Debunking statism: so easy a caveman can do it

[keyboardlover]

The belief in statism is essentially the belief that certain parts of society like fiscal, commerce, healthcare, etc. should be controlled by a central governing body. This belief is actually merely a belief in a monopoly on violent force, since no state is able to enfore anything without the inherent or implied threat of violent force. The belief in government as a "necessary evil", therefore, is essentially a belief that evil is necessary. People who are truly peaceful and virtuous, then, cannot believe in government; since it is a legitimization of all the evils which happen in the world anyway. Therefore, anarchists accept that life is inherently filled with risk, and that two wrongs do not make a right (you cannot effectively fight fire with fire). And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government).

Edit: I'm genuinely impressed with all the interest and participation in this thread. It's really something!
For all you "tl;dr" people, here's a running tally of the best/worst debaters in the thread so far:

[Best debaters]
Krogenar
hashbaz

[Worst debaters]
Malphas
TheGreatAmphibianPling
sth
tufty

The best ones are NOT the ones who agreed with me - they're the ones who have provided clear and respectful arguments. The ones in the "worst" category have either been completely ineffective at debating at all, or their arguments are wrought with fallacies, biases and incomplete research. They have often times also been rude, accusatory, attacked my person rather than my beliefs, or simply trolled the thread and tried to throw it off course. They also are seemingly always unable to admit when they are wrong, which is not true of the folks here who are quite good at debating.

Here's one of many good articles on ways to improve your debating techniques:
http://suite101.com/article/how-to-debate-effectively-a74703

Now, to debunk some of trollphibians rants from another thread he tried to derail into oblivian:

 

I'd actually say that you are evil person, because you are willing to allow very large moral abuses to be committed so that you don't have to commit what are at most smaller ones.

On the contrary; that is wholly not true. Both our governments commit intensely large moral abuses every day, so why do YOU legitimize them as such? I do not.

This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...

Singapore is peaceful? LolWAT? Like their monopoly on violence doesn't directly impact their own citizens every damn day? You can always tell a statist's arguments suck when they bring up Somalia: Somalia's conflict has always been due to a struggle for bringing statism in Mogadishu. Since they have been stateless, all their industries are booming and their overall standard of living is much higher than it was. I will post some articles from the Mises Institute which will open your eyes to the reality of Somalia a bit later.

Edit: here they are:
https://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia
http://mises.org/daily/2066

..So your the answer to your silly rhetorical question has already been given - which is that no thinks that the state can reduce risk to zero, but that this is a stupid criteria for whether to have a state. Vaccinations, seat belts, parachutes, air bags, etc, don't reduce risk to zero - but you're still an idiot if you jump out of a plane without a parachute because the parachute isn't guaranteed to work *perfectly.*

How do you enforce any of those things in statism? At point of gun. So that's really all you're advocating. As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.

[JaccoW]

Did you ever read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? About a supposed state of chaos after which people actually chose to relinguish their right to violence to the state because it has certain advantages. Now the original state of chaos thing is probably bull****, but a state can be a necessary evil.

And even if someone was truly good and virtuous, I do not think this means they cannot accept the fact that evil exists. Denying someone else's wish to be evil is actually an act of violence in itself and would make them 'not perfectly good'. Accepting the minor evils of a government and legitimising evil can have it's advantages, even for good people.

Personally I have always thought that a country's population has to make a choice on how much self-responsibility it accepts. Either you accept "bad luck" or the consequences of your own "stupidity" or you look for someone else to take care of this. And that can be a state, family or an insurance company.

Saying that the perfect government doesn't exist does not matter here as proof. The perfect anarchist society doesn't exist either.
There is a really nice word for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember right now.

[Krogenar]

The belief in statism is essentially the belief that certain parts of society like fiscal, commerce, healthcare, etc. should be controlled by a central governing body. This belief is actually merely a belief in a monopoly on violent force, since no state is able to enfore anything without the inherent or implied threat of violent force. The belief in government as a "necessary evil", therefore, is essentially a belief that evil is necessary. People who are truly peaceful and virtuous, then, cannot believe in government; since it is a legitimization of all the evils which happen in the world anyway. Therefore, anarchists accept that life is inherently filled with risk, and that two wrongs do not make a right (you cannot fight fire with fire). And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government).

I think there's a lot of interesting ideas at work here, keyboardlover, and I'm curious to see where our ideas about politics intersect. I believe that there are some things that government is better at doing than individuals, but that there's nothing that a group of individuals cannot ultimately do on their own without a government. I'm of the general opinion that power over other people should be distributed as widely as possible (but not necessarily evenly). Ideally, power is distributed to individuals via the market. More on that later.

Government, in my eyes is 'evil' -- 'stupid' is perhaps a better label here, but one is easily confused for the other. I consider 'evil' to be defined as 'horribly inefficient'. Government is 99% of the time the least effective way to do anything. The most efficient use of money is to have the person who earned the money spend the money on themselves. The individual knows his or her desires more intimately than anyone else, and since they earned the money, they are most likely to spend it as economically as possible -- to maximize the utility gained. Government, by contrast, has a third party spending another person's earned income on yet another person. It maximizes inefficiency on all levels.

But government can and does impose useful restrictions on liberty. Building codes that restrict the freedom of builders are good -- they require that doors swing outwards, so that in a dangerous situation people can escape the building. These are restrictions on liberty, but they are useful because they make life safer for everyone. If you die in a burning building, your liberties are now gone.

The catch is finding that balance between individual liberty and public liberty.

This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...

Singapore is peaceful? LolWAT? Like their monopoly on violence doesn't directly impact their own citizens every damn day? You can always tell a statist's arguments suck when they bring up Somalia: Somalia's conflict has always been due to a struggle for bringing statism in Mogadishu. Since they have been stateless, all their industries are booming and their overall standard of living is much higher than it was. I will post some articles from the Mises Institute which will open your eyes to the reality of Somalia a bit later.

Wow! I went to Singapore. My brother-in-law lives there, and my wife and I visited him just last year. My impression was thus: a beautiful country. Imagine a golf course that encompasses an entire country and you would get the general picture. I had never seen median strips on highways look so perfectly groomed. In the U.S. we have yellow grass -- the Singaporeans have gardens on their median strips. Beautiful, beautiful country -- and I was warned in advance that they fine you very steeply for spitting on the street, graffiti, etc. Yeah, can you imagine a society that frowns on public urination, and fines you for it? ("But it's my right! --- and I'm not finished yet!") I work in NYC, where people routinely drop their house garbage bags in front of my business, and homeless people have the right to defecate on my doorstep -- so these rules were pretty attractive to me.

So my trip caps off with me, my wife and my brother-in-law and his family walking along a gorgeous boardwalk. The boardwalk is comprised of very thin strips of wood that curve into a kind of artful topographic wall alongside. And there are tiny little lights embedded in between the boards that twinkle. Being the kind of guy I am, I thought, "This is beautiful! It wouldn't last a week in the U.S.!" There would have been graffiti in days, gum and trash wedged into the crevices of the wood boards, a few pools of stagnant urine, etc.

See, in Singapore they fine you for that sort of thing and then they cane your feet, or your back. Not sure how I feel about it. Seems like there's positively no real punishment for people in the U.S. that make life miserable. Also, I asked my brother-in-law about the police. I hadn't noticed any -- at all! He said that they were all plainclothes. All of them. And there were cameras everywhere, which felt a bit weird. You know that you're in a bit of a police state, but it doesn't feel that way.

I chalk it up to cultural differences. Asians generally are very group oriented, with a tendency towards orderliness. (SEE: Aftermath of Fukushima Reactor Meltdown -- Japanese wait patiently in line for relief. Would that happen in the U.S.? Don't think so.) So I have a feeling that these laws are not generally need to be enforced.

All told, I think I like my society a bit more rough and tumble than the Singaporeans, but it seemed like a nice place to live, and it suits them.

How do you enforce any of those things in statism? At point of gun. So that's really all you're advocating.

I don't believe that there's any way to have a society without the presence of force. Government's primary function is to funnel all that power into a single, trusted (there's the rub) entity. If violent force were allowed freely to every individual, then might would be right. The strong would take from the weak, etc. -- that's not good. But with the sole authority to use force, people should be more wary of government than they tend to be.

As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.

Seatbelts? I think an individual has the right to decide whether they want to take a safety precaution so long as no one else's liberty is put at stake. If I don't wear a seatbelt, whom do I harm besides myself? Childseat laws I endorse because the child is not yet able to make their own decisions about safety. So those laws I do support. People should be allowed to smoke so long as their health problems do not become my financial burden. Parachutes -- not gonna touch that one, not aware of any laws regarding them. Air bags -- I don't think the government needs to regulate this. I think most companies would want to make them standard features without having their arms twisted by government.

Finally, keyboardlover, you refer to statism as the most dangerous religion in the world.

Sadly, I have to agree because the facts support you. The last century was the bloodiest century in human history, and the vast majority of the millions murdered were democides -- murdered by their own government. From Stalin's purges, to the Holocaust, to Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' -- they all lead to massive death, often preceded by misery. And yet, some people still have a massive hard-on for government.

Don't believe me? Look up 'The Great Leap Forward' -- millions of Chinese sacrificed on the altar of one man's really bad idea. They starved to death, which (this is morbid, I know) is probably the worst possible way to die.

Keyboardlover, I think there's a lot we agree upon, but we may disagree on whether government's are required. I think they are necessary, but should be treated with great caution.

[dn]

As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.

I like the way you think.

[keyboardlover]

Did you ever read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? About a supposed state of chaos after which people actually chose to relinguish their right to violence to the state because it has certain advantages. Now the original state of chaos thing is probably bull****, but a state can be a necessary evil.

Sure, if you believe so. I do not. But statists gonna state. But to answer your question, no, I have not read Leviathan.

And even if someone was truly good and virtuous, I do not think this means they cannot accept the fact that evil exists. Denying someone else's wish to be evil is actually an act of violence in itself and would make them 'not perfectly good'. Accepting the minor evils of a government and legitimising evil can have it's advantages, even for good people.

I think you may be confusing my stance here: I believe that evil exists; that is precisely why I choose not to legitimize it. I do not think any of these things are ok when anyone does it (statists believe that they are only ok when the state does it).

Personally I have always thought that a country's population has to make a choice on how much self-responsibility it accepts. Either you accept "bad luck" or the consequences of your own "stupidity" or you look for someone else to take care of this. And that can be a state, family or an insurance company.

Yes, I prefer voluntary forms of managing risk (which can include things like insurance as well as independent dispute-resolution organizations).

Saying that the perfect government doesn't exist does not matter here as proof. The perfect anarchist society doesn't exist either.
There is a really nice word for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember right now.

I don't think I said that, but I agree. Human beings are by nature imperfect so of course that is true.

[tp4tissue]

Ah, no anything that has to do with "africa" is simply due to the power vacuum left by imperialist britain.


Statism is "Not" as extreme as you say, because the governing body is inherently still "human", However detached from the subjects they rule, their "humanity" and all its attributes are constant.   Thus, it is out of organization that we have governance...

True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare...

Without statism, is a society without a parent...   

[dn]

Good to see everyone putting their keyboards to good use with some REAL and INTERESTING discussion.... I am new to forums and I certainly like what I see so far

[keyboardlover]

I think there's a lot of interesting ideas at work here, keyboardlover, and I'm curious to see where our ideas about politics intersect. I believe that there are some things that government is better at doing than individuals, but that there's nothing that a group of individuals cannot ultimately do on their own without a government. I'm of the general opinion that power over other people should be distributed as widely as possible (but not necessarily evenly). Ideally, power is distributed to individuals via the market. More on that later.

But don't people self-organize all the time anyway? Don't people enjoy all kinds of voluntary associations with businesses, places they work, churches, schools, etc.?

But government can and does impose useful restrictions on liberty. Building codes that restrict the freedom of builders are good -- they require that doors swing outwards, so that in a dangerous situation people can escape the building. These are restrictions on liberty, but they are useful because they make life safer for everyone. If you die in a burning building, your liberties are now gone.

The catch is finding that balance between individual liberty and public liberty.

What is useful for you, is not necessarily useful for others. I don't care how people want to make buildings...if I don't like the building, I can make the choice not to go in it. I will use the ones I choose to.

All told, I think I like my society a bit more rough and tumble than the Singaporeans, but it seemed like a nice place to live, and it suits them.

See? If you give them an inch, they will take everything. 1984 was meant to be a warning, NOT an instruction manual.

I don't believe that there's any way to have a society without the presence of force. Government's primary function is to funnel all that power into a single, trusted (there's the rub) entity. If violent force were allowed freely to every individual, then might would be right. The strong would take from the weak, etc. -- that's not good. But with the sole authority to use force, people should be more wary of government than they tend to be.

I believe in the non-aggression principle; I believe that any and all initiation of force is illegitimate. I believe that people should not be restricted in any way to, therefore, protect and/or arms themselves in any way they see fit. I believe that people can (and are) peaceful, even though they own weapons.

Childseat laws I endorse because the child is not yet able to make their own decisions about safety. So those laws I do support. People should be allowed to smoke so long as their health problems do not become my financial burden.

I think it should be at their parents' discretion; not enforced at point of gun. Don't forget, these kinds of rules are often enforced voluntarily by communities all the time (they'll call you a bad parent if you don't do it). I much prefer that idea to one of force. And I agree that people's health problems should not be anyone's financial burden. Healthcare, like everything else, should be voluntary.

True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare...

Without statism, is a society without a parent...   

Depends how you define "true tyranny", but there are very real examples which happen all over the world today, all too often. Where the monopoly on violence legitimized by statism, that gun, is fired upon peaceful people ALL too often. Without statism IS a society without a parent, and that is what I'm advocating for. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules" but merely, "no rulers".

Keyboardlover, I think there's a lot we agree upon, but we may disagree on whether government's are required. I think they are necessary, but should be treated with great caution.

Let me just ask you this question then: do you believe people should have the right to be left alone?

[Krogenar]

But don't people self-organize all the time anyway? Don't people enjoy all kinds of voluntary associations with businesses, places they work, churches, schools, etc.?

Absolutely so -- people are self-organizing, and no state ordinarily has to step in make these sorts of ad hoc organizations come into being. I couldn't disagree more with tp's statement that a people without a government are like a family without a parent. I don't know about tp or others, but I'm not a child in need of coddling. KBL you point out that these associations are voluntary -- but who is to say that the current government was not voluntarily entered into as well? Assuming you are American like myself, we are free to leave this country for greener shores. Our decision to remain means we are willingly accepting the rules of society. I think government is a natural extension of these people-based organizations, but they can grow out of control.

Also, I recognize (as I think you do) the primacy of the individual over the state. The state was created for the people, by the people. Government should be subservient to people, not the other way around. The people do not exist for the sake of the government. This seems so simple as sound almost stupid, but before the American Revolution it was decidedly the opposite; the people of France existed for the sake of the monarchy.

But government can and does impose useful restrictions on liberty. Building codes that restrict the freedom of builders are good -- they require that doors swing outwards, so that in a dangerous situation people can escape the building. These are restrictions on liberty, but they are useful because they make life safer for everyone. If you die in a burning building, your liberties are now gone.

The catch is finding that balance between individual liberty and public liberty.

What is useful for you, is not necessarily useful for others. I don't care how people want to make buildings...if I don't like the building, I can make the choice not to go in it. I will use the ones I choose to.

Well, if you enter a building (any building) it should be built in a fashion that protects the most primal of all your liberties -- your life. How can you or I look at a building and necessarily know that it is safe in the event of fire, or other emergency. You or I may not be capable of making an informed choice. Pick up any bit of food -- can you say for certain it was not sprayed with a chemical that was dangerous? I don't mind sacrificing a small amount of freedom if I receive a larger sum in return, in the long term.

Think of it like surgery. Cutting people with knives is generally considered unacceptable -- but if I had to remove a gangrene-infected, necrotic limb to save my life, I wouldn't hesitate. Some people might! And I think those people are in a very, very small minority, however. And if you were to oppose, say, fire code ordinances in relation to building construction, your insistence on such matters would infringe upon the liberty of others.

Again, this is about necessity. People's liberty should be infringed upon only when it benefits everyone. A seat belt only benefits the individual, so allow the individual to make the call. Earlier KBL (please accept this acronym?) you pointed out that you accept that it is impossible to create a risk free world. I concur. But that doesn't mean simple guidelines for safety should be shot down.

I grant you that government regulations have grown far beyond basic safety and become stultifying, confused and sclerotic. Politicians often intone, "If it saves even one life." Well, that's a lot of flapdoodle. (Real word: look it up, I'm bringing it back.) So if we reduced highway speed limits to say 5 MPH, we would undoubtedly save someone's life... so we should do it? No.

All told, I think I like my society a bit more rough and tumble than the Singaporeans, but it seemed like a nice place to live, and it suits them.

See? If you give them an inch, they will take everything. 1984 was meant to be a warning, NOT an instruction manual.

Are you saying I'm giving Singaporeans an inch? Not sure what you mean.

I don't believe that there's any way to have a society without the presence of force. Government's primary function is to funnel all that power into a single, trusted (there's the rub) entity. If violent force were allowed freely to every individual, then might would be right. The strong would take from the weak, etc. -- that's not good. But with the sole authority to use force, people should be more wary of government than they tend to be.

I believe in the non-aggression principle; I believe that any and all initiation of force is illegitimate.

Eh... processing that statement carefully... so you're saying that the initial taking by force is always illegitimate, always wrong? I generally try to shy away from absolute statements. I like my wiggle room. Can I take baby formula from someone else if it's the only way to feed my baby daughter? Or would I be morally more righteous to watch her starve? It's an extreme example and not likely to happen, true. We're edging away from politics and more into ethics, now.

I believe that people should not be restricted in any way to, therefore, protect and/or arms themselves in any way they see fit. I believe that people can (and are) peaceful, even though they own weapons.

No, I think there should be some sensible restrictions on the Second Amendment. Not all gun owners are peaceful -- probably the vast, vast majority. And I believe an armed society is more likely to be a polite society. But every right enshrined by the American Constitution is to some degree or another limited. As an example, the right to free speech is NOT absolute. You cannot say absolutely anything you want. Threatening others, libel, slander -- not free speech, as you are using your speech to infringe upon another person's rights.

If people should not be restricted in any way to protect themselves, then I could, theoretically build a nuclear bomb in my basement and would be completely within my Constitutionally protected rights to do so. You couldn't possibly endorse that, could you? On account of your opinion elsewhere I will give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to imprecise language. But let's slide it down from nuclear weapon to, say, something less -- how about a Sherman tank? Should a private citizen be allowed to own a tank? I think that would be overkill, wouldn't you say? Again -- I'm not declaring the exact point where individual rights balance out against the rights (safety) of others. That's for society (legislators) to determine.

KBL I feel your ire at the constant assault on the Second Amendment, and I agree. It's nearly impossible to own a firearm in NYC, ensuring that only criminals are armed. I agree with requiring that firearm owners be licensed, and require that they receive training -- guns shouldn't be available via a vending machine (don't try bumping the machine if the Uzi fails to drop off the hook). But the government is taking it to an extreme and it should be resisted.

Childseat laws I endorse because the child is not yet able to make their own decisions about safety. So those laws I do support. People should be allowed to smoke so long as their health problems do not become my financial burden and second hand smoke does not harm others.

I think it should be at their parents' discretion; not enforced at point of gun. Don't forget, these kinds of rules are often enforced voluntarily by communities all the time (they'll call you a bad parent if you don't do it). I much prefer that idea to one of force. And I agree that people's health problems should not be anyone's financial burden. Healthcare, like everything else, should be voluntary.

I guess it gets back to the issue of who the child belongs to; the state or the parents. I could acquiesce to relaxing child safety seats, but would still voluntarily choose to use one.

[Krogenar]

Ah, no anything that has to do with "africa" is simply due to the power vacuum left by imperialist britain.

I'm curious, tp -- what state do you think Africa would be in had the colonials not arrived? Also, how can you be so sure that all the problems that Africa experiences are directly attributable to the colonials? At what point (if ever) does Africa become responsible for itself? Or is it a problem that will never go away. Also, to save you time, I am white -- not that it should matter.

Statism is "Not" as extreme as you say, because the governing body is inherently still "human", However detached from the subjects they rule, their "humanity" and all its attributes are constant.   Thus, it is out of organization that we have governance...

Only humans are capable of evil. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, serially murderers all -- they were all human too. Evil humans using governments to murder other humans. Not all governments do this, so it's fair to say that these men (and other men who espouse their political actions and views) are on the outside (extreme) of the norm.
 

True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare... Without statism, is a society without a parent...

There are petty tyrannies all over. "True" tyranny (the negation of the individual) is seen most often in collectivist/communist/socialistic countries, like North Korea, China, Cuba, and Iran. Tyrants aren't rare, sadly --- and there's no shortage of people ready to make excuses for them. The word 'tyrant' is abused about as often as 'Nazi' ("Give me a free BBQ sauce packet, you tyrant!") but tyrants aren't rare enough. In any case, death to tyrants -- real tyrants. What number of genuine tyrants would make them no longer rare?

[tp4tissue]

Ah, no anything that has to do with "africa" is simply due to the power vacuum left by imperialist britain.

I'm curious, tp -- what state do you think Africa would be in had the colonials not arrived? Also, how can you be so sure that all the problems that Africa experiences are directly attributable to the colonials? At what point (if ever) does Africa become responsible for itself? Or is it a problem that will never go away. Also, to save you time, I am white -- not that it should matter.

Statism is "Not" as extreme as you say, because the governing body is inherently still "human", However detached from the subjects they rule, their "humanity" and all its attributes are constant.   Thus, it is out of organization that we have governance...

Only humans are capable of evil. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, serially murderers all -- they were all human too. Evil humans using governments to murder other humans. Not all governments do this, so it's fair to say that these men (and other men who espouse their political actions and views) are on the outside (extreme) of the norm.
 

True TYRANNY, is VERY VERY rare... Without statism, is a society without a parent...

There are petty tyrannies all over. "True" tyranny (the negation of the individual) is seen most often in collectivist/communist/socialistic countries, like North Korea, China, Cuba, and Iran. Tyrants aren't rare, sadly --- and there's no shortage of people ready to make excuses for them. The word 'tyrant' is abused about as often as 'Nazi' ("Give me a free BBQ sauce packet, you tyrant!") but tyrants aren't rare enough. In any case, death to tyrants -- real tyrants. What number of genuine tyrants would make them no longer rare?

I don't know what Africa would be like without colonials, my point is, their "current" strife was heavily due to the thwarting that occurred.

I would "imagine" that they'd be quite happy naked and drinking goat milk...    The white man brought to Africa systems that the natives were not ready for..  THEN.. they fk-ed off before it was ever fully setup because of internal collapse.


The hitler stalin mao thing, obama kills just as many people for EVEN LESS virtuous reasons.... Let's not go here...


Tyranny is rarely possible because it requires a very child like mentality... most people who achieve great power eventually grow out of it, because given age, it isn't terribly hard to realize that externalized success can not truly be possessed.

For example,,, Putin,, he was a super evil guy... but now that he's got all the power in the world.... over the years he's placated... and not the child he used to be.

[JaccoW]

Did you ever read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? About a supposed state of chaos after which people actually chose to relinguish their right to violence to the state because it has certain advantages. Now the original state of chaos thing is probably bull****, but a state can be a necessary evil.

Sure, if you believe so. I do not. But statists gonna state. But to answer your question, no, I have not read Leviathan.

The reason I am bringing him up because he is one of the origins of the idea of statism. Or at least the reason why people believe in it;
The basic fear that we might have been worse off if we did not have a state to govern our lives.

Whether you believe this fear is real or not doesn't matter. State of nature - Hobbes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It provides a background for the opposing idea.

Anyway, your story reminded me of this. Godawful book though. Read the condensed version to get the basic idea.

Oh, and please do not try to use Ad hominem by saying "statists gonna state". You have no idea what my idea on statism or anarchy is. By saying this you are showing you are not interested in the views of the other side and just want to drink some tea with likeminded people. In that case you should not have made a topic such as this.

And even if someone was truly good and virtuous, I do not think this means they cannot accept the fact that evil exists. Denying someone else's wish to be evil is actually an act of violence in itself and would make them 'not perfectly good'. Accepting the minor evils of a government and legitimising evil can have it's advantages, even for good people.

I think you may be confusing my stance here: I believe that evil exists; that is precisely why I choose not to legitimize it. I do not think any of these things are ok when anyone does it (statists believe that they are only ok when the state does it).

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Do you believe in a universal stance on good and evil? Some things are never good.

I believe in that some things which are evil in one community can be considered good in the other. That even within a single society (state governed or not) some people will feel very strong about one thing and call it evil, while others don't care and find it a minor nuisance.

EDIT: So in that case it is not so black and white that you can 'not legitimize' evil.

Personally I have always thought that a country's population has to make a choice on how much self-responsibility it accepts. Either you accept "bad luck" or the consequences of your own "stupidity" or you look for someone else to take care of this. And that can be a state, family or an insurance company.

Yes, I prefer voluntary forms of managing risk (which can include things like insurance as well as independent dispute-resolution organizations).

That is fine. But it also means that some weaker members of society might not be able to do just that. They do not have the choice.
EDIT: Not the money, no family or friends that can take care of them in times of need.

Saying that the perfect government doesn't exist does not matter here as proof. The perfect anarchist society doesn't exist either.
There is a really nice word for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember right now.

I don't think I said that, but I agree. Human beings are by nature imperfect so of course that is true.

Actually you did:
"And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government)."

[Jocelyn]

Oh wow. I was REALLY surprised when I saw this thread on spy and it made me happy! I also believe governments are fictional entities that only exist because people believe in them.
"The gun in the room". - Thank You for starting this thread keyboardlover

Quoting from a friend of mine -

Firstly, a government has a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area. Without this monopoly it would not be a State.

Secondly, a government has nothing todo with governance or leadership. Governments neither govern nor lead, they rule, threaten and harm.

[Malphas]

What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.

Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse

[tp4tissue]

What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.

Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is as an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse

Then there are those who say "given how boring life is in this wonderful world... sure could go for some anarchy righ'bou'now"

I must admit, I've felt that way at times, but it was BEFORE I experienced a 4 day power outage, that had me rethink how GREAT life is being under a suppressive government.

[Krogenar]

I don't know what Africa would be like without colonials, my point is, their "current" strife was heavily due to the thwarting that occurred. I would "imagine" that they'd be quite happy naked and drinking goat milk...    The white man brought to Africa systems that the natives were not ready for..  THEN.. they fk-ed off before it was ever fully setup because of internal collapse.

So you think Africans would not have progressed beyond tribalism in all this time? Scary thought, that.

The hitler stalin mao thing, obama kills just as many people for EVEN LESS virtuous reasons.... Let's not go here...

What? We're already here! As for Obama, Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- you are partially correct. Obama kills people. In fact, no other Nobel Peace Prize winner has launched as many cruise missiles as President Obama, but as a murderer he pales in comparison to Hitler, Stalin and all the other collectivist dictators of the past century in terms of the number of murders. He doesn't even come close to Hitler, let alone Stalin and Mao. Obama is no where near any of them, and you .... you really didn't know that, did you?

Tyranny is rarely possible because it requires a very child like mentality... most people who achieve great power eventually grow out of it, because given age, it isn't terribly hard to realize that externalized success can not truly be possessed.

What does that even mean? For every person who says this sort of crap, they should be dropped into North Korea or Cuba forever. Have fun -- the grass there isn't for smoking, it's for making soup.

For example,,, Putin,, he was a super evil guy... but now that he's got all the power in the world.... over the years he's placated... and not the child he used to be.

Putin dumped his wife of like twenty years to marry an 18-year-old rhythmic gymnast, and he throws dissidents in jails. He strong-arms his opponents, rigs elections, and pretends to be a macho outdoorsman. This sort of behavior is befitting a tyrant. He's just dressing it up. And you, you believe it? I suppose Cuba is a worker's paradise, right?

[tp4tissue]

I don't know what Africa would be like without colonials, my point is, their "current" strife was heavily due to the thwarting that occurred. I would "imagine" that they'd be quite happy naked and drinking goat milk...    The white man brought to Africa systems that the natives were not ready for..  THEN.. they fk-ed off before it was ever fully setup because of internal collapse.

So you think Africans would not have progressed beyond tribalism in all this time? Scary thought, that.

The hitler stalin mao thing, obama kills just as many people for EVEN LESS virtuous reasons.... Let's not go here...

What? We're already here! As for Obama, Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- you are partially correct. Obama kills people. In fact, no other Nobel Peace Prize winner has launched as many cruise missiles as President Obama, but as a murderer he pales in comparison to Hitler, Stalin and all the other collectivist dictators of the past century in terms of the number of murders. He doesn't even come close to Hitler, let alone Stalin and Mao. Obama is no where near any of them, and you .... you really didn't know that, did you?

Tyranny is rarely possible because it requires a very child like mentality... most people who achieve great power eventually grow out of it, because given age, it isn't terribly hard to realize that externalized success can not truly be possessed.

What does that even mean? For every person who says this sort of crap, they should be dropped into North Korea or Cuba forever. Have fun -- the grass there isn't for smoking, it's for making soup.

For example,,, Putin,, he was a super evil guy... but now that he's got all the power in the world.... over the years he's placated... and not the child he used to be.

Putin dumped his wife of like twenty years to marry an 18-year-old rhythmic gymnast, and he throws dissidents in jails. He strong-arms his opponents, rigs elections, and pretends to be a macho outdoorsman. This sort of behavior is befitting a tyrant. He's just dressing it up. And you, you believe it? I suppose Cuba is a worker's paradise, right?

All the economists agree, if Africans weren't so dame happy being free, they could do so much with that nation... but alas, they're happy.... why is that, when they've got balls nothing...

North Korea and Cuba, are great nations...  They've got missiles and everything... Had they given in to regulation, they'd still be like the south asia: philippine, thailand, vietnam, which are dominated by American economic powers.

Not to mention, High literacy rate..


Which man wouldn't dump a wife of 20 years for an 18 year old rhythmic gymnast had he had the opportunity....   

Who's to say the wife doesn't sleep with 18 male rhythmic gymnasts. 

Dissidents belong in jail.... that's the whole point

Elections are for children and the poor who believes in them... This is not a conspiracy theory... this is fact

[keyboardlover]

The basic fear that we might have been worse off if we did not have a state to govern our lives.

Whether you believe this fear is real or not doesn't matter. State of nature - Hobbes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It provides a background for the opposing idea.

I am familiar with such a stance and as to why the belief originated/why states originate. That doesn't change my stance though.

Oh, and please do not try to use Ad hominem by saying "statists gonna state". You have no idea what my idea on statism or anarchy is. By saying this you are showing you are not interested in the views of the other side and just want to drink some tea with likeminded people. In that case you should not have made a topic such as this.

Oh no no! That was not meant to be ad hominem at all; merely tongue-in-cheek. Not directed towards yourself at all either.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Do you believe in a universal stance on good and evil? Some things are never good.

I believe in that some things which are evil in one community can be considered good in the other. That even within a single society (state governed or not) some people will feel very strong about one thing and call it evil, while others don't care and find it a minor nuisance.

EDIT: So in that case it is not so black and white that you can 'not legitimize' evil.

I think it is black and white when it comes to the NAP: violating another's right to life, unless in self-defense, is evil IMO. The initiation of force is evil IMO.

That is fine. But it also means that some weaker members of society might not be able to do just that. They do not have the choice.
EDIT: Not the money, no family or friends that can take care of them in times of need.

Sure, but that also happens now. It's part of my stance in accepting the risk inevitable in life.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

The belief in statism is essentially the belief that certain parts of society like fiscal, commerce, healthcare, etc. should be controlled by a central governing body.

Anyone capable of writing the above is incapable of intelligent thought. What does "controlled" mean? A command economy or regulations to prevent the use of child labour and the sale of nuclear weapons? The above idiotically lumps them together.

This belief is actually merely a belief in a monopoly on violent force, since no state is able to enfore anything without the inherent or implied threat of violent force.

Fail. All that is required for the state to eg prevent the sale of nuclear weapons is that it should be able to use force, NOT that it should have a MONOPOLY of force - a preponderance, yes. Almost all states recognize the right of citizens to use force eg in self defense. (Note: people who write in cliches think badly.)

The belief in government as a "necessary evil", therefore, is essentially a belief that evil is necessary.

Who says that using force to prevent child abuse or the sale of poisoned food is evil?

People who are truly peaceful and virtuous, then, cannot believe in government; since it is a legitimization of all the evils which happen in the world anyway.

Ok: so if a policeman or a citizen uses force to prevent eg a rape, then he is "legitimizing" rape... Maybe this makes sense in your parent's basement, but in the real world no.

Therefore, anarchists accept that life is inherently filled with risk, and that two wrongs do not make a right (you cannot effectively fight fire with fire).

Your ignorance is apparently boundless: "fight fire with fire" is a cliche because counter-fires are often crucial to fighting forest fires....

And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government).

This is immeasurably silly and dishonest: you haven't defined what a successful government is.

I'd actually say that you are evil person, because you are willing to allow very large moral abuses to be committed so that you don't have to commit what are at most smaller ones.

On the contrary; that is wholly not true. Both our governments commit intensely large moral abuses every day, so why do YOU legitimize them as such? I do not.

This  is Pure Fail: that someone else is a shoplifter does not excuse your being a murderer; the two are separate issues.

...Logic is something to with tree trunks to you, isn't it?

This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...

Singapore is peaceful? LolWAT?

Compared to Rawanda and Somalia? Yes.

I will post some articles from the Mises Institute which will open your eyes to the reality of Somalia a bit later.

Which is about as intellectually respectable as publishing a party from the Nazi Party on the  benefits of Hitler's Jewish Policy...

..So your the answer to your silly rhetorical question has already been given - which is that no thinks that the state can reduce risk to zero, but that this is a stupid criteria for whether to have a state. Vaccinations, seat belts, parachutes, air bags, etc, don't reduce risk to zero - but you're still an idiot if you jump out of a plane without a parachute because the parachute isn't guaranteed to work *perfectly.*

How do you enforce any of those things in statism? At point of gun. So that's really all you're advocating.

Congratulations on failing to understand what a metaphor is! The point isn't that the state should make people use parachutes, but that your argument that the state can't reduce risk to zero so therefore any risk reduction it does make should be ignored is, again, nothing but Fail. The laws a state should enforce are things like "No rape or murder", "Don't sell poisoned food", "Children go to school instead of to work in factories or brothels" - all of which you have rejected.

As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion

I'm fine with idiots doing things to hurt themselves, but you are now you are being a moral coward. The question we were debating (in "Commercialism vs Community") was not whether the state has the right to make people wear seat belts, but whether it has the right to stop businesses from poisoning customers, parents from selling children from profit, ordinary idiots from driving while drunk, and terrorists from buying nuclear weapons. These things are very different to whether or not people should be free to decide whether they want to wear a seatbelt or not!

[Jocelyn]

What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.

Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse

You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family. Statism is nothing more than another religion, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown. Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.

If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.
The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.

I like the way you think.

I don't think anyone could object to what he wrote there. Unfortunately, what he wrote is dishonest! What he means by "statism" is that any law - eg the one that stops your neighbours from killing you and taking you stuff, or requires that any nuclear power or chemical plant built near you be up to code - enforced by the "violence" of the state is a Bad Thing. See "Commercialism vs Community."

[Malphas]

What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.

Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse

You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family. Statism is nothing more than another religion, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown. Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.

If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.
The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.


Non-statism means with rules, not rulers.

One of the most naive things I've ever read. If you think violence and antisocial behaviour are the result of statism and modern society rather than something hard-wired into our DNA then you're delusional.

[hashbaz]

KL, can you tell me how an anarchist society deals with the problem of gangs looting, raping, and destroying property?

[jdcarpe]

Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling, in other words, making a statement to elicit an emotional response. Please come back when you have something to say which is both logical and germane to the subject being discussed, and which you can support with evidence.

[Appeac]

Ancap here, don't have time to reply with anything good, just to commend you.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

And now for a catalogue of logical fallacies:

You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family.

..Argument by assertion.

Statism is nothing more than another religion

..Same.

, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown.

..And again! In fact, the above is quite simply preposterously ignorant. The modern idea of the state is only about 400 years old, and during that time science and education levels have increased in the West - can we say "Correlation is not causation" Perhaps we could even find out what it means? And there are certainly counter examples in that time - for example Nazi Germany was by any sane measure  more religious and more statist than either modern Germany or 1940s Sweden.

Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.

Ok: tell me in what way eg the Swedish system of government is based on child abuse?

If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.

Ummm... unless you learn it later. People do do that you know.

The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.

Congratulations on not knowing that the strong form of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis was disproved decades ago. (Translation: "Mr Science, him say you talking krazee!")





[/quote]

[Jocelyn]

What's most hilarious about drivel like this is that if statist government was suddenly abolished overnight, it's guys that sit on their computers writing nonsense about "statism = evil" that would be the first to get robbed/raped/murdered by marauding hordes. Most people obviously wouldn't go out exploiting the power vacuum, but a small minority would (as evidenced by every riot or natural disaster in history, pretty much), and in the short term it's people like that who'd be in charge, which is clearly worse than the semi-democratic, relatively reasonable governments we have in place now.

Of course after a while in this post-statist, anarchist utopia groups and communities would start to form to handle things like law and order, etc. amalgamating either voluntarily, or through force and before long they start to resemble early governments and you're right back where we started. One thing I do agree with, is that there's nothing special about a state government. It's just a group with enough power to exert control over everyone else, but that same principle has existed since forever, it's part of the human condition. One of the reasons governments have evolved the way they have is - since humans exerting power over other humans is an inevitability - an attempt to provide some sort of legitimised authority through democracy rather than the more crude and exploitive power structures that precede it. It would be massively naive to think it's not a corrupt mess, but your alternatives like monarchies, feudalism, dictatorships, anarchy, etc. are even worse

You're looking at the small picture. I think this is a multigenerational thing (after our lifetime), that has quite a bit more to do with parenting and not teaching children the language of violence. Society as we know it today is nothing more than an anthropomorphization of the dysfunctional family. Statism is nothing more than another religion, and I believe that it is no accident that as traditional religions have declined , state power has grown. Statism has its own symbols, deities, rewards and punishments, and it also relies on the abuse of children - the similarities between the two are obvious and endless.

If a child doesn't learn a specific language (English, Mandarin, Esperanto, etc.,) it just sounds like gibberish when they later hear it in life.
The language of violence/statism is the same as any language, in that it is learned, and all that needs to be done is to stop teaching our children to speak statism.


Non-statism means with rules, not rulers.

One of the most naive things I've ever read. If you think violence and antisocial behaviour are the result of statism and modern society rather than something hard-wired into our DNA then you're delusional.

It's actually the other way around. Statism and the modern society are the result of violence, bad parenting, etc. As for "hard-wired into our DNA",  epigenetics covers all of this and goes even further to combine both hard-wired and envionmental together. Look it up

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling

I think you need to learn to read. Or at least, that you should *bother* to read, rather than jumping in half cocked on the side of posters you agree with.

1. The post I was responding to called me, without provocation, a troll. So, yes, I feel free to respond a little more brusquely to silliness than I normally would.

2. On no occasion did I rely on "Fail" as an argument. Instead I wrote eg "Fail. All that is required for the state to eg prevent the sale of nuclear weapons is that it should be able to use force, NOT that it should have a MONOPOLY of force - a preponderance, yes.: That's rather different, yes?

[Malphas]

Just saying things like, "you're delusional" or "Fail," does not constitute a successful rebuttal. It's considered trolling, in other words, making a statement to elicit an emotional response. Please come back when you have something to say which is both logical and germane to the subject being discussed, and which you can support with evidence.

Sometimes certain things aren't deserving of a full rebuttal though, and are patently ludicrous to the point where something like "fail" is an appropriate response.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

It's actually the other way around. Statism and the modern society are the result of violence, bad parenting, etc.

And you know this because...?

As for "hard-wired into our DNA",  epigenetics covers all of this and goes even further to combine both hard-wired and envionmental together. Look it up

I don't think anyone who makes arguments as ignorance based as "Violence is a language, if it isn't taught it won't be practiced - No, I've never heard of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis and have no idea that what you mean by the-strong-form-has-been-disproved" shouldn't be making such lofty recommendations to "look it up." Honestly, the idea that you understand a whole body of complex science when you've just demonstrated profound ignorance of a simple concept is not of the credible. In fact, "I know a multi-syllable word, and therefore I am right" should just never be used as an argument anyway - if you think there is something in epigenetics that agrees with your position (which I profoundly doubt) then you should say explicitly what that something is and what you reasoning is. Does that sound unreasonable?

[jdcarpe]

I think you need to learn to read. Or at least, that you should *bother* to read, rather than jumping in half cocked on the side of posters you agree with.

Trolling again, are we?

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

I think you need to learn to read. Or at least, that you should *bother* to read, rather than jumping in half cocked on the side of posters you agree with.

Trolling again, are we?

Ok: pointing that you obviously didn't bother to read the thread - because you were asking me to be polite to someone who started the thread by calling me a troll, while my reply had been considerable more polite in return - makes me a troll. In fact, the meaning of the word "troll" is hereby redefined, across the entire Internet, as "Anyone who points out that anything that jdcarpe says is factually, provably incorrect, or who otherwise makes him look less intelligent, charismatic, and generally froodish than he would he like." So mote it be!

And no, I'm not being ironic!

[keyboardlover]

Actually, no, I agree with jdcarpe that you're a troll.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

Actually, no, I agree with jdcarpe that you're a troll.

Well, yes: given that you are the person who started off the thread by calling me a troll simply because I don't share your and jd's opinions, you would.

Why you feel it is necessary to post, in effect, that you agree with yourself that "troll" can be used as a term of abuse simply for anyone who disagrees with you is another matter....

[jdcarpe]

My point being that you can attempt to refute someone's statement, using logic and examples as evidence. No need for the desultory comments. That's what makes you a troll, and I don't feed trolls.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

My point being that you can attempt to refute someone's statement, using logic and examples as evidence.

No, that wasn't your point. That was what you claimed to be your point, but you were either lying or hadn't read the thread: you singled out me, the person you disagree with, as being "derogatory" AND IGNORED THAT THE POSTER I WAS REPLYING TO HAD GRATUITOUSLY CALLED ME A TROLL WHEN HE OPENED THE THREAD! Really, this isn't rocket science: if you are rude to people, they will be less polite than would have been otherwise in reply. And if you attack the people you disagree for bad manners, when they are merely replying to bad manners - and more moderately - then people will tell you that you are showing bias.

No need for the desultory comments. That's what makes you a troll, and I don't feed trolls.

I.e. you realize that staying in this thread making probably untrue assertions will cause you greater and greater loss of face, so you are attempting to make the least undignified exist you can. Vive le power power de illusion!

[JaccoW]

Oh, and please do not try to use Ad hominem by saying "statists gonna state". You have no idea what my idea on statism or anarchy is. By saying this you are showing you are not interested in the views of the other side and just want to drink some tea with likeminded people. In that case you should not have made a topic such as this.

Oh no no! That was not meant to be ad hominem at all; merely tongue-in-cheek. Not directed towards yourself at all either.

Fair enough. Let us continue the discussion then.
Like gentlemen.

And now for a catalogue of logical fallacies:

Actually, I prefer this one:
Top 20 Logical Fallacies  - TheSkepticsGuide

For most people getting into a debate like this one it is hard to keep emotions or hatefull comments towards the other side out of it.
I have even seen professors of mine, philosophers with years of experience, slip in a punch under the belt. It's not easy to stay cool, especially if you are really convinced of being right. The only way of this being a fun conversation if people are not sure of their stance yet and want to view a few different side.
I haven't seen a lot of that yet though...

[sth]

KL, can you tell me how an anarchist society deals with the problem of gangs looting, raping, and destroying property?

if, as you posit, there is a codified society that these hypothetical gangs are looting, raping and destroying the property of, then the society can do what they see fit, be that physical violence, running them out of town, enacting extreme self-defense measures etc. there are some... shall we say... factions of anarchism that are completely opposed to all forms of physical violence even in cases of self defense, but they are in the minority (though there are many interesting philosophical discussions that can be had about it).

now, you may think (as many legitimately do) that that constitutes a form of mob rule, which is certainly possible, but it is also possible for those decisions to be made in a comparatively rational way when you look at how we deal with criminals now (turn them into monsters, villify and destroy them if they are not already past the point of rehabilitation in some cases).

you could also, i think fairly, assume that however an anarchist society forms, it forms out of a shift in thought process of a population as a whole, not merely as a plurality of individuals with 'good ideas'. taking that into account, it might be that there is simply less 'raping looting and destruction' as you put it. we just don't know at this point.

my friend described society (and he may have been paraphrasing another source) as an equation that produces remainders -- things like violent acts, vast imbalances of wealth at the expense of the majority of the population, pollution, rape culture, homelessness and poverty, and trying to work those problems out using the same equation we've been using is not going to give us any different results. you have to change the equation to get different results. that sounds sorta undergrad-intellectual, but it's a good metaphor.

and KL

statism is bad BUT you are using it as a boogeyman to represent a ton of issues that are related but that do not all boil down to statism, or to any one problem source.  i hope you start learning about feminism and classism before you go too far off into manarchy land, because the end of statism will never come so long as there is implicit acceptance of hierarchical oppression outside of a governmental context, and they are issues that we can actually do something about in our daily lives. the way you have talked about minorities and the poor in the past leads me to believe that you might not want to be looking at the bigger picture, but there is ALWAYS a bigger picture and things are always connected. nothing is without context.

privilege mother****er, do you have it? yes, and so does everybody on geekhack.  choosing to ignore it makes you no better than the statists you decry in the same way conservatives sling the word 'liberal' at anyone they disagree with. and please try to remember that not everybody has had anywhere near close to the level of privilege you have been raised with, so postulating about the lives of people with vastly different life experiences is just not helpful to anybody but your ego.

JaccoW: wasn't Hobbes near-universally decried by his peers for being uneducated and jumping to massive conclusions about how 'all people' work (or that it was even possible to boil down all peoples' behavior into a common human behavior)? I haven't read Leviathan yet... maybe someday.

sorry if i'm ranting... haven't read the whole thread yet.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

It's not easy to stay cool, especially if you are really convinced of being right.

I think a good tip is not to start the thread by calling people who disgree with you trolls and then to get your friends to join in... (Not "You" as in "You, JaccoW", obviously!)

The only way of this being a fun conversation if people are not sure of their stance yet and want to view a few different side.

I'd disagree. I respect people with views strongly differing from mine if they can argue logically - instead of hitting virtually every fallacy on that list you linked - and honestly. For example, the thread starter was explicit in the last thread that he regards "statism" as any use of force to enforce any law - but now he is referring only to the unobjectionable case of laws designed to prevent injury to the self, eg seatbelt laws. Why he has such a desperate need for people to agree with him that he will mis-state his position I have no idea, but there you go:

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39684.120#quickreply

So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?

Nope. Unlike you I am a peaceful person and unlike you I don't legitimize even my own slavery now. P.S. what is Al-qaeda exactly?

..What the point of defending your opinions is if you won't even be honest about them I have no idea!

[jdcarpe]

Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.

No, I enjoy easy targets...

[sth]

jeez.
i know the thread says caveman in it but we don't need to act like it in here.. can we cut out the potshots unless they're really really funny?

[jdcarpe]

No joke, sth. I thought we could all continue to debate in a civilized manner, but I guess emotions get the better of some.

[tjcaustin]

Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.

No, I enjoy easy targets...

I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you?  That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")

All I've seen is a bunch of "No, you're wrong and if you don't think what I think, clearly you can't think" and a lot of preposterous internet posturing about how he started it by calling you a troll.  A claim, that in and of itself isn't entirely true because I believe you started things off in the other thread, again with baseless allegations, claiming that if he believed what he posted he *couldn't* use logic.

[sth]

Did someone say something about me leaving the thread? I'm not going anywhere. Much to their chagrin, I'm sure.

No, I enjoy easy targets...

I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you?  That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")

i don't think you're being entirely fair here... he's actually not the only one who has done this, nor has anybody been better or worse about it.

also... i reject your assumption that anybody has to respect anybody's opinion. i sure as hell don't respect the opinion of people who i disagree with. that doesn't mean i disrespect them, just that i think that their worldview is  more beneficial to them than to anyone else.

you also have to understand that being right is very tiring.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you?  That doesn't sound like respecting other peoples' opinions, that sounds like someone that gets offended by having to be able to defend their own views (e.g.- claims that burden of proof isn't on you, that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion if someone else's is "so wrong")

All I've seen is a bunch of "No, you're wrong and if you don't think what I think, clearly you can't think"

It's easy to claim this when you disgree with someone - just as it is easy for jd to make abusive and partisan posts and then pretend to be Teachers Pet. But if you think there is a claim I have made that I haven't proved, then post it and I'll explain why you are wrong. You may not agree with my arguments - I expect you wouldn't - but they have been made.

and a lot of preposterous internet posturing about how he started it by calling you a troll.

I think you are being a touch hypocritical: someone was rude to me, I was brusque back. When jd resented I hadn't been politer to a poster whose opinions he shares, I pointed out that I wasn't the one who had initiated the rudeness, and jd then became obsessed with saving face. You can either ignore this diversion (I would) or say "What goes around, comes around." Or you could join in with jd and demand that people who disagree with you put you with being called trolls, but I'd hope that you'd be more mature than that.

  A claim, that in and of itself isn't entirely true because I believe you started things off in the other thread, again with baseless allegations, claiming that if he believed what he posted he *couldn't* use logic.

This is utterly untrue, although I accept that you may think it is true because you can't understand what I actually said. Which is that his arguments were wrong - mostly because they fitted classical categories of logical fallacies - independent of his position. Not because of it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you won't understand me now - but trust me; VERY different!

I'll give you a free example:

I'm sorry, but have you made an actual point other than ad hominem attacks about the mental capacities of anyone that's disagreed with you? 

1. Pointing out that someone is arguing by conclusion is not an ad hominem attack. Sorry, but if you don't know the difference, it's your problem - really. You need to use google, a dictionary, or that list of fallacies someone posted. Really, do - in fact read the whole list, you'll benefit from it.

2. Pointing out that what some said is provably wrong because it relies on the strong form of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis is, again, not an ad hom. You not know what the hell it means- I am sure you don't - but that doesn't make it an ad hom. Use google, or ask for an explanation.

..And I these two points alone cover eight of my replies! So the idea that I haven't made substantive logical replies is ludicrous - you might not have understood them, but again, not my problem!

[keyboardlover]

Absolutely so -- people are self-organizing, and no state ordinarily has to step in make these sorts of ad hoc organizations come into being. I couldn't disagree more with tp's statement that a people without a government are like a family without a parent. I don't know about tp or others, but I'm not a child in need of coddling. KBL you point out that these associations are voluntary -- but who is to say that the current government was not voluntarily entered into as well? Assuming you are American like myself, we are free to leave this country for greener shores. Our decision to remain means we are willingly accepting the rules of society. I think government is a natural extension of these people-based organizations, but they can grow out of control.

Also, I recognize (as I think you do) the primacy of the individual over the state. The state was created for the people, by the people. Government should be subservient to people, not the other way around. The people do not exist for the sake of the government. This seems so simple as sound almost stupid, but before the American Revolution it was decidedly the opposite; the people of France existed for the sake of the monarchy.

See, here is where I think you're missing some things (at least in terms of American history). First off, the current government was NOT entered into voluntarily. Those who were against federalization ended up getting screwed by those who did. This is very ironic since many of the framers were against direct democracy (preferring the concept of a republic for fear that minorities would get screwed) - yet that's exactly what they did!

More info here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html
http://jim.com/treason.htm

As for "being free to leave", I didn't choose to be born here. And yet I was born into a bondage and a slavery; a system of force and coercion. If I want the right to be left alone, where can I go? Antarctica? Should the native americans have "just left" if they didn't like the rules? Or what about the Syrians or Palestinians, or countless other Arabs being mowed down by oppressive government forces? That argument legitimizes tyranny. Why should I leave when I'm trying to make things better? Why should I leave when Congress are the ones who suck?

Well, if you enter a building (any building) it should be built in a fashion that protects the most primal of all your liberties -- your life. How can you or I look at a building and necessarily know that it is safe in the event of fire, or other emergency. You or I may not be capable of making an informed choice. Pick up any bit of food -- can you say for certain it was not sprayed with a chemical that was dangerous? I don't mind sacrificing a small amount of freedom if I receive a larger sum in return, in the long term.

Think of it like surgery. Cutting people with knives is generally considered unacceptable -- but if I had to remove a gangrene-infected, necrotic limb to save my life, I wouldn't hesitate. Some people might! And I think those people are in a very, very small minority, however. And if you were to oppose, say, fire code ordinances in relation to building construction, your insistence on such matters would infringe upon the liberty of others.

I'm not saying guidelines or rules are not good or useful; just that they should be voluntary.

Are you saying I'm giving Singaporeans an inch? Not sure what you mean.

No, I just meant in the context of statism i.e. even a minarchical view of statism means oppression is inevitable.

No, I think there should be some sensible restrictions on the Second Amendment. Not all gun owners are peaceful -- probably the vast, vast majority. And I believe an armed society is more likely to be a polite society. But every right enshrined by the American Constitution is to some degree or another limited. As an example, the right to free speech is NOT absolute. You cannot say absolutely anything you want. Threatening others, libel, slander -- not free speech, as you are using your speech to infringe upon another person's rights.

If people should not be restricted in any way to protect themselves, then I could, theoretically build a nuclear bomb in my basement and would be completely within my Constitutionally protected rights to do so. You couldn't possibly endorse that, could you? On account of your opinion elsewhere I will give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to imprecise language. But let's slide it down from nuclear weapon to, say, something less -- how about a Sherman tank? Should a private citizen be allowed to own a tank? I think that would be overkill, wouldn't you say? Again -- I'm not declaring the exact point where individual rights balance out against the rights (safety) of others. That's for society (legislators) to determine.

Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun, RPG, tank, nuclear weapon, etc. if they so choose to. Because, not only does that happen now, but because it's legitimized by government, those who end up owning such things are inevitably 90% more likely to be the most dangerous people who could be in control of them. Hundreds of thousands of CHILDREN dead in the middle east - dude, I would prefer any peaceful individual owned these bombs rather than anyone taking orders from congress. Is it a risk? Of course, but it's one I'm willing to live with. If legislators actually represented the will of the people, then these children would still be alive today, the Mexicans wouldn't have been sold guns, all kinds of other atrocities would never have occurred, and the oligarchical reality of our government would not be so.

I guess it gets back to the issue of who the child belongs to; the state or the parents. I could acquiesce to relaxing child safety seats, but would still voluntarily choose to use one.

Of course I believe that children belong to their parents but there's no question who they belong to in statism. Notice how every president will refer to them as "our children". They belong to the state, and so do I, and so do you.

i hope you start learning about feminism and classism before you go too far off into manarchy land, because the end of statism will never come so long as there is implicit acceptance of hierarchical oppression outside of a governmental context, and they are issues that we can actually do something about in our daily lives. the way you have talked about minorities and the poor in the past leads me to believe that you might not want to be looking at the bigger picture, but there is ALWAYS a bigger picture and things are always connected. nothing is without context.

Didn't we discuss that before in a PM? Of course I agree that things like sexism, racism, etc. are bad but remember: statism legitimizes these things too. Weren't both written right into the Constitution? It's privelages were only for "free men" - which of course didn't include women or blacks. Anarchical communities could handle these things in the same way you mentioned looting, rape, etc. The key is in not legitimizing these evil things. And don't assume that ending statism isn't something every single person can work on in their every day lives as well; we can stop believeing in government, educate our children and our peers, lead by example, etc. I definitely agree with you about bad things happening to minorities: that's exactly why we shouldn't have oligarchies! I think that your other paragraph was pretty insulting (especially since I consider us to be pretty friendly) no offense, but you don't know me. You don't know about my life. I won't cry or whine like I haven't had certain privelages, but I wouldn't say I've lived an "easy life" either. And regardless of that, class war isn't helpful for anyone: I don't need to be poorer than you to have empathy for my fellow man. What is poverty anyway; isn't it simply having less than someone else? **** happens in life, and sometimes it just freaking sucks. I've accepted that. But I refuse to legitimize these evils by believing in government.

[jdcarpe]

From this forum's TOS:

Members are expected to treat each other with respect, and be courteous of each other's opinions and advice, regardless of his or her relative experience. There are a few things that will not be tolerated:

...

Trolling - Trolling can be defined as when a member posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent or consequence of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Trolling can also be accomplished by harassing another member by following them through various threads, creating threads directed at another member or group of members, or intentionally creating the same thread in various forums despite being warned or told to post in the correct forum.  Members who feel they are being "trolled" should contact a moderator immediately, as this is the only effective way to prevent this behavior.

I think that first sentence under the "Trolling" heading is important to note, so I'll paste it again here:

Trolling can be defined as when a member posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent or consequence of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. (Emphasis added)

Pointing out the fact that someone has been doing exactly that is not the same as making "abusive and partisan posts." Trolling is a violation of this site's TOS.

Breaking any of the above listed forum rules may result in the loss of posting privileges and possible loss of your forum account.

[sth]

Didn't we discuss that before in a PM? Of course I agree that things like sexism, racism, etc. are bad but remember: statism legitimizes these things too. Weren't both written right into the Constitution? It's privelages were only for "free men" - which of course didn't include women or blacks. Anarchical communities could handle these things in the same way you mentioned looting, rape, etc. The key is in not legitimizing these evil things. And don't assume that ending statism isn't something every single person can work on in their every day lives as well; we can stop believeing in government, educate our children and our peers, lead by example, etc. I definitely agree with you about bad things happening to minorities: that's exactly why we shouldn't have oligarchies! I think that your other paragraph was pretty insulting (especially since I consider us to be pretty friendly) no offense, but you don't know me. You don't know about my life. I won't cry or whine like I haven't had certain privelages, but I wouldn't say I've lived an "easy life" either. And regardless of that, class war isn't helpful for anyone: I don't need to be poorer than you to have empathy for my fellow man. What is poverty anyway; isn't it simply having less than someone else? **** happens in life, and sometimes it just freaking sucks. I've accepted that. But I refuse to legitimize these evils by believing in government.

i'm sorry to be flippant and reductive but that was spoken like a person who is not willing to explore and accept their privilege. poverty is not simply having less than someone else.

people who say things like 'class war isn't helpful for anyone' are the ones most liable in the event of a radical uprising.

[keyboardlover]

Poverty: "The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. The state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money"

Well damn dude, I'd say you and I both meet that definition now don't we? Otherwise we'd both be as rich as Bill Gates.

people who say things like 'class war isn't helpful for anyone' are the ones most liable in the event of a radical uprising.

I don't understand your point, please explain how I am most liable in the event of a radical uprising.