Unsurprisingly, Rettoper is already dodging and going off topic.
Also the over/under for when the first mention of Hitler will be is 26.5 posts. Mind you, this is a gentlemen's bet. And no bribing Rettoper.
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."
Let me just remind Retopper that we both agreed not to discuss the topic at hand in any other thread. That includes this one. You can respond to what people have said about your positions here after the debate is finished. And everyone else, so as not to distract from the debate, please refrain from insulting or deriding the character of either of us in here.
Rettoper: "I think we need to establish that we live in the real world."
*sigh*
So what exactly is this thread for?
To comment on the debate.
Ah.
Well as expected Rettoper isn't actually adressing anything Liburne says and Liburne seems so determined to actually set them on the right track (not going to happen) that he's not adressing much of what Rettoper says.
I just wish Liburne would start focusing on defence and ideological perpetuation and then this might actually get going somewhere.
I think Rettoper just gave in to the original question.
"[M]ore specifically, human beings would not magically and genetically mutate from brute statists that they have been throughout history to benevolent free marketeers just because their environment changed. Humans have always exhibited certain traits (greed, avarice, jealousy, envy, pride, et al) that may be anathema to the permanent establishment of an anarchic society."
Strawman. Anarcho-capitalist thought does not argue that people must change in any way. Greed, avarice, jealousy, envy, pride, et al will exist in an anarcho-Capitalist society, and nobody argues otherwise.
The phrase "anathema to the permanent establishment of...." Does he mean "may prevent the permanent establishment of..." If these things are merely "anathema", then so what?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
I find it fascinating that he doesn't ever dein to compare and contrast market-anarchy with constitutional republics. He says, human beings have XYZ imperfection therefore market anarchy fails, without mentioning how these human defects play out in the form of government he advocates. MarketAnarchy 'looks enticing to outside predatory states', (well don't constitutional republics?)
Does he think the analysis is too obvious and mundane to perform, or is it cognitive dissonance of a sort?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I wish this was the 1700s, he would be claiming that slavery will always exist, because it does and people are just aggressive and will make each other slaves. History has shown that slavery will just expand.
So, what does the future - in our lifetimes - look like for anarchy? Will there be enclaves while we are still young? Or will be die like most of civilization never seeing a glimpse at all?
I think the latter will happen. I'm about 99.9999% sure. There are too many superstitious aka religious people that will not allow it to happen.
Rettoper: "In addition, they were cited from wikipedia ( a habit of many anarchists) which is not a source I trust without verification."
Emphasis added.
"So, what does the future - in our lifetimes - look like for anarchy?"
Probably nothing... I think that the best likely scenario is that a lot of states move twoards minarchism, but who can really know where things will go?
Who could have known in 1750 that within 50 years an English colony would be a constitutional republic that would eventually conquer the world? Who in germany in 1913 could have guessed that in 30 years the country would be a facist dictatorship which had the serious possibility of dominating the entire west, and was exterminating millions inside of its own borders? What Roman could have guessed that a man, who may well have seemed like just another deranged jew who had been crucified, would eventually have the largest religeon on earth base itself off of his teachings?
We cannot know the future, and (to me) it appears as though we are reaching one of histories crossroads... To be realistic however, things often seem this way.
The debate question has been changed twice. Rett's response to interation #3: "I think my statement above answers your question. ". Well, I guess that's it then. Nothing more to see here folks... move along.
Did Rettoper just admit that his position is illogical?
Btw, if you want to learn how to straw man, then learn from Rettoper.
Rettoper retracted some statements. I consider that commednable espeically given that it's the internet and people just want to argue from their position no matter what. At least he's trying to learn. Might have been a little less turbulent if he bothered to learn more before arguing against some of the ideas that are prevalent here. Oh well. We all learn.
Vocabulary word of the day: Dirigiste
[^ SEE SECOND POST ABOVE ^ {"And everyone else, so as not to distract from the debate, please refrain from insulting or deriding the character of either of us in here.")]
Can we get a link to the debate please?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/17464.aspx
Lilburne, you should make this your profile pic.
?
Grayson Lilburn --> Grillburn.
ha!
I think Rettoper made some good points in his long list of problems with anarchy, and I benefitted from reading Grayson's well-reasoned responses. I am not quite an anarchist, mainly for reasons of practicality, so the debate is very interesting to me. I would enjoy taking an "anti-anarchy" position in a similar one-on-one debate sometime. On the other hand, the ancaps here have given me tons of literature to read which I should probably dig into before engaging in more debate.
:)
Actually, it was a "short list." Apparently there is more to come....
LeeO: "I am not quite an anarchist, mainly for reasons of practicality, [...]"
What do you mean by "reasons of practicality"?
That, practically speaking, it may be more feasible in the near future to work toward a freer society by attempting to establish a state limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. It's part of the old "are politics useful or not" debate.
Is this the thread we make the bets in?
Retopper brought up a similar point, and I don't quite get it. I don't see why anarchists somehow hurt the battle for limiting the state just because we believe things would be best if the state was done away with all together, or why arguing for a stateless society comes at the expense of arguing for reining back the state. It's not as if the populous will one day be given a ballot in which they may choose 1) the status quo, 2) a minimal state or 3) no state, and those arguing for no state take away votes from the minimal state option. A free market anarchist scholar also does not somehow take away from the minarchist argument; that one studies how law can be formed voluntarily and without the state, instead of studying how something like roads or education could be provided privately under a minimal state, does not hurt the minarchist struggle.
"That, practically speaking, it may be more feasible in the near future to work toward a freer society by attempting to establish a state limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property"
Except that there is nothing practical about it, considering your goal is impossible and thus utopian. It will never be reached and must therefore be discarded - if you want to be practical, that is .
Ffs, I get errors every time I try edit my post..
Anyway, here is your problem:
The Trouble With Libertarian Activism by Stephan Kinsella.
I don't see why anarchists are particularly hurt by the difficulty in achieving social change. It would be even more difficult if you were trying to start a monarchy in the United States, or a democracy in Saudi Arabia. Ancaps have an advantage because their movement simply wants to be left alone; they don't claim to own everyone else in the country.
Rettoper: "Difficult is the US team winning the world cup -- that may occur within this century.
However establishment of a viable and significant ancap society is in another league because there is no precedent and nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for this happening." (emphasis added) source
This is funny because the USA has never won a World Cup. Btw, nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for team USA to win the World Cup.
Here is the most recent version of the debate question, interation #3: "History has proven that enclaves of anarcho-capitalism cannot survive for long given the existence of non-anarcho-capitalist societies. Rettoper in the affimative, Grayson in the negative."
I understand and agree with these points. Here is the general problem I see:
Throughout history, humans have tended to organize themselves into two groups: a leading minority and a following majority. While there are examples of successful anarchic societies, no such societies currently exist on a large scale. Right now, Earth is dominated by coercive governments. Even when governments collapse, there have always been new rulers ready to fill the void and masses ready to follow them without complaint.
In order to become a member of the ruling class, one must have a desire to lead and then acquire the power to lead. Since political power grows from the barrel of a gun, human history is full of violent, predatory rulers. Oh, and power also tends to corrupt. All of these coercive and corrupt leaders are very good at one thing: destroying human liberty.
So what is the champion of liberty to do? As long as he remains in the group of de facto followers, all he can do is complain about the policies of the current tyrant. He does not have the power to implement his own policies. If he wishes to enact change, he must seek power and become a member of the leading minority. He must organize with other like-minded leaders and seek to establish a different sort of ruling structure based not on theft and violence, but on protecting individual liberty. Otherwise, he will forever be ruled by the predators and criminals who will always be interested in running the show.
However, an anarchist does not want to establish or implement anything - he simply wants to break the monopoly on law held by government. The anarchist envisions a society without rulers making rules - rather, with law and order determined by people working competetively within the structure of the free market. Therefore, anarchists are averse to the idea of entering the power structure, especially through politics. On the other hand, minarchists are more inclined to seek political power with goal of limiting the scope of government.
In principle, I am an anarchist who opposes all coercion and is able to envision a society without a monopoly on law. In practice, I believe it will perhaps take thousands of years for anarchy to emerge. In the meantime, I am trying to cope with the more immediate threat of the rise of totalitarian government all around the world with the understanding that more freedom is always better than less freedom. Therefore, I am tempted to take up the stance of the libertarian activist who is willing to become a member of the ruling class in order to shape the path of mankind.
>>In principle, I am an anarchist who opposes all coercion and is able to envision a society without a monopoly on law. In practice, I believe it will perhaps >>take thousands of years for anarchy to emerge.
would you analyse prospects for anarchy differently if your peers held the same opinions that you hold?
Yes. If the "common people" like me were all anarchists, then we would be in much better shape. With a certain critical mass of people unwilling to enslave themselves, it seems that governments would topple and the world would become much more free. Unfortunately the masses are all too easily brainwashed by statist propaganda.
LeeO: would you analyse prospects for anarchy differently if your peers held the same opinions that you hold? Yes. If the "common people" like me were all anarchists, then we would be in much better shape. With a certain critical mass of people unwilling to enslave themselves, it seems that governments would topple and the world would become much more free. Unfortunately the masses are all too easily brainwashed by statist propaganda.