard.
Wheylous, I think you are probably right. In my experience, that is the thinking behind the tone of thought processes like the OP's friend showed, but one shouldn't assume what is one people's minds.
To the OP, it might also be worthwhile to hammer away at the other side of the ledger, if your friend is taking a utilitarian perspective on things. That is, emphasize bad consequences that are directly tied to the institution of Government. The FDA is a classic example, considering many estimates conclude that even on the surface, the FDA actually causes a net loss of life by preventing life-saving measures/drugs from entering the market (or delaying them for a period of time), than it saves by stopping life-destroying measures/drugs.
My two cents.
Really, if most people were 'evil' like Libertyandlife's friend thinks, there wouldn't be a government claiming to fulfill the role that it does. It is allowed to exist because the majority of people feel that it is necessary. The majority of people feel that ethics are relevant, and they want a government to play the role of arbitrator and enforcer, at least.
If people really didn't care without a government watching over their shoulder, then you would probably never see a government develop, as such, because none of them would think that the people controlling this government were acting boni fides.
The fact is that it is a small minority who behave like predators against their own species. It could only ever be a small minority, otherwise the species would probably be wiped out, and in any case wouldn't have developed to the enormous social scale that it did. The trick, if you are one of this minority, who does not want their prey to know that they are not really part of the species, is to control the ethical system - make people believe that the existence of ethics is contingent upon your pleasure, and that the ethics themselves do not apply laterally to you. The trick - if you want to do really well for yourself as a thief - is to con people into accepting you as their king.
Be sure to catch 3:08...
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.
- Frederic Bastiat
Libertyandlife:In absence of government, there will be chaos...
Government is the source of chaos. They are the only institution with the respected authority to force everyone else to do or not to do things. They make and break their own laws as they go along. Astronomically higher amounts of crime have been committed by governments as compared to private criminals. Governments are the ultimate criminal organization because they institutionalized; that is, they're funded by the public, established and respected in the public's eyes, and the only organization which can do anything about it is the government itself.
This is purely because governments are monopolistic. And contrary to popular belief, they are monopolistic not because people have and continue to establish and support them. We need to destroy that myth; people never wanted the governments we see today. The governments of today were established through conquering and continue to rule through dominion.
That is, within their jurisdiction only they have the authorities to tax, enforce, and protect. Economics tells us monopolies will provide ever worse service, and the history of governments have demonstrated this ad nauseum. THE END.
But, this leads well into the rest of his question.
Libertyandlife:...and because of chaos people will start to band together to protect each other, and essentially what you have now is more governments being formed.
As he would expect, the chaos caused by government (or as humans react to any chaos and spontaenously organize) has caused people to seek security and organization. As he admits, the result would be more governments, which would implicitly be the proper solution (because it's what people actually want), and the problem therefore is that monopolist governments currently are stopping us against our will (as all governments necessarily do).
As we have seen, people don't want monopolist governments. They want to establish and try all kinds, and they should be allowed to.
Without government, we'd all kill each other. Oh, wait.
Without government, we'd descend into an orgy of violence and nasty, brutish behavior. Oh, wait.
Here's his ultimatum reply during the conversation:
They will end in some sort of formal societal structure, also known as government
He conflates social co-operation with government several times in this piece. I think it best to go back to basics and actually define government, point out the gun in the room etc.
Can you link to the original thread, rather than copying here?
I'll just rebut a few gems from the above:
families became the first form of government
families grew larger ... for mutual benefits ... larger numbers [was] ... a great way to provide more food
Each settlement was governed by a chief/king/leader/Council/Etc. ... to prevent the chaos of human nature
Since there were no courts, police, juries, etc, there was no way for the man to be found innocent, and thus I had to take matters into my own hands. We need social structure. We need as much order as possible.
human nature left unrestrained will cause chaos
Let's fast forward to know. Let's say we wiped away 95% of the US government's influence over society. Do you honestly believe we will transition nicely into some idealistic paradise where everyone respects each other?
I had a I.R. professor once who claimed that International Relations is anarchy. Of course, in the last 60 years or so we have tried to regulate it with international organizations such as the UN or strategic alliances, such as NATO. However, if you want a clear picture of anarchy, you need not look further than IR. No nation has a central authority over it, therefore it does what is sees fit to be best for itself. I believe that would be the most basic definition of Anarchy, no?
I do think that humans are civilized enough to adapt to a society without a national government. But i do think at the moment that people are generally very uninformed when it comes to that sort of society. This is why I think it would require a sort of transition that could take generations. The government was not born over night and it will not die over night. But as long as we are moving in the right direction then we can be reassured. At the moment we are not moving in the right direction. They are moving towards move government and more centralization every day.
Government is viewed as an extension of the family, and that's a bad thing.
SCREW BACKSPACE! I HAD TYPED A TWO PAGE RESPONSE TO THIS AND THEN IT GOT SIMPLY DELETED BY GOING BACK IN HISTORY!!!!! GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
It was beautiful, too.
SCREW BACKSPACE! I HAD TYPED A TWO PAGE RESPONSE TO THIS AND THEN IT GOT SIMPLY DELETED BY GOING BACK IN HISTORY!!!!! GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. It was beautiful, too
It was beautiful, too
You have my sympathy, my friend. For some reason, the edit box on this forum sometimes refuses to accept focus for arrow-key and delete-key... when this happens, I Ctl+C, Reload, Ctl+V immediately to prevent this scenario. I just lost two solid pages of text a couple days back to the Evil Bitbucket in the Sky, whose chief minion is the Evil Mises Gnome Forum Software.
Clayton -
I'm talking about before the 1700s, Before the Crusades, before the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Mesopotamia, back all the way when humans were tribal bands composed mostly of families
Emotional appeal.
The family was essentially the first form of government.
Government requires coercion. Families are voluntary. You join families. Voluntary "governments" are not governments. They are voluntary societies. The whole foundation of his argument is rotten.
protection of those people within the group and to create societal order.
It seems like his argument is that the two are the same. Why does he include both?
formal societal structure, also known as government
False!
Here is his argument: Human nature is chaos, disorder. He thinks that government is order. Yet note that government has arisen while humans have retained their human nature. How come? Obviously, people do create order.
He must either concede that human nature is not disorder or that government is not order. Since government is a type of order, the only remaining conclusion is that human nature is not disorder.
Then you have others like the US, UK, France, and historically nations like Germany, HRE, Roman Empire, and so forth, who believe what is best for them is to acquire resources and lands from other people groups
This is caused by nationalism and non-free trade. Politicians in a country use nationalism to support non-free trade, using unsound economics to say that increasing the utility of other countries decreases the utility of their own country.
doesn't it make sense to accept the reality
Emotional appeal. Watch:
Hitler: "The Jews are what is keeping us from obtaining a stable social order and they cause chaos among us and are greedy. Doesn't it make sense to accept the reality that Jews maybe are not capable of order?"
See? He sounds so nice now!
He seems to think that police is the purpose of government. Then why isn't he a minarchist?
Furthermore, he seems to think that there would not be police in a free society. There would be.
You can concede as many points to him as you'd like. But pin him down on this:
Government doesn't prevent crime. Police does. What about police? 1) Physical presence 2) Threat of retaliation. Police would exist without a government.
If he thinks that human nature is crime, then why doesn't the army enslave us? The answer? Values. Values are what keep us from each others' throats. We genuinely believe that we shouldn't kill other people.
I had written so much more and so much more eloquently. But it's now last. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Clayton, I think it was my own fault that I lost the data. I accidentally unfocused and used backspace :(
Libertyandlife: Arguing with a friend on facebook, he says human nature is evil:
It's not that man is evil by nature, but rather that man seeks what we can call "plus factors." That is, to gain a value or to profit.
There are moral and and immoral ways to profit, and there are also evil values, but I'll ignore evil values for now. You can profit in a transfer in which the other party to the transfer profits as well: known as free exchange. Or you can profit at the expense of another, which is an aggression.
Moral systems are necessary to serve as rubrics on actions as people choose them, and these systems, if rational, should be in line with the non-aggression principle and respectful of rights generally.
Libertyandlife:"Ideally farmers would be protected by the government (helping them when natural disaster ruins crops, finding better technologies for more efficient growing, etc). I would say that is a way society respects farmers..Oh and by buying their goods.
At whose expense?
Libertyandlife: And whether you like it or not, humans are mostly needed to be governed by some sort of force.
Not quite, we only need a government to use force to end aggression within society, that is retributive and responsive force, never aggression.
Libertyandlife:Humans are lazy. They would not do things if they were not forced to do them.
Not so. But even if true, they would not need the government to do the forcing, as reality itself will force them to work to survive or die. Obviously, people aren't lazy unto death.
Libertyandlife:Hell they don't even do things when they ARE forced to do them. It would be nice to trust everyone to do the right thing without some sort of authority figure there, but that is not reality.
And whose idea of the "right thing" will you enshrine into law? And what will happen to those who have a different idea of the right thing. Sounds like tyranny.
Libertyandlife: In absence of government, there will be chaos, and because of chaos people will start to band together to protect each other, and essentially what you have now is more governments being formed. It will start off with protection, then lead to someone being a ruler to enforce stability within that group.
In absence of government, there will be chaos, and because of chaos people will start to band together to protect each other, and essentially what you have now is more governments being formed. It will start off with protection, then lead to someone being a ruler to enforce stability within that group.
This is sort of true, in the sense that an anarchist society is not practicable. But neither do we need as much government as you seem to be suggesting we do. If we did, communist countries would be far more successful than free societies. But, as it turns out, free societies and self-directed effort far exceeds the productive capacity and wealth of a command economy with centralized governmental decision-making.
And what will happen to those who have a different idea of the right thing. Sounds like tyranny.
Careful. Same can be applied to minarchist or anarchist thoughts. Don't argue against morals. Argue against specific morals. Show that others are logically derived. For example, a quick breakdown of why the individual is not owned by everyone equally:
If everyone owns an equal part of me, then to move from A to B I must obtain permission from everyone. This is in fact not only impractical, but impossible: for you to agree to let me move, you yourself would need permission from everyone else to use your vocal chords. This reasoning is circular and would immediately freeze us all in a state of not doing anything.
Wheylous: And what will happen to those who have a different idea of the right thing. Sounds like tyranny. Careful. Same can be applied to minarchist or anarchist thoughts. Don't argue against morals. Argue against specific morals. Show that others are logically derived.
Careful. Same can be applied to minarchist or anarchist thoughts. Don't argue against morals. Argue against specific morals. Show that others are logically derived.
Sure, but when someone uses the words 'authority figure' and 'force' I worry about tyranny :P
no idea............ dear