You've read every possible argument in favor of voluntarism instead of statism? If you don't know the idea, isn't it new to you when you first understand it? How did you come to this conclusion? Neither me nor Shade is talking about a utopia. Can you briefly explain those arguments or point me to them? Were they made in this thread? Have you seen my posts in the Key Failures of Libertarianism thread? Saying you weren't convinced sounds an awful a lot like you didn't actually understand what was presented. I'm not saying this is the case, but your answer was pretty vague. How can I help you learn something new if I don't know what you already know?
i totally agree, fellow an-cap. i'm sure you've read Rothbard, so let me paraphrase his words: every government grows bigger and bigger inevitably. a consitutional republic was "a noble experiment that failed." look at the US: ideal conditions, a strong Constitution, etc, and where are we now? limited government is the real impractical utopia!
I very much doubt it, which is why I am still open to the idea. Not sure what you mean, sorry. Two reasons. I've found that many times the difference between political ideologies have less to do with which is historically "better" but rather philosophical differences abut what is right and wrong. For example, taxation and care of the poor. Most Libertarians consider taxation a form of theft and that it is, at minimum, a necessary evil (with the necessary often being disputed). Liberals, on the other hand, seem to believe this is not only necessary but something to strive for. Society should redistribute wealth and tax the rich to provide for the needy. Ultimately, this comes down to a philosophical difference of opinion in what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong aren't set in stone ideas... they are subject to interpretation and opinion. Look no further than the varied morals across the planet to see that. Historically, many different systems have worked for extended periods of time, be they more "liberal" or "conservative". It just depends on what you want to get out of that system. Which brings you back to the first point. It was meant jokingly. I just mean we all have our ideas about what system is best, and we are all striving for it. If we start from a position of respecting the other party for that, further discussion becomes much better in my experience. Some were made in this thread. Rothbard is probably the most famous an-cap writer I have read. Aside from that, mostly just folks such as yourself and Shade, who are passionate about the subject. I mean, I've much more extensively read Hayek and to an extent Mises (and of course the standard stuff: Smith, Say, etc), but I'm not sure how closely you would consider this an-cap related. As far as which arguments, the ones in particular I have the most hard time with are how the system would be initiated in the first place, the ability for a an-cap society to defend itself effectively, and the ability of such a system to remain in place. It just seems, to me, to rely on too many assumptions, much like socialism, and also seems to be incompatible with human nature. I think you need to start from the position of understanding that just because you were convinced by an argument, does not mean everyone else will be convinced by those same arguments. I don't feel that I've misunderstood anything... have I misrepresented an-cap in some way thus far? If so, where?
The only 'system' I'll ever be okay with is one that is entirely voluntary. As for your questions, further reading.
Just because people have different sets of moral doesn't mean that one isn't (universally) superior to another. Ever hear of the scientific method? For further reading. Slavery worked for a long time. That doesn't mean we should be striving for slavery. Some systems are more ethical than others. Voluntarism, as far as I'm aware, is the most ethical system. The defensemyth.pdf I linked is a collection of essays on this subject. Why would a government be better equipped to defend itself than an an-cap society? I just don't think you've read the arguments since you haven't demonstrated an understanding of anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism.
Yes, as a sciences major, I'm pretty familiar with the scientific method. The scientific method isn't a system of morals (not yet, anyway. It will take some pretty significant advances in neuroscience if it is even possible). This is circular reasoning. Morals are relative, at least at this point. There are moral terms most cultures can agree with, but they tend to be very basic (there are theories about morals being evolutionary mechanism for propagation of the species). This generally stems from a misunderstanding of history and anthropology; one can't take the blanket that covers himself and believe it must apply to everyone else. Very common mistake in history is to look at the past through the lens of today's morals. Within certain bounds that seem to be more or less universal, morals are relative. This should be more or less obvious simply by looking at what different cultures find and have found acceptable. Even today, there is controversy over the morality of things like environmentalism. For you, the end goal of morals may be personal liberty, but often times your liberty may conflict with one another. Should I have the liberty to do as I please (aside from murder, etc, obviously), or do my actions that negatively impact the planet infringe on the rights of another not to have the same planet which belongs to him just as much as me, destroyed? You presume the position that total personal liberty is what people want. That clearly isn't the case. It isn't black and white. There are very real, very important shades of grey that society has been dealing with since the beginning of time. This is one of the issues I have with anarchism, and you are solidifying that impression I've had. It relies on a simplistic worldview to work on a large scale. I've already stated why. I'll give this a read as soon as I can, but I do have finals coming up . But this aspect in particular is something I find interesting, so I do intend to look it over. Can you really not grasp that maybe, possibly, someone just doesn't agree with you? That seems a touch arrogant to me. I can't possibly just have a different opinion, you must be right and everyone must agree? Is there any way I could possibly "understand" anarchism and still not arrive at the same conclusion by this standard? I guarantee you with that attitude you aren't going to convince very many people... so what point is there in having this dream if it goes nowhere because you can't convince anyone else to come along? What misunderstanding have I presented? All I have really stated is my opinion and the reasons I haven't been convinced thus far. What reason would I have to rule out anarchism without hearing about it? A bit presumptuous of you, don't you think?
I didn't say the scientific method was a set of morals... If you're familiar with the scientific method, surely you can apply it to ethics. This is proof by assertion. Ethics is optional, but that doesn't mean that there isn't behavior that is universally preferable from an ethical standpoint. Just because not everyone agrees that the world is flat, doesn't mean the world is round. Just because not everyone agrees on a set of morals, doesn't mean that one set of morals isn't better (in terms of universality, logical consistency, rational analysis, empirical evidence, etc.) than another. No, no. You can't just claim that I don't understand broad topics outside of ethics and that makes me wrong about ethics. Refute my claim directly. Besides, I know quite a bit about anthropology and history. What? So slavery is ethically acceptable from a moral standpoint because some groups of people thought it was ok to enslave people? You're going to have explain this and its relation to ethics, because it seems like nonsense to me. There is controversy is every hard science... This is irrelevant. No one's "liberty" includes the right to attack or defraud someone else (or threaten to do so). Therefore, my "liberty" will never conflict with someone else's "liberty" (see: self-ownership, non-aggression principle). If you destroy/damage someone else's property, then that is clearly an act of aggression... Neither of you own the whole planet and I should be allowed to destroy my own property as long as I'm not negatively affecting anyone else by doing so. No, I don't. There are plenty of people who don't want to act ethically and don't want personal liberty for others (see: practically every president of the United States in the last 100 years, most of the Congressman, etc.) Just because there are shades of grey, doesn't mean that one set of morals isn't better (in terms of universality, logical consistency, rational analysis, empirical evidence, etc.) than another. You keep bringing up the same points and I keep refuting them through simple logical analysis. Most of your arguments/refutations are simply invalid (see: non-sequitur). Can you point to the passage(s) specifically? I would appreciate it. Oh, I realize you don't agree with me. I just don't think you've demonstrated an understanding of my side. One doesn't have to understand someone else's argument/position in order to disagree with them. At this point, I'm right because you haven't been able to successfully refute anything I've said. There are easy-to-spot logical inconsistencies in nearly all of your claims/refutations. I outlined many of them above. Sure. Doesn't mean you're right though. I guarantee you that I have convinced several people with this "attitude". It's not something that you can convince someone over one conversation. One must actually take it upon themselves to question their own beliefs, assumptions and worldview. I can only show you the door. I can't make you walk through it. If you think you understand anarchism, why don't you present a few arguments for anarchism that you're familiar with? Hell, present my argument for anarchism... Besides, I've heard about string theory and how it may be able to unify all of physics under one theory, but I don't claim to understand all the nuances and I certainly don't understand it completely. I can give someone a general overview maybe, but I can't argue for it and I can't claim to understand all of it.
This is far from certain. As I said, there have been some who have suggested there is a scientific "answer" to ethical problems, but this has not by any means been shown to be true or is a generally accepted position. Prove it, then. I would be interested if you do, as nobody else has yet managed it. There are very basic morals that most cultures find universal. The ability to own property and have the unfettered personal freedom (as long as it does not oppose another's) is not one of them. That is a provable scientific position. Ethics is not that. Not yet anyway. This is the old argument of moral absolutism vs relativism, and it is far from settled, which is my point. You're using circular reasoning to prove your position by assuming the premise is correct, and this isn't the case. There is no consensus at this point. Could we one day scientifically prove that one morality is "right"? Sure. But at this point it hasn't happened, and therefore any moral decision is subjective. You mean like you've claimed I don't understand anarchism and therefore I'm wrong? I wasn't actually talking about slavery. Moral relativism merely acknowledges that however reprehensible I may find something, be it slavery or Holocaust, it isn't proven scientific fact. It is merely my opinion. And yes, I find slavery morally reprehensible. I'm not speaking to hard science. I am speaking of how to deal with the situation socially. Yes, I understand this, which is why I included the disclaimer. Again, circular reasoning. "I am right because I am right" is basically what you just said. I am saying not that you are wrong, in fact my position as a Libertarian very much lines up with what you are saying. I am merely saying that not everyone takes the premise that you should be able to do as you wish on your property as truth, or morally superior. There are reasonable arguments at how anything you do, even on your own property, effects others. Especially in the case of the planet. Your freedom to build a smog-belching factory on your property could contribute to destroying the planet, which affect far more people than just yourself. So why does that right trump another's right to live on a planet that isn't being destroyed? Why is your right to do what you will on your property, or even your right to have a piece of the planet at all, assumed? So you see, property rights aren't so black and white. Again, as a Libertarian, I don't think I'm actually all that far from your position, I just think you are taking too absolutist of a stance, and you need to realize that others have different ideas of right and wrong that are just as valid as yours (unless you can scientifically prove somehow that your position is superior?). No, I don't. There are plenty of people who don't want to act ethically and don't want personal liberty for others (see: practically every president of the United States in the last 100 years, most of the Congressman, etc.) Again, prove it. *shrug* You can think so if you wish, but this isn't how I've seen it. I haven't posted that much, just check it. I noted that, historically, more centralized control in military has been more effective. It's part of the reason why it took so long for republics to become commonplace... they kept getting crushed by tyrants who had few barriers to accomplishing their will. You didn't say I haven't demonstrated an understanding, you've said I demonstrated a misunderstanding, and I'd like to know what that is. You're right by default? I haven't heard your arguments in favor at all, and I am interested in them. Neither does it mean you are, which was my point. *shrug* Again, I've changed positions before, so I don't think closed-mindedness is an issue. It seems like you are blaming your inability to convince on shortcomings of others. Especially since you jumped to that right away. Better yet, why don't you tell me, since that's what I've asked for? Not just pasting a link... I can paste links to people who think anarchism is crazy. For example, how do you propose anarchism be implemented? Would it happen locally up, top down? How? Is it just a matter of "educating" people? Is this going to happen in a day? A month? A year? Over a long period of time, like republics did? How do they survive in the meantime? If it starts on a small scale, how do those with fewer resources protect against tyranny with large resources? If it starts on a large scale, how? How is negative human behavior dealt with? Defense? These are all real questions I have. I have heard some answers to these questions, but they have all presumed points, or were not detailed. So, I sit here unenlightened. Enlighten me. Unsure how this relates, sorry...
Here's the proof: Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics - Freedomain Radio - Free Philosophy Books *EDITED OUT BUTT-HURT*
*sigh*, again with assuming a position is correct. There is no consensus on this point. Moral absolutism isn't accepted as universal, even among scientists and prominent philosophers. There is certainly an argument for it, but it isn't a given. This is still a very bleeding edge of science in terms of the neuroscience behind morality. I'd hazard a guess the truth is probably somewhere in-between: there are moral absolutes that have developed as a result of evolution, but many of what we consider "morals" are a human construct. I certainly have a hard time believing property rights are an evolutionary moral development. But again, this is controversial stuff. If science can't come to a consensus on this yet, how can you really be so sure you're right? And I'm closed-minded? So you can't explain your position and you're lashing out? This right here is the problem. You are getting defensive and assuming I'm defending a position. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm saying "I'm right, you're wrong", which I'm not. If you go back and look at this thread, defending any position hasn't been the theme of my posts. I only said that the arguments in favor of anarchism haven't convinced me because they've always been either vague or based on assumptions, and that I'd like to hear more. As someone who does appreciate property rights and individual liberty, I would like to see such a system work, so I'm not sure why you'd think I'm biased against it somehow. I'm just skeptical. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or at least explanation in this case. For how radical a change anarchism is wanting to make, I haven't been convinced enough to throw my support behind it. But I'd love to see it implemented somewhere to see how it works out. I just don't want to push for it or live in it until I'm convinced it's better than what I think is the better goal. I'm not defending a position, I want to hear more about yours. Linking to others is lazy, and makes me wonder if you understand what you are supporting, or if you are just parroting what you've heard others say. If you don't want to, that's cool... as a busy college student, I totally understand. But just say that. There's no reason to get all butt-hurt because I'm not willing to throw support behind a very contrary position without a little explanation. *shrug* As I noted, I used to be much more liberal than I am today, and only in the last few years accepted more Libertarian stances, because those making the arguments made arguments that I found compelling. So I don't think I'm really dogmatic or unconvinceable. It strikes me as you are the one being dogmatic. I fully accept that what I believe isn't the best solution for everyone, since people have different goals.
I never said there was a consensus. Obviously, it's controversial. Stefan goes over it pretty succinctly. I read a proof (reading implies understanding) and was swayed by it. Let's try and start over without the butt-hurt. ... Hi, I'm kstigs. I'm going to assume you have some understanding of formal logic and are able to discern false premises and invalid arguments. In order to begin actually reasoning about ethics (or really anything), we have to establish basic premises. If we can't agree on the correctness of these premises, then you won't be able to accept the proof. Here's a definition of objective that I hope we can agree on: Do you value universality? Do you value logical consistency? Do you value truth? Would you say that it's universally better to say 2+2=4 rather than 2+2=5? Do you understand why saying 2+2=5 is contradictory? Do you think that individuals are responsible for their own actions? If you answered no to any of these questions, please explain; otherwise, I will assume your answer is yes. When you correct someone's error, do you tell them that you would prefer it if they didn't claim 2+2=5 or do you tell them that 2+2=5 is objectively incorrect? Do you think that someone claiming 2+2=5 is a mere disagreement or are they violating some objective standard of truth? Would you say that the use of the scientific method allows us to find relatively objective results? When I say relatively objective, I mean that we intend the results to be objective rather than subjective. Obviously, as humans, we're not always correct, but this doesn't mean that our results can't be objective. --- My goal is to show the following: If you already agree with any of these, please tell me as it will make this easier/faster. --- I'm going to eat dinner now, but leave you with this quote from Stefan: If you don't accept any of what I've posted, please explain. I will continue building on this when I have more time. If I don't see a response within a few days, I will assume that you accept everything I said and will continue based on that assumption. Also, note that this isn't about anarchism persay. This is about ethics. After we've tackled ethics, I'd be happy to tackle the debate between minarchism and anarchism.
Universality in math and physics is not universality in morals and ethics. Even then, it is possible some aspects of ethics and morals are absolute due to our evolution, while others are human constructs. In mathematics, yes, this is as far as we know a universal truth. It can be tested and proven. How does this follow into morality? Yes. Again, I'm not sure where you are connecting this to morality. Because something can be proven does not mean that another something has been proven. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's impossible to prove there is an objective morality; as I said, I already strongly suspect that aspects of morality are evolutionary mechanisms. I'm merely saying that it hasn't yet been proven. I don't accept the black and white, that all moral rules must be consistent for all mankind all of the time. Furthermore, if the argument is merely that a certain morality can be objectively proven as "correct", I don't necessarily disagree. I disagree that one can as yet do so. I would ask you simply to prove it. I just can't see how one can do so with a lack of neuroscientific proof without eventually running into an assumed premise/circular reasoning, or "it just is". If you cannot prove there is a "normal" way the brain is supposed to work and that those not operating that way are abnormal, which as far as I know hasn't yet been done, it follows that anything else will be subjective. As I said, I can see compelling arguments that this can be done in some areas of morality that have kept us alive as a species... incest being a prime example, as it is a quick way to kill off that lineage. I'm merely arguing that is hasn't yet been done, especially to the degree od specificity you are talking about. Honestly, the ethics question doesn't interest me. I already see we are at a fundamental disagreement and see little point in moving on, but if you wish to I will reply as best I can. I'm willing to look at the merits of anarchism independent of moral objectivity. That is to say, I can accept that anarchism can have merits and even be superior to the system I currently support, and am willing to hear those arguments, while still holding that it will not necessarily be superior for everyone based on moral differences.
Universality is universality. It has the same meaning regardless of field. We can test an action's morality based on their consequences similar to how we can test a scientific hypothesis or 2+2=4. I wasn't laying out the entire proof in one post. I was laying ground rules and seeing if we agreed on any points. If we can't agree on basic premises, there's no use continuing with the proof. It seems that we do agree on the basic premises, since you didn't contest any directly. This isn't what is being posited. Assuming we can agree that morality is a valid concept... None of this is necessary. Proof by contradiction: I am proposing that the concept “universally preferable behavior†or objective morality must be valid. We have shown (see: quote) that arguing against the validity of universally preferable behavior demonstrates universally preferable behavior. Therefore, no argument against the validity of universally preferable behavior can be valid. If ethics doesn't interest you, that's fine, but why should we talk about what society we want when we can't even agree on what is right? How would society be free and ethical if we have no/shoddy ethical foundations? Do you accept the non-aggression principle as axiomatic (read: a priori)? Do you understand how opposing the non-aggression principle is contradictory? If not, I'd be happy to explain this to you, but I'd rather not waste time if you already understand this. --- Governments, as they exist today, are territorial monopolies on the initiation of violence/fraud or threats thereof. They derive a lot of their power through legitimacy, which is maintained mainly through indoctrination. Many of them routinely violate their own laws. Any service provided by the government can be provided more efficiently by people working together voluntarily. Governments are basically legitimized mafias controlling their turf. Some mafias/governments are more ethical than others, but they're all ultimately territorial monopolies on the initiation of violence/fraud. As voluntarists, we reject the initiation of force as ethical/legitimate no matter who is performing the action. I also notice that if there is a demand for a service/product, there is an incentive to provide that service. Therefore, anything that is provided under the state can be provided more efficiently and ethically through voluntary exchange and there are even financial/monetary incentives to do so (see: government waste, government fraud).
All of these deep questions of ethics, which in my opinion mostly amounts to intellectual masturbation, have little to do with any of the points at hand. Whether or not ethics are universal has nothing to do with whether or not anarchism is a superior system. Aside from the fact that it would mean you are falling into the absolutist's trap of assuming if morals must be absolute, the ones he believes in are the right ones, you have no way of proving it is on higher ground, morally. Furthermore, this even assumes total morality is the end goal... I would argue pragmatism and pure morality occasionally conflict. This is why I don't see why this whole discussion is even relevant. Such questions are fun to think about sometimes, especially over a bowl with friends, but I see little application in the real world, particularly in choosing a system, or lack thereof, of government. As I said, I can look at a (non)system based on its merits regardless of morality. But if you are trying to argue that the system is only superior because of its morality, and therefore try to argue that morality is absolute and you've got the right answers, I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. I just don't have the same feeling about morality as you do. This sounds an awful lot like you are unable to deal with anyone who doesn't conform to your ideology, which concerns me. Why can't you accept that other people have different views on morality and adapt around that? Is that an issue of anarchism, that it requires one absolute morality in order to work? Again, this seems... impractical. I think with people obviously having different takes on morality, you need something that compromises more or less between them, not relies on them all having the same ideals. If you mean the non-aggression principles of anarchism, no, I don't understand it. Define "efficiently". Historically, more centralized powers more effectively do certain things, especially military action. There are less barriers to getting objectives done. You might, as an anarchist, argue that they are going so immorally, but I'm not sure how you could possibly argue they are less able to gather necessary resources. I find this utterly poppycock. Government is us, not some bogeyman. An argument that what our government is today has become an overreaching thug, I can find that more credible, but to say government, as an institution, is evil, I don't buy. A government is nothing but a group of people getting together and agreeing on certain rules which to live by. That it has morphed into something else is true, but I fundamentally reject the premise that such an institution is inherently evil or that anarchism is any more immune from decaying than Constitutionalism. As a pragmatist, I find that sometimes force is necessary, and I am willing to compromise with allowing force to be done, against me and others, according to a set of well-defined and narrow rules I agree upon, or my choice of representative agrees upon. I'm OK with that. And no, I don't think our current system is fulfilling this very well, and I think much change needs to be done to do so. I believe I've addressed this already, so I'll leave it lie.
I asked direct questions. You failed to answer them. Very telling. It doesn't have anything to do with anarchism. Google will help you with this. You're absolutely wrong on this. Historically, governments are practically never efficient in any economic sense. Just take a look at their balance sheets over the last century. Look at the devaluation of the dollar (or other currencies for that matter). I have practically no power over the government, thus, I am not a part of government. Give an example of a modern government that doesn't fit my definition. As it stands, your refutation is thoroughly unsuccessful as you weren't able to come up with a counterexample to my proposition(s). My definitions fit, even if the US government was following the Constitution strictly (which it never really has for any extended period of time). As a pragmatist, I think I'm going to have to bow out, again. Your argumentation tactics are disappointing and you bring little to the table. You clearly have a very limited understanding of formal logic and, thus, your capacity to debate any topic is minute. You might be able to coax me into responding if you successfully refute any of my points. Until then,
Bold is interesting; my view is that the major libertarian ethic, the NAP, is actually a very pragmatic rule to live by. When is it in your best interest to initiate force? Almost never, you would have to have strange, and in my mind despicable, interests for there not to be a better way for you to reach the ends you desire than to initiate force. It is very important to understand the distinction between the initiation of force and the use of force in self defense, the NAP doesn't prohibit the use of force in self defense. A question of what values are better for society to hold is not relevant to discussion of what political system is better? Political systems are based on acting in accordance with sets of values. I think it would be very interesting if you tried to argue that a system where initiation of force is permitted in any way is better than a system where it is strictly prohibited. People didn't create rule based ethical systems solely for the purpose of getting people to do what they think is right, they also thought that the following of the rules would lead to good results. I understand that your discussion with Kstigs was about objective morality and whatnot, personally I don't think it's very important to prove that the morals I hold are more objective than anyone's, but I think it's pretty easy to see that prohibiting the initiation of force would mitigate conflict. Currently our government uses force to reach some of its ends, and it creates conflict. Rich people move capital out of the country, our military bombs people who don't deserve it, people feel like they can't really do what they want in their country: all symptoms of the government's initiation of force. What good comes with the initiation of force, and how does it outweigh the bad that also comes with it, if you think it comes with any? The importance of morality to anarchism is this: Yes it is true that one may reach more desirable ends for one's self through initiation of force, but if we create a system where that is acceptable (e.g. US) you get major systemic problems lol. Look at how fascist/corporatist our government is. Corporations influence the government's use of force in their favor, and it results in regulatory capture. There are inherent problems with giving one group a monopoly on the use of force. You should really look into it a little. It's a good rule. It's just, "Acts of aggression are prohibited." That rule, followed strictly, results in anarchy; it would be a society without rulers. But I can argue that what they achieved is not something I support, and that resources the centralized gov. may have considered necessary to reach whatever goal it wanted to reach would probably have been put to better uses making people happy had they not been violently expropriated from those very people. What great feats have governments achieved? Destructive ones. Power corrupts. We, as teh people, need to stop giving our power away to an institution which doesn't do our bidding. What about the inherent problems with their existing a monopoly on force? That's what governments are. They are prone to abuse, why not prohibit the initiation of force completely; thus getting rid of the potential for abuse. Instead of forcing everyone under one banner, let them voluntarily join a collective. So you are okay with the NAP, as far as your statement goes.
You proposed red herrings that don't have anything to do with the discussion in my mind. I don't care if you want to talk about it, but I don't have time to discuss every facet of morality on an internet message board. Sorry, I just don't. I was interested in hearing your positions and reasons about why anarchism might work. I didn't hear any, all I saw was you linking to a few other folks, and it seems to be the same rhetoric I've already read. If you can't/don't want to expand your points about anarchism, again that's OK, but that's really as far as my interest in this discussion went. Again, sorry. Didn't you say something about claims without proof...? How can a tyrant, with unlimited power, be less able to quickly mobilize resources, such as military, in a narrow way, than a force that relies on volunteerism? I just can't get past this. And it's even historically supported... why do you think tyrants were so able to suppress democracy for literally hundreds of years? You (or another anarchist, sorry if I misattributed) mentioned the American Revolution as an example. The thing is, we would have lost that war if it weren't for the French, very autocratic, intervention. Our military was terribly trained, terribly under-supplied, and terribly lacking in numbers. Britain could have crushed us, but an all out war with France was another matter. Truth be told, if France hadn't intervened, our history may have looked much more like other commonwealth nations who eventually separated peacefully. Now, I'm not saying that it trumps all... but I'm saying all things being equal, it should be obvious a central power has less barriers to completing its will. One must individually have reasonable power in governance to be a legitimate system? I suppose that's a fair point of view, but I don't share it. Your positions stand by default? That's... convenient. Again, I am not arguing the current government fulfills its intended role well, don't misunderstand me. I'm merely saying I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe anarchism is any better or that it is less susceptible to corruption. And I don't believe you've posted any theoretical reason why it would be other than a big leap of faith in humanity, which I don't find very compelling with our history of exploitation. *shrug* Sorry you feel that way. I'd note I asked simply for you to spell out your position in your own words, and you have not done so. I would further note that in your "logic", you've made some pretty big assumptions that proffesors in philosophy aren't even comfortable making, and seemingly expect them to be taken at face value as truth. As far as I can tell, the only support you've made for your system is that it is morally superior based on your ideas of absolute morality. It seems impractical to expect people to change their ideas on morality in order to conform with your ideal of how the world should work. You've got to have some way to compel others, otherwise it's a futile mental exercise. If you've converted some to your way of thinking, hey, more power to you... I'd just be very much surprised if it will succeed on a large scale. Honestly, having seen most of these threads, they seem to mostly be circle-jerks anyway, with little to no intention of actually "debating" anything at all. It's just people reaffirming each other's ideology. See above. If you wish to engage in stroking each other, I've got no problem with it, just don't expect those who don't agree to bobble their heads along with you. Most Libertarians seem to agree that there needs to be basic order, and that basic order requires the use of narrow, defined force. Even in the Libertarian party, those in favor of privatizing everything are on the fringe. Most Libertarians in America simply want a return to the supreme power of the Constitution, a limited role in federal government, and more power localized where people can make informed decisions. Well yes, I figured as much. But my concern is in an anarchist society's actual ability in defending itself against outside invaders, not on whether it can do so while abiding by its own moral rules. Nay; a discussion on absolute versus relative morality is not relevant to whether or not anarchism is a better option, at least not to me. I find any argument based on a presumed knowledge of the "right morals" as inherently flawed, just as I find a religion claiming that its set of morals is superior as unconvincing. Why should I believe an anarchist telling me his system is superior because its morals are superior any more than I should believe a Catholic telling me his ideology is superior because his morals are right? How can you objectively prove one to be superior? What standard would you use that is universally acceptable? Again, I understand that morality must come into play at least somewhat in discussing political systems; what I'm having issues with is begging the question by basing an argument on an assumed premise; that morality is absolute, and that anarchists are finally the ones, for realsies this time, to figure it out (the thousands of times it has been claimed before by every religion under the sun were all wrong, though). This is why I find the morality tack wanting... But how can you prohibit force without a way to enforce that prohibition? And wouldn't that enforcement basically by definition require force? What is to stop someone from arbitrarily taking force? I get that it is assumed people won't let it happen (at least that is what it seems as though kstigs was arguing), but what is that assumption based on? At best, it would require a society get used to those ideals long enough to learn to protect them and value them. What is to be done in the meantime, during the process changing from governance to anarchy? The good of force comes from defense and prosecution of crime. Is it perfect? No... but I haven't found arguments against any more compelling. Again, don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for infallibility of government. But I don't think the world is black and white, and I think it's too easy to try and make clear "bad guys" and "good guys" when the world isn't really like that. Why must the clear extreme be the answer? Can't it be in degrees? I don't disagree that this is the case and that change needs to be enacted. I disagree that anarchism is any more immune to corruption. I see it as losing the upsides of force - maintaining order and structure - without being able to cope with those problems adequately. If you choose to hold your position based on perceived "better" morality, I have no problems with it. I would just be very much surprised if you would expect any more success than religious conversions, as it amounts to the same thing: "Our morality is better". Okay, explain to me how this would work though, in practice. How do we go from where we are, to an anarchist society? What happens during the "transformation"? How will we defend ourselves from an outside invasion, especially during transition (which would not be surprising... the UN or other international force would very possibly get involved to "stabilize the country" if the US fell into anarchy, would it not?)? These questions just haven't been adequately answered yet and seem to rest on generalities. I can mostly agree with this, with the caveat of still not being able to see why anarchism would any better stand against corruption. It usually goes that a culture that descends into anarchy has a single strong personality who leads the people by force of will, descending into despotism or dictatorship. Why would anarchy, especially during the transition, be able to resist this now when it hasn't in the past? Who's being forced under a banner? Again, you can freely leave to a banner you support, can you not? Is that not what we already have? Different countries using different rules they decided to live by? Most countries seem to allow immigration.... I'm in favor of non-aggression except in self-defense and except for enforcing laws that we, as a society, have agreed upon.
I explained why ethics is relevant to the discussion of political systems. I hinted at the proof. Yes, the state is very good at legitimizing death and destruction. Gotta give them that. A central power has less barriers towards death and destruction because people don't generally like that. Only psychopaths and sociopaths enjoy that. Most people want to live peacefully. Psychopaths and sociopaths use the state in order to use the mass resources at its disposal in order to destroy their enemies and help themselves and their buddies get even more powerful. I just don't consider war to be efficient in any economic sense. I know, it's this crazy idea that people working together can voluntarily get more done when they want than some centralized power. There are dozens of examples of this, but, frankly, I'm done doing research for you. You're more than capable of researching every single project in history that didn't rely on the initiation of aggression in order to accomplish something amazing. Slave labor built the pyramids and many other great wonders of the world. That political/economic system can clearly help us achieve great things. Why shouldn't we bring back slavery? Oh right... something about morality and ethics. I wonder why I was so interested in that earlier. Ethics isn't mandatory. That's usually how this works. One person makes a claim and states their reasoning and then the other person refutes it. You've been unable to successfully refute any of my claims. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that your argumentation tactics are disappointing and your understanding of formal logic is limited. Voluntarism is what I advocate. Once you look at what the state actually is from a practical, pragmatic, realistic standpoint, it becomes clear that its main function is to rob, assault, steal, imprison and murder people (as that is what separates the state from other organizations: it's ability to initiate force). Nation-states are ethically comparable to human farms (or slave plantations) that are very large so that livestock (humans) have more freedom to roam. Livestock can also do what they want (more or less) because it's more efficient that way for their masters. The fences are lower, but they're still there. The masters are less abusive most of the time to most of the people, but they still murder quite a few people regularly. I've tried explaining this in very clear terms, but you disregarded that instance completely saying it was "poppycock" without directly analyzing what I said. I've done it several times. I would be more inclined to believe that you simply are having difficulty understanding what I'm posting. Try re-reading what I wrote in my posts. Everything not in quotes is in my own words. I'm sure you'll find quite a few positions within them. I'm not making assumptions that are more controversial then the following: - We both exist - Language is meaningful - Morality is a valid concept From simple premises like the 3 bullets above, I go ahead and prove why that from those axioms, morality must be objective in the same way that mathematics or science is objective. I went over a proof by contradiction above. My system isn't going to take over the world because it's TOO ETHICAL. What an awful fucking system. I don't need to compel anyone to do anything. You should try reading some time. It's a pretty cool thing. Voluntarism. Voluntaryism. Voluntary. Voluntarily. Yes, voluntary and compulsion are diametric opposites. I don't want to force anyone to do something. I know, thinking is hard. Reasoning to other people that they should be ethical is just a 'futile mental exercise'. There is still 'rule of law' within a voluntary system to the extent that people demand such things. I'm not convinced that you're capable of deciphering between a debate and a circle-jerk given the current display of your reading comprehension. You have no interest in actually thinking. That's why this is so difficult. We're doing all the thinking and you're shoving patterned responses that we've heard ad nauseum (and refuted ad nauseum) back at us. You have fundamental reading comprehension issues that you need to deal with before you can hope to participate in any intellectual discussion.