Political Theory

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:12:14 GMT

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.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:08:45 GMT

I take it you agree with my argument, then.

I didn't realize you were making an argument.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

z1235 — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:08:10 GMT

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.

Anyway, would you have no state than a little state?

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.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

laminustacitus — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:06:47 GMT

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."

I take it you agree with my argument, then.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:06:07 GMT

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.

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.

I decline your dare. I have nothing to prove to you.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:01:01 GMT

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."

Re: The anti-anti-state position

laminustacitus — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:55:59 GMT

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?

The strawman is that all statists are simply afraid of dissolving the state and letting the markets sell security. 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.

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.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:47:18 GMT

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?

Re: The anti-anti-state position

z1235 — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:43:43 GMT

Would you rather not be raped at all?

Yes, wouldn't you?

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:40:24 GMT

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?

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.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:37:03 GMT

Ones I that leave me with most organs intact or at least alive, for starters.

Would you rather not be raped at all?

Re: The anti-anti-state position

laminustacitus — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:36:52 GMT

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.

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. 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.

Re: The anti-anti-state position

z1235 — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:32:58 GMT

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?

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:17:30 GMT

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

Re: The anti-anti-state position

DanielMuff — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:14:47 GMT

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.