PDA

View Full Version : Minarchy (Badnarik) vs Non-Archy (Molyneux) debate here!




Conza88
07-24-2009, 02:05 AM
YouTube - Molyneux Badnarik Debate, Drexel University, July 5, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ZaMgOh_J4)


http://www.fdrurl.com/phillyaudio

This was buried in the other thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=198564)... so I thought let's make it easily accessible. :)

Kraig
07-24-2009, 04:28 PM
Just fired it up. :)

ClayTrainor
07-24-2009, 04:42 PM
Sweet!

I've been looking forward to this.

heavenlyboy34
07-24-2009, 04:50 PM
w00t! :)

CCTelander
07-24-2009, 05:32 PM
Listening now! Great stuff!

UnReconstructed
07-24-2009, 07:35 PM
So, in the first few minutes Badnarik states over and over that we should have anarchy but we can't trust each other and therefore we should put people we can't trust in charge of everyone...

silverhandorder
07-24-2009, 08:19 PM
That is not what he said. He said that he said there are always people who will gravitate to government. This is why we have it in the first place. Short of declaring war on a faction you will not be able to prevent a government from forming.

I like Moleneux's ideas and I am happy to go along with the philosophical aspects but I disagree in political non participation.

Conza88
07-25-2009, 12:56 AM
but I disagree in political non participation.

As do I. And not an emotional or irrational basis btw. :o

I stated why I thought he was wrong on that video awhile back.

Brassmouth
07-25-2009, 01:16 AM
Interesting that this thread keeps falling by the wayside.

How much you wanna bet that none of the stock minarchists on this site bother to listen? And how much you wanna bet most of them won't listen because they know who will win?

Conza88
07-25-2009, 03:58 AM
Interesting that this thread keeps falling by the wayside.

How much you wanna bet that none of the stock minarchists on this site bother to listen? And how much you wanna bet most of them won't listen because they know who will win?

My life? lol... </dangles bait>

:p

Kraig
07-25-2009, 04:44 AM
Molyneux's point about the smaller the minarchy -> the more wealth is created -> the more wealth for the government to seize down the road -> the more powerful government in the end, is a new idea to me.

Badnarik just said most people want to "sub-contract" defense out, half the time it seem like he is arguing for anarchy because he spends his time arguing against government right now without explaining very well how minarchy can be maintained.

heavenlyboy34
07-25-2009, 09:16 AM
bump

Brassmouth
07-25-2009, 10:17 AM
Molyneux's point about the smaller the minarchy -> the more wealth is created -> the more wealth for the government to seize down the road -> the more powerful government in the end, is a new idea to me.

Badnarik just said most people want to "sub-contract" defense out, half the time it seem like he is arguing for anarchy because he spends his time arguing against government right now without explaining very well how minarchy can be maintained.

That's also the impression I got. I seems Badnarik was as close to an anarchist as a minarchist can get. His only hang-ups were irrational beliefs regarding human nature.

CCTelander
07-25-2009, 10:31 AM
That's also the impression I got. I seems Badnarik was as close to an anarchist as a minarchist can get. His only hang-ups were irrational beliefs regarding human nature.

This is pretty much the impression I got. Badnarik even praised anarchism a couple of times, but continued to claim that "human nature" made it impossible.

He never actually dealt with the fact that the exact same "human nature" makes ANY kind of government impossible, other than to continually repeat the "eternal vigilance" line.

I think he overstated the reluctance of people to act in self-defense also, but I do concede that this IS a valid observation. People generally ARE reluctant to use force, especially deadly force against other people.

What he fails to consider however is the fact that people ARE completely responsible for their own security RIGHT NOW. The courts have repeatedly ruled that government agents of any kind, including police, firemen, etc., are under no obligation whatsoever to protect the person or property any individual, or even to show up when called. (See the book Dial 911 and Die for innumerable examples.)

Realistically, this would be true even under Badnarik's ideal minarchic state, since even if the willingness were there, the manpower would not be without actually creating a massive police state.

I'll have to listen again for more, but that's what I remember from listening yesterday.

CCTelander
07-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Molyneux's point about the smaller the minarchy -> the more wealth is created -> the more wealth for the government to seize down the road -> the more powerful government in the end, is a new idea to me.

Badnarik just said most people want to "sub-contract" defense out, half the time it seem like he is arguing for anarchy because he spends his time arguing against government right now without explaining very well how minarchy can be maintained.

That's the crux of the issue to me. In my experience, minarchists/constitutionalists never seem to be able to get below the very surface of repeating the old platitudes of "educate the people" or "eternal vigilance." They never seem to be able to explain exactly how they intend to do this, exactly WHAT the people need to be educated in, and how that all is to be applied to maintain a limited government.

When pressed on it, like Barnarik actually was during the Q&A, they just repeat that "eternal vigilance" is the price of liberty. Sound bites don't constitute a sufficient answer.

mediahasyou
07-25-2009, 01:04 PM
Thank you. :)

Stary Hickory
07-25-2009, 01:26 PM
That's the crux of the issue to me. In my experience, minarchists/constitutionalists never seem to be able to get below the very surface of repeating the old platitudes of "educate the people" or "eternal vigilance." They never seem to be able to explain exactly how they intend to do this, exactly WHAT the people need to be educated in, and how that all is to be applied to maintain a limited government.

When pressed on it, like Barnarik actually was during the Q&A, they just repeat that "eternal vigilance" is the price of liberty. Sound bites don't constitute a sufficient answer.

What kills me about Anarchists is that the naively believe that everyone will behave and not create the same problems again. The governments main purpose is to be an instrument of violence that is supposed to be used to thwart violence against the population. However you can say why create government if it's violence. And I say anyone who creates a institution of violence will have created government.

There is no way to stop people from creating violent institutions. They WILL do it, I think it is naive to not plan on combating this. It is always a struggle, there is no utopia, neither in Socialism or Anarchism. The same assholes always screw it up. Hence the reason there will always need to be some coalition of violence to stop aggressive violence.

So government is going to exist, the question is, how to make sure it does not turn into an institution of aggressive violence against our own people like the Federal Government. You cannot expect people to simply see the light and behave...it will not happen. I am all for educating and moving in that direction, but this notion of no government is borderline crazy. Somewhere someone will form a government, with or without our consent.

t0rnado
07-25-2009, 02:33 PM
Badnarik seemed a bit toned down here. I've seen videos of him saying that he would've assassinated FDR himself and shot anyone that tried to license his right to own a gun.

heavenlyboy34
07-25-2009, 02:43 PM
What kills me about Anarchists is that the naively believe that everyone will behave and not create the same problems again.

False. (and you should know better, too.) Anarchists stress the need for private defense for this very reason. It is the minarchists who naively believe that the government and its aggressive tendencies can be constrained by a piece of paper.

CCTelander
07-25-2009, 02:54 PM
False. (and you should know better, too.) Anarchists stress the need for private defense for this very reason. It is the minarchists who naively believe that the government and its aggressive tendencies can be constrained by a piece of paper.

Or by "eternal vigilance." Most minarchists/constitutionalists seem unwilling to face the ramifications of that statement though, at least in my experience.

familydog
07-25-2009, 02:56 PM
Thanks for the link! :D

Badnarik raised several great points. Yet, he didn't do as well as he could have.

Molyneux "won" the debate in my opinion, simply based on his form and how he phrased his arguments.

Both debaters failed to convince me of the sustainabilty of their prefered system. Each system has practical and theoretical problems that need to be worked through.

I'm hoping Badnarik can refine his thoughts more and present them in a convincing manner. He is correct that a long-term anarchy simply cannot exist under current human behavior tendencies.

__27__
07-25-2009, 03:01 PM
He is correct that a long-term anarchy simply cannot exist under current human behavior tendencies.

And a Minarchy can? Are you implying you are smarter than the likes of Ben Franklin, Samuel Adams and Tom Jefferson? The greatest attempt at Minarchy in human history was the US. If these brilliant men were unable to see to it's successful protection for more than a few decades, what is it that makes you believe YOU can?

CCTelander
07-25-2009, 03:25 PM
What kills me about Anarchists is that the naively believe that everyone will behave and not create the same problems again.


Absolutely untrue. Not one single an-cap that I know or have ever heard of asserts such nonesense. The only ones I've eversee make this claim are minarchists/constitutionalists attempting to refute anarcho-capitalism. It's a gross misrepresentation of the position, which is, at best, disingenuous.



The governments main purpose is to be an instrument of violence


I agree 100%.



that is supposed to be used to thwart violence against the population.


And yet is NEVER used in that way. There's not a single example in all of recorded history of a government that remained restricted to that purpose. Nor is there a single example in all of recorded history of a government that didn't turn on its own people, or tax its people into poverty.

Furthermore, the very nature of government belies any claim that its purpose is to "protect the rights of the people," since for government to even exist REQUIRES that it violate those rights via taxation, at the VERY LEAST.



However you can say why create government if it's violence. And I say anyone who creates a institution of violence will have created government.


Private defense agencies, since they would be VOLUNTARY, would NOT be a government. They're simply another private firm providing a service for a stipulated price.

Government, on the other hand, is ANYTHING BUT voluntary. Government ALWAYS asserts a right to a MONOPOLY on the initiation of force within a given geographical area.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.



There is no way to stop people from creating violent institutions. They WILL do it, I think it is naive to not plan on combating this.


Again, you're just repeating a common mischaracterization of the an-cap position. No an-cap claims that there won't be a few violent individuals intent on aggression against others, just that there are better ways of dealing with them than government.



It is always a struggle, there is no utopia, neither in Socialism or Anarchism. The same assholes always screw it up. Hence the reason there will always need to be some coalition of violence to stop aggressive violence.


Private defense agencies and individual self-defense take care of the problem nicely, and have historically proven to be effective, at least in the case of self-defense. Government ALWAYS violates the rights of those it purports to protect. Always.



So government is going to exist, the question is, how to make sure it does not turn into an institution of aggressive violence against our own people like the Federal Government.


For a wide variety of reasons, all borne out by the historical record, you simply can't restrain government from aggression against its own people. It NEVER works.



You cannot expect people to simply see the light and behave...it will not happen.


Again repeating that tired mischaracterization of the an-cap position. That just isn't what an-caps claim. It's just a straw man used by some minarchists/constitutionalist to avoid facing the inconsistancies and moral hypocrisy of their position. Most don't really do it consciously, but it doesn't really matter either way. The result is the same.



I am all for educating and moving in that direction, but this notion of no government is borderline crazy. Somewhere someone will form a government, with or without our consent.


Perhaps true, but it doesn't change the fact that government, any government, is inherently immoral and simply doesn't work.

Furthermore, ALL of the claims of a stateless society being impractical, which is basically what your whole argument appears to be to me, apply EQUALLY AS WELL to minarchism/constitutionalism as they do to anarchism.

So, where does that leave us? Is it better to work toward the clearly MORAL position, even though it may be difficult to achieve, or to work toward an IMMORAL position that is, in fact, just as difficult to achieve if not moreso?

CCTelander
07-25-2009, 03:31 PM
Thanks for the link! :D

Badnarik raised several great points. Yet, he didn't do as well as he could have.

Molyneux "won" the debate in my opinion, simply based on his form and how he phrased his arguments.

Both debaters failed to convince me of the sustainabilty of their prefered system. Each system has practical and theoretical problems that need to be worked through.

I'm hoping Badnarik can refine his thoughts more and present them in a convincing manner. He is correct that a long-term anarchy simply cannot exist under current human behavior tendencies.

If people are simply too immoral, too unintelligent, and/or too unwilling to sustain a stateless society, then they are also too much of those things to sustain a minarchist/constitutionalist society.

So, the question then remains, which is better to strive for? The CLEARLY MORAL solution, or the one that's clearly immoral?

In either case the same work of education and persuasion needs to be accomplished, although I'd argue that there is less of it that needs to be done to achieve a stateless society.

familydog
07-25-2009, 03:32 PM
And a Minarchy can? Are you implying you are smarter than the likes of Ben Franklin, Samuel Adams and Tom Jefferson? The greatest attempt at Minarchy in human history was the US. If these brilliant men were unable to see to it's successful protection for more than a few decades, what is it that makes you believe YOU can?

What's with the hostility?

I see no evidence to suggest minarchy has long-term sustainability.

familydog
07-25-2009, 03:34 PM
If people are simply too immoral, too unintelligent, and/or too unwilling to sustain a stateless society, then they are also too much of those things to sustain a minarchist/constitutionalist society.

So, the question then remains, which is better to strive for? The CLEARLY MORAL solution, or the one that's clearly immoral?

In either case the same work of education and persuasion needs to be accomplished, although I'd argue that there is less of it that needs to be done to achieve a stateless society.

The same human nature argument against minarchy can be applied against anarchy. Both require consistently virtuous beings. History tells us human beings are not such creatures.

CCTelander
07-25-2009, 03:47 PM
The same human nature argument against minarchy can be applied against anarchy. Both require consistently virtuous beings. History tells us human beings are not such creatures.

The part I bolded is not exactly true. All a stateless society really requires to be sustainable is that people act in their own self-interest, which history demonstrates they do, individually (ie in their personal business dealings, interpersonal relationships, etc.), in the overwhelming majority of cases. People don't have to be saints. They just have to be persuaded that pointing guns in other people's faces is not in their own self-interest, and that it's immoral.

And before you claim that it's just not possible, I'd hasten to point out that it has, in fact, been happening throughout all of human history.

Personal moral standards, ingrained in people through religion, education and propaganda have been used by the state throughout all of recorded history to "encourage" people to act in the interests of the state. It's worked amazingly well. It's the primary reason we still even have states.

It can work for more positive, moral purposes as well.

__27__
07-25-2009, 04:23 PM
What's with the hostility?

I see no evidence to suggest minarchy has long-term sustainability.

So then why would anyone defend minarchy? The whole idea of minarchy as opposed to an anarchy is that it's proponents agree with the principles of anarchy, but argue it is an unsustainable utopia. So if minarchy is itself unsustainable, why then would you abandon your principles for an unsustainable model?

familydog
07-25-2009, 04:26 PM
The part I bolded is not exactly true. All a stateless society really requires to be sustainable is that people act in their own self-interest, which history demonstrates they do, individually (ie in their personal business dealings, interpersonal relationships, etc.), in the overwhelming majority of cases. People don't have to be saints. They just have to be persuaded that pointing guns in other people's faces is not in their own self-interest, and that it's immoral.

And before you claim that it's just not possible, I'd hasten to point out that it has, in fact, been happening throughout all of human history.

Personal moral standards, ingrained in people through religion, education and propaganda have been used by the state throughout all of recorded history to "encourage" people to act in the interests of the state. It's worked amazingly well. It's the primary reason we still even have states.

It can work for more positive, moral purposes as well.

Forgive me. I have not been clear.

My arguments are simply assumptions about human behavior. I have arrived at my conclusions based on the history of human actions.

The failing of minarchy lies in human behavior. What is to stop a leader from obtaining more power than she/he has? Nothing. As history shows, the desire for power has rendered minarchy a dream.

What is to stop a group people in an anarchical society (i.e. private protection firms in leiu of police) from forming a government? What makes a protection firm any different than "small government" with regards to humans desire for power?

familydog
07-25-2009, 04:33 PM
So then why would anyone defend minarchy? The whole idea of minarchy as opposed to an anarchy is that it's proponents agree with the principles of anarchy, but argue it is an unsustainable utopia. So if minarchy is itself unsustainable, why then would you abandon your principles for an unsustainable model?

I wouldn't say I'm abandoning anything really. I'm acting in self interest. What is more practical for me to achieve the maximum amount of liberty in my lifetime? Minarchy is a step below anarchy in terms of liberty. Thus, it is more practical to obtain, given our current statism.

Most people in the world consider government to be necessary. I am more likely to convince someone that a government should do nothing but secure my liberty than convince someone that the free market can.

CCTelander
07-25-2009, 05:26 PM
Forgive me. I have not been clear.

My arguments are simply assumptions about human behavior. I have arrived at my conclusions based on the history of human actions.

The failing of minarchy lies in human behavior. What is to stop a leader from obtaining more power than she/he has? Nothing. As history shows, the desire for power has rendered minarchy a dream.

What is to stop a group people in an anarchical society (i.e. private protection firms in leiu of police) from forming a government? What makes a protection firm any different than "small government" with regards to humans desire for power?

How about OTHER private protection agencies? Don't you think it might be opposed to their interests to let some rogue agency set themselves up as a government, especially considering that the very first thing that government is likely to do is outlaw the existence of competition, in the form of private protection agencies?

What makes a private protection agency different from a government is the fact that they are completely voluntary. Nobody is forced, via the threat of prison or death, to do business with them. They also have a strong vested interest in actually satisfying their clientele, something which government, in any form, lacks.

There is also the issue of personal accountability. In government, even at its "best," there is virtually NO personal accountability. With a private firm there most certainly would be.

A good example to illustare all this, from real life would be to look at environmental activists. When they protest, they utterly fail to protest against the single entity responsible for more polution than any other, that being the US military. they instead direct their protest efforts against private corporations and companies.

Why? Becuase they know (and implicitly admit by their actions), even in the mercantilist society we currently live in, that private interests are ALWAYS more receptive to the will of their customers than government ever will be. If they protested against the Pentagon, they'd just be arrested. If they protest against private interests, usually SOMETHING happens.

It would be even more so in a truly free society.

familydog
07-25-2009, 08:50 PM
How about OTHER private protection agencies? Don't you think it might be opposed to their interests to let some rogue agency set themselves up as a government, especially considering that the very first thing that government is likely to do is outlaw the existence of competition, in the form of private protection agencies?

What makes a private protection agency different from a government is the fact that they are completely voluntary. Nobody is forced, via the threat of prison or death, to do business with them. They also have a strong vested interest in actually satisfying their clientele, something which government, in any form, lacks.

There is also the issue of personal accountability. In government, even at its "best," there is virtually NO personal accountability. With a private firm there most certainly would be.

A good example to illustare all this, from real life would be to look at environmental activists. When they protest, they utterly fail to protest against the single entity responsible for more polution than any other, that being the US military. they instead direct their protest efforts against private corporations and companies.

Why? Becuase they know (and implicitly admit by their actions), even in the mercantilist society we currently live in, that private interests are ALWAYS more receptive to the will of their customers than government ever will be. If they protested against the Pentagon, they'd just be arrested. If they protest against private interests, usually SOMETHING happens.

It would be even more so in a truly free society.

I completely agree with everything you have stated.

I may be missing something you are trying to convey though. What is preventing protection firms from working together to establish a government? Doesn't the same human nature that makes minarchism short-lasting render anarchy short-lasting as well?

Maybe protection is a natural monopoly? If you have several protection firms in a specific geographical location, you not only have to worry about other people and their aggression towards you and your property, but protection firms you are not in contract with. One can assume that you will choose to contract with the biggest and most powerful firm for your own safety. There is no formal government to prevent entry into the protection firm business, but what of the largest protection firm? Wouldn't human nature dictate that the leaders of the firm prevent entry for lesser firms?

This is what really concerns me about protection firms and anarchism. Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists argue that protection firms (in anarchy) are simply a commodity in the free market. However, their entire basis of market analysis is under the assumption that private property is protected and respected. How can one analyze protection firms in the same light as any other commodity when those firms are themselves protectors of property?

Like any business, the owner of a protection firm would have the right to set the terms of their protection. What if you find that my protection firm is the only firm you like? We do business. Yet, my firm is small compared to the firm across town. What gaurantee do I have that the other protection firm won't shut me down? What incentive do they have not to? Who will stop them? They may have enough resources to battle off smaller competing agencies. If they do, not only is your freedom restricted but the free market collapses because property is not protected in the first place.

Conza88
07-25-2009, 11:30 PM
I completely agree with everything you have stated.

I may be missing something you are trying to convey though. What is preventing protection firms from working together to establish a government? Doesn't the same human nature that makes minarchism short-lasting render anarchy short-lasting as well?

Maybe protection is a natural monopoly? If you have several protection firms in a specific geographical location, you not only have to worry about other people and their aggression towards you and your property, but protection firms you are not in contract with. One can assume that you will choose to contract with the biggest and most powerful firm for your own safety. There is no formal government to prevent entry into the protection firm business, but what of the largest protection firm? Wouldn't human nature dictate that the leaders of the firm prevent entry for lesser firms?

This is what really concerns me about protection firms and anarchism. Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists argue that protection firms (in anarchy) are simply a commodity in the free market. However, their entire basis of market analysis is under the assumption that private property is protected and respected. How can one analyze protection firms in the same light as any other commodity when those firms are themselves protectors of property?

Like any business, the owner of a protection firm would have the right to set the terms of their protection. What if you find that my protection firm is the only firm you like? We do business. Yet, my firm is small compared to the firm across town. What gaurantee do I have that the other protection firm won't shut me down? What incentive do they have not to? Who will stop them? They may have enough resources to battle off smaller competing agencies. If they do, not only is your freedom restricted but the free market collapses because property is not protected in the first place.

YouTube - Stateless Dictatorships (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg90Xe3gc_E)

familydog
07-26-2009, 10:33 AM
YouTube - Stateless Dictatorships (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg90Xe3gc_E)

Thanks for the link.

His ideas are well thought out and very legitamate hypothetically.

The fact is we do not know how protection and defense agencies will work in a stateless society. What we can do is speculate based on free market principles and human behavior. Randall Holcombe said it best:

"As noted earlier, one conclusion of the libertarian literature on government production is that private providers can provide more effectively all of the goods and services that government now supplies. This conclusion applies to protection services as much as to any government-provided good or service. As with other goods and services, though, it applies to the market provision of protection services within an economy in which government enforces its rules on all market participants, including protection firms. Economic analysis that shows the effectiveness of markets in allocating resources does so within a framework that assumes that property rights are protected and that exchange is voluntary.

Economic theorists from Samuelson (1947) to Rothbard (1962) make the assumption that market exchange arises from mutual agreement, without theft or fraud. In the analysis of protection firms, this assumption of voluntary exchange amounts to an assumption that the industry’s output is already being produced—as a prerequisite for showing that it can be produced by the market! As a simple matter of logic, one cannot assume a conclusion to be true as a condition for showing that it is true. This problem makes the production of protection services a special case from the standpoint of economic analysis."

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf

Does Molyneux have a video explaining this?

Conza88
07-26-2009, 07:40 PM
Thanks for the link.

His ideas are well thought out and very legitamate hypothetically.

The fact is we do not know how protection and defense agencies will work in a stateless society. What we can do is speculate based on free market principles and human behavior. Randall Holcombe said it best:

"As noted earlier, one conclusion of the libertarian literature on government production is that private providers can provide more effectively all of the goods and services that government now supplies. This conclusion applies to protection services as much as to any government-provided good or service. As with other goods and services, though, it applies to the market provision of protection services within an economy in which government enforces its rules on all market participants, including protection firms. Economic analysis that shows the effectiveness of markets in allocating resources does so within a framework that assumes that property rights are protected and that exchange is voluntary.

Economic theorists from Samuelson (1947) to Rothbard (1962) make the assumption that market exchange arises from mutual agreement, without theft or fraud. In the analysis of protection firms, this assumption of voluntary exchange amounts to an assumption that the industry’s output is already being produced—as a prerequisite for showing that it can be produced by the market! As a simple matter of logic, one cannot assume a conclusion to be true as a condition for showing that it is true. This problem makes the production of protection services a special case from the standpoint of economic analysis."

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf

Does Molyneux have a video explaining this?

No, but Block and other Austrians do.


1. Holcombe's Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable (http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf) (pdf, 18 pages)
2. Leeson & Stringham's Government Inevitable? A comment on Holcombe's Analysis (http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_4_5_controversy.pdf) (pdf, 15 pages)
3. (Holcombe's reply to Leeson & Stringham is unavailable. I've asked the Independent Institute about it.)
4. Block's Government Inevitability: Reply to Holcombe (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_4.pdf) (pdf, 23 pages)
5. Holcombe's Is Government Really Inevitable? (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_3.pdf) (pdf, 8 pages)
6. Block's Rejoinder to Holcombe on the Inevitability of Government (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_4.pdf) (pdf, 12 pages)

familydog
07-27-2009, 06:59 AM
No, but Block and other Austrians do.


1. Holcombe's Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable (http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf) (pdf, 18 pages)
2. Leeson & Stringham's Government Inevitable? A comment on Holcombe's Analysis (http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_4_5_controversy.pdf) (pdf, 15 pages)
3. (Holcombe's reply to Leeson & Stringham is unavailable. I've asked the Independent Institute about it.)
4. Block's Government Inevitability: Reply to Holcombe (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_4.pdf) (pdf, 23 pages)
5. Holcombe's Is Government Really Inevitable? (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_3.pdf) (pdf, 8 pages)
6. Block's Rejoinder to Holcombe on the Inevitability of Government (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_4.pdf) (pdf, 12 pages)

Holcombe's reply to Leeson and Stringham can be found here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3316/is_4_9/ai_n29172401/).

Block (and Leeson and Stringham) doesn't refute the argument of Holcombe's I quoted.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 07:51 AM
What kills me about Anarchists is that the naively believe that everyone will behave and not create the same problems again. The governments main purpose is to be an instrument of violence that is supposed to be used to thwart violence against the population. However you can say why create government if it's violence. And I say anyone who creates a institution of violence will have created government.

There is no way to stop people from creating violent institutions. They WILL do it, I think it is naive to not plan on combating this. It is always a struggle, there is no utopia, neither in Socialism or Anarchism. The same assholes always screw it up. Hence the reason there will always need to be some coalition of violence to stop aggressive violence.

So government is going to exist, the question is, how to make sure it does not turn into an institution of aggressive violence against our own people like the Federal Government. You cannot expect people to simply see the light and behave...it will not happen. I am all for educating and moving in that direction, but this notion of no government is borderline crazy. Somewhere someone will form a government, with or without our consent.

Anarchists point to any and all violent organizations and say "this is the mafia, this is a crime ring, stay as far away from them as possible and do not do business with then". Meanwhile minarchists say "this is a violent organization we have created to protect us from any other violent organizations that may rise up, because we have sanctioned them, you should too. Trust them to protect you, trust them to remain good, trust them and give them sanction to collect your money, they will use it well. If you ever notice that they are not living up to your trust, go through this orderly system to issue a complaint and possibly remove one of the bad decision makers, I'm sure they will listen.".

Big difference.

literatim
07-27-2009, 07:59 AM
All the anarchists here are just posers. The only real anarchists are nihilists.

Conza88
07-27-2009, 08:07 AM
Holcombe's reply to Leeson and Stringham can be found here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3316/is_4_9/ai_n29172401/).

Block (and Leeson and Stringham) doesn't refute the argument of Holcombe's I quoted.

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)

Holcombe torn within.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 08:08 AM
All the anarchists here are just posers. The only real anarchists are nihilists.

That depends on what definition of anarchy you use, it has at least two definitions. One definition is simply "no government", this is the form of anarchy that the anarcho-capitalists preach. Then there is another definition where it means not only no government, but no law and order as well, this is the form of anarchy for nihilists.

Multiple definitions for words become very troubling when they contradict each other.

heavenlyboy34
07-27-2009, 08:09 AM
All the anarchists here are just posers. The only real anarchists are nihilists.

nuh-uh! :p

literatim
07-27-2009, 08:11 AM
That depends on what definition of anarchy you use, it has at least two definitions. One definition is simply "no government", this is the form of anarchy that the anarcho-capitalists preach. Then there is another definition where it means not only no government, but no law and order as well, this is the form of anarchy for nihilists.

Multiple definitions for words become very troubling when they contradict each other.

Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

Conza88
07-27-2009, 08:11 AM
All the anarchists here are just posers. The only real anarchists are nihilists.

And all the nihilists here are just posers and frauds. Cry babies who think they are somewhat unique because they find themselves in the Liberty movement.

Problem is, basically every single college professor in the social sciences is a nihilist retard.

Sorry folks, nothing unique about that.

heavenlyboy34
07-27-2009, 08:13 AM
Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

The unsettled US western frontier did. :)

literatim
07-27-2009, 08:14 AM
The unsettled US western frontier did. :)

The western frontier had minarchies. Towns had mayors and sheriffs. Thus government was instituted locally.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 08:17 AM
Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

You can have law and order through private court systems, private mediators, and rules that are agreed upon when signing contracts. Pretty much all auction companies have rules and third party mediators that were setup without government. Coming up with a system to cover your own ass when you are getting involved with another man via signing a contract is not only extremely natural with or without government, it is far more effective when it is a voluntary system.

Have you not read anything by Rothbard? He has covered this extremely well.

Conza88
07-27-2009, 08:18 AM
Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

Wrong. See: Natural Law. See: Celtic Ireland. See: private courts. See: private arbitration. See: Pennsylvania 1681–1690.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html

literatim
07-27-2009, 08:19 AM
You can have law and order through private court systems, private mediators, and rules that are agreed upon when signing contracts. Pretty much all auction companies have rules and third party mediators that were setup without government. Coming up with a system to cover your own ass when you are getting involved with another man via signing a contract is not only extremely natural with or without government, it is far more effective when it is a voluntary system.

All arbitrary. Who is going to force them to obey? Just enter a contract, take their money and then snub them. Voluntary means voluntary punishment too.


Wrong. See: Natural Law. See: Celtic Ireland. See: private courts. See: private arbitration. See: Pennsylvania 1681–1690.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html

Natural Law is a philosophy. If there is no arbiter of such a law then there is no law.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 08:23 AM
All arbitrary. Who is going to force them to obey? Just enter a contract, take their money and then snub them. Voluntary means voluntary punishment too.

Do that and you end up on a black list and no one wants to do business with you. On top of that if any defense agency that does business with the court systems you violated catches you in public then they can enact punishment against you. It's not at all different that the current law enforcement and court systems, you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't caught.

Voluntary means voluntary punishment too? No, not at all, if you agree to terms of a contract, and violate that contract down the road, people will use force against you and they will be justified in doing so. If you do not agree to any contract, yet violate the rights of someone else by initiating violence, people will use force against you and will once again be justified in doing so.

You can't just make up the ideals of anarcho-capitalism to suit your disagreement with it.

Conza88
07-27-2009, 08:24 AM
Natural Law is a philosophy. If there is no arbiter of such a law then there is no law.

Stop with the non sequitur. All those institutions I named, other than a MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF VIOLENCE OVER A GIVEN TERRITORY... CAN accomplish the distribution of justice.

History is clear about it. I gave examples, you ignored them.

Here is another you can go on ignoring.. :rolleyes:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

And say "natural law" is just a philosophy to the individual who has the moral and ethical right to DEFEND their JUSTLY acquired PROPERTY. Self Defense by any means necessary, with does not entail the INITIATION of violence.

familydog
07-27-2009, 08:25 AM
Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)

Holcombe torn within.

I am familiar with Hoppe. I am a great admirer of his.

I have this book and cherish it. :)

Can you refer me to the relevent parts? Speaking regards to the last couple posts of ours.

Conza88
07-27-2009, 08:26 AM
The western frontier had minarchies. Towns had mayors and sheriffs. Thus government was instituted locally.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

literatim
07-27-2009, 08:26 AM
Do that and you end up on a black list and no one wants to do business with you. On top of that if any defense agency that does business with the court systems catches you in public then they can enact punishment against you. It's not at all different that the current law enforcement and court systems, you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't caught.

Voluntary means voluntary punishment too? No, not at all, if you agree to terms of a contract, and violate that contract down the road, people will use force against you and they will be justified in doing so.

You can't just make up the ideals of anarcho-capitalism to suit your disagreement with it.

There will always be people to do business with. And if you are rich and powerful, you could just turn the table and say they ripped you off: fake contract and all.

They will use force to enforce their own laws? So might makes right?

The only real anarchists are nihilists.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 08:30 AM
There will always be people to do business with. And if you are rich and powerful, you could just turn the table and say they ripped you off: fake contract and all.

They will use force to enforce their own laws? So might makes right?

The only real anarchists are nihilists.

Yes, that's true in both anarchy and minarchy. Or did you think that criminals have nowhere to turn under minarchy? Did you think they cannot band up and form a "black market"? Did you think you cannot simply "turn the table and say they ripped you off" under the current court system right now? Or any court system?

Do you have anything that is specific to minarchy vs. anarchy, or government vs. anarchy? Your point is completely irrelevant.

Morally might doesn't make right, but it does decide who is in control. If good people want to run society, if they want a society that is dominated by good morals and cooperation, they will have to cooperate to defend it. No magical system of government is going to change that.

literatim
07-27-2009, 08:36 AM
Yes, that's true in both anarchy and minarchy. Or did you think that criminals have nowhere to turn under minarchy? Did you think they cannot band up and form a "black market"? Did you think you cannot simply "turn the table and say they ripped you off" under the current court system right now? Or any court system?

Do you have anything that is specific to minarchy vs. anarchy, or government vs. anarchy? Your point is completely irrelevant.

Morally might doesn't make right, but it does decide who is in control. If good people want to run society, if they want a society that is dominated by good morals and cooperation, they will have to cooperate to defend it. No magical system of government is going to change that.

All I am saying is that everyone here that is claiming to be an anarchist is a poser because the only real anarchists are nihilists. Under the nihilist view there is no such thing is morality, all that matters is what the mightiest think is right.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 08:44 AM
All I am saying is that everyone here that is claiming to be an anarchist is a poser because the only real anarchists are nihilists. Under the nihilist view there is no such thing is morality, all that matters is what the mightiest think is right.

Yeah and you are wrong, you don't get to redefine words as you see fit. Under the an-cap view there is such a thing as morality.

Anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

literatim
07-27-2009, 08:53 AM
Yeah and you are wrong, you don't get to redefine words as you see fit. Under the an-cap view there is such a thing as morality.

Anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Under nihilism there is morality as well. Each individual has their own moral compass and so there are many different moral paths. The only ability you have to enforce your morality on anyone else is through force. Otherwise, they will do whatever their moral compass allows them to do, even if it is to use force against someone else. Since there are all forms of moral paths, one is bound to be to enforce their morality on everyone else.

An-caps think they have a moral right to no government because of Natural Law. Nihilists don't believe there can be a Natural Law without someone enforcing the Law upon them, so there is no right to having no government.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:02 AM
Under the nihilist view there is no such thing is morality, all that matters is what the mightiest think is right.


Under nihilism there is morality as well. Each individual has their own moral compass and so their are many different moral paths.

I think you are getting a little carried away with your generalizations and attempts to label people. Now you are twisting what the word nihilism means to make it seem similar to anarcho-capitalism, yet based on my understand of the word what you are saying doesn't apply.

Nihilist:
1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

Of course it still may depend on which definition you use, but if that is the case then it seems like you are switching back and forth as you see fit. When I use the word anarchy I am consistently using it for the meaning of "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.".

Which version of the word "nihilism" are you referring to?

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

The typical use of nihilism is moral and epistemological. The other forms do not relate to the topic at hand.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:09 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

And belief in the meaning of life has what to do with the anarchy vs. government debate? Oh yeah, "the only real anarchists are nihilists"? So if you believe life has meaning, you aren't a nihilist, so you can't be an anarchist either? Why?

wizardwatson
07-27-2009, 09:10 AM
I've listened to Stefan before and read some of his stuff.

He's more ego than ideas.

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:17 AM
And belief in the meaning of life has what to do with the anarchy vs. government debate? Oh yeah, "the only real anarchists are nihilists"? So if you believe life has meaning, you aren't a nihilist, so you can't be an anarchists either? Why?

Because an-caps base their views around Natural Law; the right to life, liberty, and property. Nihilists reject Natural Law, what they see as imaginary, and thus are the only true anarchists. It is a pure form of lawlessness.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:19 AM
Because an-caps base their views around Natural Law; the right to life, liberty, and property. Nihilists reject Natural Law, what they see as imaginary, and thus are the only true anarchists. It is a pure form of lawlessness.

An-caps are not striving for lawlessness.

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:23 AM
An-caps are not striving for lawlessness.

The ideology is flawed because that is exactly what they are striving for. The only thing is, an-caps believe that somehow people will follow the Natural Laws without an arbiter.

__27__
07-27-2009, 09:30 AM
The ideology is flawed because that is exactly what they are striving for. The only thing is, an-caps believe that somehow people will follow the Natural Laws without an arbiter.

:rolleyes:

We don't believe any such thing. You can do WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT on your OWN property. You will follow my rules on MY property, or you will be asked to leave/not invited on, and should you need to be rejected from my property with force, I will be glad to accommodate.

The only true form of anarchy is anarcho-capitalism, because without private property there can be no anarchy. Without private property your desires, wants, needs, are subject to the whim of another's force. Without private property, you are not free to live your life without influence from any government, or any man.

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:31 AM
:rolleyes:

We don't believe any such thing. You can do WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT on your OWN property. You will follow my rules on MY property, or you will be asked to leave/not invited on, and should you need to be rejected from my property with force, I will be glad to accommodate.

The only true form of anarchy is anarcho-capitalism, because without private property there can be no anarchy. Without private property your desires, wants, needs, are subject to the whim of another's force. Without private property, you are not free to live your life without influence from any government, or any man.

Who says it is your property?

wizardwatson
07-27-2009, 09:33 AM
Stefan's opinion of the "Ron Paul Movement"

http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/ron-paul-revolution-postmortem.html

My opinion?

Stefan doesn't get it.

tremendoustie
07-27-2009, 09:33 AM
The ideology is flawed because that is exactly what they are striving for. The only thing is, an-caps believe that somehow people will follow the Natural Laws without an arbiter.

I certainly believe in arbitration, and protection agencies.

What I don't believe is that Natural Law can be protected by an organization based on the continued systematic violation of it. If a few people are evil, and wish to use violence to obtain power over their fellow man, the solution is not to create an organization ready made for them to wield such violence, power, and control.

You forget that the very people you are worried about in a free society are the ones who will be running your government.

__27__
07-27-2009, 09:34 AM
Who says it is your property?

My mixed labor with nature on a clearly defined parcel.

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:36 AM
My mixed labor with nature on a clearly defined parcel.

That doesn't define what is or is not your property. Someone else could claim that it is their property, then what will you do?

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:37 AM
The ideology is flawed because that is exactly what they are striving for. The only thing is, an-caps believe that somehow people will follow the Natural Laws without an arbiter.

No, you are just skipping several steps. People will follow whatever morals they value, that is true. However, there are logical reasons as to why natural law is chosen. Morality itself does not have to be arbitrary, I base it off what will benefit me the most, which is also what will benefit everyone the most. It does not have to be a zero sum game, nor is a zero sum game the most beneficial to any individual. If you apply enough forward thinking to your morals, natural law is the answer. That is why it is called natural law, it is not arbitrarily decided, it is decided based upon the pre-existing conditions of nature.

There are more than enough examples of free societies choosing the principles of natural law without any final arbiter. Why do they do this? Because a free society is going to ultimately choose what works, and when you are a cooperative and extremely intelligent species, valuing cooperation and rejecting using force against others is what works - both for the individual and for the society.

__27__
07-27-2009, 09:39 AM
That doesn't define what is or is not your property. Someone else could claim that it is their property, then what will you do?

Actually it quite clearly defines it as my property. Someone can come to your property today, for which you hold government issued title, and claim that it is their property. Neither of the claims are valid, however you apparently believe that obtaining a title from the mafia makes your property somehow more valid than does my mixed labor with nature.

tremendoustie
07-27-2009, 09:41 AM
That doesn't define what is or is not your property. Someone else could claim that it is their property, then what will you do?

If their protection agency believes the claim is valid, they will take mine to the agreed upon court of arbitration for relations between the two, which will rule on the matter. Or, the individual may take up the matter with my agency's arbitrator personally.

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:41 AM
Actually it quite clearly defines it as my property. Someone can come to your property today, for which you hold government issued title, and claim that it is their property. Neither of the claims are valid, however you apparently believe that obtaining a title from the mafia makes your property somehow more valid than does my mixed labor with nature.

What defines it as your property?

Someone could come to my property today and claim it is theirs, but I have the force of government preventing it.


If their protection agency believes the claim is valid, they will take mine to the agreed upon court of arbitration for relations between the two, which will rule on the matter. Or, the individual may take up the matter with my agency's arbitrator personally.

So force dictates who owns the property? What if that protection agency decides it is their property?

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:43 AM
If their protection agency believes the claim is valid, they will take mine to the agreed upon court of arbitration for relations between the two, which will rule on the matter. Or, the individual may take up the matter with my agency's arbitrator personally.

I think his real question boils down to asking why wouldn't those protection agencies shoot it out in the streets rather than going through the peaceful preset systems. Obviously it is more cost effective to choose the peaceful route.

__27__
07-27-2009, 09:44 AM
What defines it as your property?

Is there an echo in here? My mixed labor with nature on a clearly defined parcel.



Someone could come to my property today and claim it is theirs, but I have the force of government preventing it.

Congratulations, you got Fat Tony to declare your land yours, and enforce it at the point of a gun. It's not like the redman was using it anyways...

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:46 AM
So force dictates who owns the property? What if that protection agency decides it is their property?

If they do that one of two things will happen:

1. Enough people will agree with their decision, and choose to remain in business or transfer there business to this agency, and it would grow.

2. Enough people disagree with their decision and take their business elsewhere, the agency shrinks.

Ultimately it comes back to what the society as a whole values and I already covered why they would value natural law.

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:47 AM
I think his real question boils down to asking why wouldn't those protection agencies shoot it out in the streets rather than going through the peaceful preset systems. Obviously it is more cost effective to choose the peaceful route.

Cost efficient? By what terms? What if they simply want it? If there wasn't a craving for power, control, and wealth, there wouldn't be wars over land. They already have an ordered structure, the outnumber you, and they have more wealth.


Is there an echo in here? My mixed labor with nature on a clearly defined parcel.

It might in your mind, but in someone else's mind, it very well could not


If they do that one of two things will happen:

1. Enough people will agree with their decision, and choose to remain in business or transfer there business to this agency, and it would grow.

2. Enough people disagree with their decision and take their business elsewhere, the agency shrinks.

Ultimately it comes back to what the society as a whole values and I already covered why they would value natural law.

They could agree with them or they could disagree with them but fear them. Wait... Isn't that government?

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:49 AM
Cost efficient? By what terms? What if they simply want it? If there wasn't a craving for power, control, and wealth, there wouldn't be wars over land. They already have an ordered structure, the outnumber you, and they have more wealth.

Ah but if the people who wage the wars had to fund the wars themselves, do you think the wars would be bigger or smaller than what we currently see?

The reason they outnumber you is because of government and nationalism, not because they actually have enough people agreeing with what they are doing.


They could agree with them or they could disagree with them but fear them. Wait... Isn't that government?

There is not nearly as much to fear if you have a different agency to turn to for protection.

literatim
07-27-2009, 09:52 AM
Ah but if the people who wage the wars had to fund the wars themselves, do you think the wars would be bigger or smaller than what we currently see?

The reason they outnumber you is because of government and nationalism, not because they actually have enough people agreeing with what they are doing.

They just took your property, thus your wealth. They fund more taking of property by taking property. That is how it works and why it is cost efficient.



There is not nearly as much to fear if you have a different agency to turn to for protection.

Then if they lose? Or then decide that "your property" is theirs because they just fought for it?

Kraig
07-27-2009, 09:56 AM
Then they will have to enact tyranny over the society to maintain their position, if the society is not able to fight off the tyranny then then it will slowly crumble, and in the long run everyone loses.

tremendoustie
07-27-2009, 09:56 AM
Cost efficient? By what terms? What if they simply want it? If there wasn't a craving for power, control, and wealth, there wouldn't be wars over land. They already have an ordered structure, the outnumber you, and they have more wealth.


The reason the government is not now completely tyrannical is because the people would resist it. Most people want to be left alone, only a few seek coersive power. This is the same reason no protection agency could become tyrannical.

The combined economic might of those who wish to be left alone would crush any power seekers.

It is true that there will always be some danger of such coersive organizations forming, but the solution is not to create one ready made for them, with an existing tax and control structure, to which we all willingly submit.

literatim
07-27-2009, 10:00 AM
Then they will have to enact tyranny over the society to maintain their position, if the society is not able to fight off the tyranny then then it will slowly crumble, and in the long run everyone loses.

Like I said, an-cap is flawed.


The reason the government is not now completely tyrannical is because the people would resist it. Most people want to be left alone, only a few seek coersive power. This is the same reason no protection agency could become tyrannical.

The combined economic might of those who wish to be left alone would crush any power seekers.

It is true that there will always be some danger of such coersive organizations forming, but the solution is not to create one ready made for them, with an existing tax and control structure, to which we all willingly submit.


A dictator is no one without people willing to follow his orders.

__27__
07-27-2009, 10:00 AM
It might in your mind, but in someone else's mind, it very well could not


So the preferable solution to the off chance a drifter might come in, see the house you built on your land, and say "hey, I want this land, it's mine", is to go into business with the mafia for protection?

Kraig
07-27-2009, 10:02 AM
Like I said, an-cap is flawed.

That doesn't even respond to what I said, you are just repeating yourself.

heavenlyboy34
07-27-2009, 10:05 AM
Like I said, an-cap is flawed.


All man-made systems are flawed, as man cannot predict the future. What makes an-cap superior is that it decentralizes power so that individuals can adjust accordingly to reality as it unfolds. :cool: Archism cannot logically make any such claim. :p

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 12:19 PM
I've listened to Stefan before and read some of his stuff.

He's more ego than ideas.

And his debate is more of the same.

Stefan and his brand of an-cap philosophy has more in common with religion than anything else. Join his cult or be damned to hell! The world will be saved once each and every last person has been converted.

__27__
07-27-2009, 12:28 PM
And his debate is more of the same.

Stefan and his brand of an-cap philosophy has more in common with religion than anything else. Join his cult or be damned to hell! The world will be saved once each and every last person has been converted.

Conceded on Stefan personally, but to you conclude that the personal state of the messenger negates the validity of his message? So if Stefan were to tell you that universal health care were bad, does that mean that in fact it is good?

Think for yourself. And feel free to enlighten us all on how that piece of paper has kept this government in check.

heavenlyboy34
07-27-2009, 12:29 PM
And his debate is more of the same.

Stefan and his brand of an-cap philosophy has more in common with religion than anything else. Join his cult or be damned to hell! The world will be saved once each and every last person has been converted.

FWIW, All political systems are quasi-religious by nature, as they try to do the impossible (organize society in a such a way that will endure) and rely on faith that their assumptions will not be proven wrong in the future.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 12:33 PM
And his debate is more of the same.

Stefan and his brand of an-cap philosophy has more in common with religion than anything else. Join his cult or be damned to hell! The world will be saved once each and every last person has been converted.

What is this based on? Join his cult or be damned to hell?

__27__
07-27-2009, 12:36 PM
What is this based on? Join his cult or be damned to hell?

I'd assume it's the de'Foo'ing.

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/21207.aspx

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 12:47 PM
What is this based on? Join his cult or be damned to hell?

It's just an analogy with religion. With Stefan, it would translate to "think exactly like me or be an ignorant slave forever".

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 12:48 PM
I'd assume it's the de'Foo'ing.


:D

Kraig
07-27-2009, 12:49 PM
I am sorry to hear about this of course, it is always a real tragedy!

It is always interesting to me to hear about the great support that people taking a break from families always get from their therapists - I cannot think of a single instance where a therapist has opposed or rejected such a step.

I certainly hope that your mother takes this time to get the kind of psychological help that you are taking, it could make all the difference in the world for the possibility of the future!

Certainly there is more to it than that, this seems like a complete character assassination attempt. How is Molyneux's brand of an-cap different than say, Rothbard's, or anyone else?

__27__
07-27-2009, 12:57 PM
Certainly there is more to it than that, this seems like a complete character assassination attempt. How is Molyneux's brand of an-cap different than say, Rothbard's, or anyone else?

I'll be honest, I don't know much about him, which is why I initially liked him a lot. I'll borrow from a person I trust when he responded to my question of why he disliked Molyneux.


I dislike Molyneux first of all for the same reason I dislike all evangelical atheists: not only are they wrong, but they make arrogance boring. The most arrogant ass in a temple is at least tempered by the confession 'I believe'; such a figure remains tragic and romantic and weak and humane for all his airs and faults. He can, at least in theory, take himself lightly. But what of someone who has thoroughly convinced himself that he does not 'merely' believe in anything? The charm is gone; only the prick remains. The man who, in an Objectivist fit, measures everything by 'his own life and his love of it', measures, on average, five and a half inches.

Of course, he doesn't stop at being a prick. His Purely Rational 'morality' leads directly to the conclusions that...
-all parents are evil child abusers, since they can't help but project their own thoughts, beliefs, and desires onto their children...
-religious parents are the worst sort of child abusers (oh yes, go watch some of his shit on youtube; he actually says this), the ones he hates more than any, because they destroy their children's minds with unscientific stuff...
-any relationship that is not 100% Mutually Beneficial all the time is, ipso facto, Oppressive and Anti-Reason, etc., etc., and should be shitcanned immediately...

And so he's got a big cloud of worshippers - there is no other word for them - who've gone and 'deFOO'ed their families ('deFOO' means breaking off all contact with one's 'family of origin') and latched onto him. Naw, there's no reason to compare him to L. Ron Hubbard, is there? As with the other scientologists, there's a nice trail of shattered families in his wake, parents whose impressionable larvae have left nastygrams with accusations of 'child abuse' on kitchen tables and gone AWOL, all because they weren't given ponies and shit for their birthdays, or worse, were made to go to sunday school. (There's a lesson in there for parents. Like Marilyn Manson said: if you don't raise your kids, somebody else will be happy to.)

Then, of course, there's his disgusting mercilessness. I suppose that's hinted at with the above, but that little clip made it appallingly plain. Commit a crime, and you get ostracised...I suppose that is fair. But did you notice what he said about the possibility that someone might help an ostracised man? Why, they'll be ostracised too! I wonder what Victor Hugo would think of that...? If that is his 'liberty', I will confess right here that I prefer the Habsburgs. They are scoundrels, but they are not swine.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 01:06 PM
I'll be honest, I don't know much about him, which is why I initially liked him a lot. I'll borrow from a person I trust when he responded to my question of why he disliked Molyneux.

Well it's one thing if you just don't like him but if someone is going to say "his brand of an-cap is more like a religion than anything else" I would hope they can at least identify the differences between his view of an-cap and others.

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 01:25 PM
Well it's one thing if you just don't like him but if someone is going to say "his brand of an-cap is more like a religion than anything else" I would hope they can at least identify the differences between his view of an-cap and others.

It's more an issue of the messenger, but also a general "religious" feel. Cheddar cheese is cheddar cheese, but there's always different brands, with subtle differences in content and flavor, and a different picture on the package.

It's something that doesn't come from others, such as Lew Rockwell, Raimundo, a variety of writers on LRC, Harry Browne, Ron Paul, etc.

It's easier to catch flies with sugar...

Kraig
07-27-2009, 01:28 PM
It's more an issue of the messenger, but also a general "religious" feel. Cheddar cheese is cheddar cheese, but there's always different brands, with subtle differences in content and flavor, and a different picture on the package.

It's something that doesn't come from others, such as Lew Rockwell, Raimundo, a variety of writers on LRC, Harry Browne, Ron Paul, etc.

It's easier to catch flies with sugar...

lol so his work just has a "religious feel" like what? any examples?

heavenlyboy34
07-27-2009, 01:30 PM
It's more an issue of the messenger, but also a general "religious" feel. Cheddar cheese is cheddar cheese, but there's always different brands, with subtle differences in content and flavor, and a different picture on the package.

It's something that doesn't come from others, such as Lew Rockwell, Raimundo, a variety of writers on LRC, Harry Browne, Ron Paul, etc.

It's easier to catch flies with sugar...

FWIW, LRC has published some of Molyneux's stuff in the past. ;)

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 01:38 PM
FWIW, LRC has published some of Molyneux's stuff in the past. ;)

A variety, not all... ;)

Kraig
07-27-2009, 01:49 PM
A variety, not all... ;)

So which articles/podcasts are the bad ones?

tremendoustie
07-27-2009, 01:56 PM
A dictator is no one without people willing to follow his orders.

That's the point. In a free society a would-be dictator would have to start from scratch, and not benefit from existant power structures. To create ready made power structures for ambitious and evil people is madness.

The only reason we have reached the level of tyranny we have today is because everyone has been conditioned to obey government, and to accept the notion that using it to forcibly impose one's will is acceptable -- an exception to the usual moral laws against theft and coersion.

You want to have one all powerful arbitor in all matters of law, imagining that that arbitor will be good, and will prevent would be dictators from gaining power. What you forget is that that one arbitor will attract these would be dictators as well -- and when they take it over, there will be no alternatives, no where for peaceful people to go. This is what we have today.

If people are so interested in plundering each other that private security agencies cannot work, then governments certainly cannot work, which will be run by these same plunderers, and which the good as well as the evil are forced to support.

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 02:02 PM
lol so his work just has a "religious feel" like what? any examples?

Preacher like delivery. A "we are right, everyone else is wrong, everyone needs to convert" feel. Professions of perfect logic and knowledge, while putting out some scenarios (parables) with logical errors. A complex system of beliefs. Some followers with religious fervor.

heavenlyboy34
07-27-2009, 02:02 PM
That's the point. In a free society a would-be dictator would have to start from scratch, and not benefit from existant power structures. To create ready made power structures for ambitious and evil people is madness.

The only reason we have reached the level of tyranny we have today is because everyone has been conditioned to obey government, and to accept the notion that using it to forcibly impose one's will is acceptable -- an exception to the usual moral laws against theft and coersion.

You want to have one all powerful arbitor in all matters of law, imagining that that arbitor will be good, and will prevent would be dictators from gaining power. What you forget is that that one arbitor will attract these would be dictators as well -- and when they take it over, there will be no alternatives, no where for peaceful people to go. This is what we have today.

If people are so interested in plundering each other that private security agencies cannot work, then governments certainly cannot work, which will be run by these same plunderers, and which the good as well as the evil are forced to support.

Well said. :cool:

heavenlyboy34
07-27-2009, 02:03 PM
Preacher like delivery. A "we are right, everyone else is wrong, everyone needs to convert" feel. Professions of perfect logic and knowledge, while putting out some scenarios (parables) with logical errors. A complex system of beliefs. Some followers with religious fervor.

I've never heard him claim "perfect knowledge"-only reason and logic.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 02:08 PM
Preacher like delivery. A "we are right, everyone else is wrong, everyone needs to convert" feel. Professions of perfect logic and knowledge, while putting out some scenarios (parables) with logical errors. A complex system of beliefs. Some followers with religious fervor.

lol so you have no examples, maybe you have an example of where he said "we are right, everyone else is wrong, everyone needs to convert", or at least something similar?

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 02:10 PM
So which articles/podcasts are the bad ones?

Good and bad in many of them. I'll try to start a list.

Here's a review of another of Stefan's podcasts:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2219688&postcount=167

Kraig
07-27-2009, 02:12 PM
Good and bad in many of them. I'll try to start a list.

Here's a review of another of Stefan's podcasts:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2219688&postcount=167

Sounds like you just disagree with him to the point of being offended. I disagree with him on certain things too but there just seems to be a gap between what you said earlier and what you said in the linked post, the link just shows disagreements with his viewpoints, not how he is some religious fanatic running a cult.

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 02:17 PM
lol so you have no examples, maybe you have an example of where he said "we are right, everyone else is wrong, everyone needs to convert", or at least something similar?

The gist of it seems to be that we can have his vision of a perfect society, once we all turn our backs on "government". That would require converting everyone.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 02:23 PM
The gist of it seems to be that we can have his vision of a perfect society, once we all turn our backs on "government". That would require converting everyone.

More or less, you don't have to convert everyone just a certain critical mass. It's also not a perfect society just one that is better than what we have now. Isn't that also true of the Ron Paul Revolution or any other political movement for that matter? You have to convince people to support your ideas before they can take hold, and of course the Ron Paul supporters think that their ideal society would be better than what we have now.

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 02:24 PM
...not how he is some religious fanatic running a cult.

I was just pointing out some similarities, and drawing an analogy. Many people have said that Communism was/is very much like a religion too.

Brian4Liberty
07-27-2009, 02:26 PM
It's also not a perfect society just one that is better than what we have now. Isn't that also true of the Ron Paul Revolution or any other political movement for that matter? You have to convince people to support your ideas before they can take hold, and of course the Ron Paul supporters think that their ideal society would be better than what we have now.

Agreed. We are always trying to improve it, and that is a shared goal among many people.

Kraig
07-27-2009, 02:31 PM
Agreed. We are always trying to improve it, and that is a shared goal among many people.

Well I think we all have the same goals, Stefan included, just disagreements on how to get them. I think I will make a thread to complain about some of his other stuff, so we can have some fun disagreeing with him. :)

Conza88
07-27-2009, 08:49 PM
Not seeing any advocates on a STATE with a MONOPOLY on the use of VIOLENCE over a given territory?

Anyone want to defend a gang of thieves writ large? Parasites? eh? No takers?