Re: Anarchy is Stupid

[darkshadow2017]

Anarchy is the absence of political authority; a condition of political disorder and confusion; absence of any common standard or purpose.

Do not confuse anarchy with anarchism, which is political theory holding that all governments are coercive and unnecessary.

[ilkkavu]

Human beings are evil monsters. Every system that doesn't assume that to be the truth is an utopia. Anarchy just means war as long as supreme power does not exist.

[ligerman30]

Tom Hobbes is a retard.

[BrettDunbar]

Human beings can be violent creatures. Jesus fucking christ. You're basically saying everyone is nice and nobody would fuck anyone over.

[XOmniverse]

When did I say that?

Wouldn't creating a centralized power source that people could easily abuse be BAD if human beings are fundamentally violent, abusive creatures?

[ligerman30]

it's true, how many intelegent people do you see go around killing each-other? Do you see people in nyc stricken with poverty violence is nyc a hellhole? because according to you it is. Evil is a learned behavior and is not inherent.

[Twiggy269]

I was excited to read the article in the sidebar, then I saw the "Objectivist" that the article decided the debate in the first part was David Kelley. David Kelley is NOT an Objectivist, he is a wishy washy, half breed. You know this XOm, and I find it quite misleading that you would do this. The rest of the paper is quite sophisticated though ill likely be going over it the rest of the day today.

[XOmniverse]

I don't really directly identify with any Objectivist thinkers at this point other than perhaps Rand herself.

I'm not sure what is misleading about it. I didn't write the article, nor do I think David Kelley is so far off the mark that calling him an Objectivist is dishonest.

[Twiggy269]

Would you still consider someone an Anarchist if they were open to the idea of having a state controlled monopoly on the use of force? Or would that disqualify them from being able to consider themself an anarchist? Same is true with Objectivism and Kelley

[1397555]

man you should use better webcam..

video quality is awful..

[Ninjoel]

Of course he's got his anarchy is stupid video a featured video slot!

[Quidtimeam]

You clearly don't understand the Objectivist view if you think that the argument for a definite state relies on the premise that men are inherently evil and given to exercise force against each other. There is no such premise- men may be good or evil by choice, but when they are evil we need the state to prevent them from infringing upon the rights of others.  There is nothing in there relying on the assumption of an inherently flawed human nature.

[Juxtys]

"...but when they are evil we need the state to prevent them from infringing upon the rights of others." - that and stoping multi-century-old revenges common in such anarchistic societies as medieval Ireland.

[XOmniverse]

I made it clear that the premise is implicit in the assumption that a state must precede a free market (since it has to be assumed that, without the state imposing law, people evidently would not naturally engage in peaceful interaction for the most part).

I made a point of saying that this implicit assumption is at odds with Objectivism's explicit assertions about human nature.

[Quidtimeam]

That is entirely bogus. Objectivism doesn't say anything about "human nature" in terms of whether most people will choose morality or the use of force. It is an open choice, and the state is necessary in case some choose to defy the rights of others. This only recognizes that individuals can choose to defraud or force their victims at any time, not that human nature is inherently so depraved. *Your* view that people will "naturally" behave a certain way is the one that denies free will and

[XOmniverse]

By all means, explain to me why a state (and its enforcement of law) is necessary for a free market to exist (rather than the other way around) without appealing to the idea that human beings would not peacefully trade unless forced to.

It seems like, unless people are naturally evil, there would be no need for a large, monopolistic state to force the 90% of people who have no interest in being violent criminals to organize to protect themselves.

[Quidtimeam]

There is no such premise! "Man is a being of self-made soul."- his nature does not compel him to either justly obey contracts or to follow them, it is a matter of his choice. You may have an anarchic society in which everyone does obey contracts, or one in which some do, or one in which nobody does. The point of constructing the state is to ensure that if some people do choose to deny their contracts, which can happen at any time due to free will, the state will justly uphold the contract.

[XOmniverse]

And if it can be done better without a centralized state? Monopolizing arbitration service only makes it easier for people to corrupt it.

I recommend reading the first article I linked to, as it discusses these matters in detail.

As far as man's nature, I do think that people have a natural compulsion to seek happiness but can (and often do) make erroneous assumptions about how to do it.

[Twiggy269]

"the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for HONEST disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." - AR Your supposed contradiction in objectivism seems a bit misleading....if you've actually read Rand on Anarchy.

[Quidtimeam]

contradicts the Objectivist view of human nature.

In summary, having a state to defend contracts does not assume that people will break them naturally. It is a prophylactic institution there in case some people choose to.

[XOmniverse]

The assertion that the state has to exist before a free market would exist, actually assumes the very premise you're denying. If people would not naturally break contracts, then clearly at least some semblance of a market could exist before a state formed.

[Sam26100]

Interesting points, however...

I dont' see how you've disprooved Cropper's point about there being nothing to stop a DRO from violent takeover, or a coalition of DROs. Your counter argument is simply to suggest that the same thing can happen in an objectivist state, but even if we assume you're right about that then what would be the advantage of DROs then?

You're just staying: well your system is flawed in the same way, but you're not disprooving that the flaw exists. It's weak

[MrCropper]

2:34 replace 'most' with 'a few' and you've got it.

[MrCropper]

1:44 "As far as the issue of the market preceding law... Ayn Rand was completely wrong about that..."

Actually, I take my position from the Greeks - as they said, without law, there is no freedom.

The Greeks said to the Persians: "We are free men; we obey ONLY the law."

Anarchy is folly the Greeks would have laughed at.

[Ninjoel]

Greeks are dumb as fuck though...

[FatGermanBastard]

One thing I have learned on Youtube is that Youtube anarchists are not really anarchists. They just think the word "government" only refers to "corrupted big business organizations" like the US government. They don't see that if my neighbour and I cooperate and defend our houses and succeed in doing so while no larger government exists that already makes a government and is thus not anarchy.

[MiniAgupa]

FGB: Yes, they're using the word government like that. Not everybody in the world holds to the same semantics as you.

[FatGermanBastard]

They could avoid a lot of confusion if they just referred to what they are talking about as "an alternative form of social organization". As long as we all mean different things when we use the word "anarchy" we are talking about different topics. The same goes for morality. If "morality" refers to "social agreement" or "rational behaviour" then why not call it that ? Why use a word like morality or anarchy if you know you use it not like it's usually used.

[MaikUniversum]

government is any monopoly based on violence to control other people. Mafia is kind of government too

[ExistentialExistent]

good video!

[junior00bacon00chee]

very nice. it's good to have a former objectivist here to tackle these things from such a perspective.

the argument against private defense agencies is so obnoxious. so.....defense agencies are less likely to get out of control if they can legally extort funds from those they "protect?"

something is stupid....and it's not anarchy....

[grantsinmypants2]

I don't agree that the Oist position implicitly includes the premise that if there were no overarching government most people would try to screw each other over.

That would violate all sort of prepolitical Oist ideas. Benevolent universe, the moral is the practical, etc.

I think the Oist position is what it is because it recognizes that if there were no overarching government, fallible, non-omnicient people wouldnt do anything for fear of having no recourse.

[ExomatrixTV]

Statism a NWO Mafia Tool to Deceive Slaves in Dystopia Part 1 of 2: watch?v=dtH1f8NXPFc

Part 2 of 2: watch?v=UfRxQC_vePM

[qtronman]

Objectivism doesn't contain the premise that all human beings would otherwise act out violently lest for the threat of an overriding government force; it says only that some people will, and those people will be in sufficient number to do significant harm and retain power. Look at poor countries. It isn't that 99% of the people in say, Peru, are evil; but a sufficient minority of them are to keep the rest repressed via coercion.

[qtronman]

But this whole discussion rests on the factor of education/ideology/culture, so there's no point in debating the politics of it.

[Kbiomech]

interesting point.

I think that anarchy is a MORE valid paradigm NOW than it ever was in the past. Because of the massive amount of information available via the internets and other outlets and the fact that the cost of dissemination of such information is effectively zero. Which pretty much confirms your comment in my mind :)

[GuardofLiberty]

Competing protection agencies conquering all the others, the area and becoming a state?

This is like a running joke with us.

[Moragauth]

Apparently institutionalising a monopoly is better than a potential monopoly forming. Reminds me of anti-trust, we must break up monopolies in fear of hypothetical price rises, nevermind the fact that we're a monopoly ourselves!

[D4rkReaver13]

Cropper's video didn't provide a solid argument against anarchism, but I think that's likely because it was short and he hasn't really been in this debate thus far.

Obviously the "recession into violence" argument used by Objectivists and anarchists alike (e.g. Stefan Molyneux saying limited government will always become unlimited and violent) is wrong and an appeal to human nature applicable to any given system.

[Rorshak1313]

Cropper often embodies the worst parts of Objectivism.

[peanarchist]

"humans are natural born killers, this is why they need other humans to watch over them with guns"... the circus continues

[MaikUniversum]

who will watch the watchers ? :D

[stealthswimmer]

great vid. I like how Roderick Long put it in a vid I was watching once. Said something like "Well obviously a market couldn't have come ONLY after law because someone had to be producing stuff in order to feed the people that were enforcing the laws"

[aaron0883]

I find that Objectivists view of politics tend to morally and practically justify all sorts of government regulation. You just need to apply their reasoning to other areas.

They hold a huge gap in the NAP, and have no proper justification but fill the void with poorly based pragmatic arguments. Than claim that human nature will cause chaos and no standards of good behavior would exist with out a government to enforce it. Why not apply this reasoning to food regulation?

[D4rkReaver13]

As I've pointed out in another comment on this video, the appeal to human nature argument is invalid - and is used by Objectivists and anarchists alike.

[Kbiomech]

I'm not disputing you, here, as I find the "appeal to human nature" to be more of a lead in than an argument.

But I am curious as to WHY you think the argument invalid? Is it because it's too general?

I ask because I'm trying to work out some videos addressing that very subject.

[D4rkReaver13]

Yeah, I'd say it was a generalisation. It assumes that humans have an inescapable nature which makes political freedom, or at least the persistent desire for it, impossible.

It ignores the fact that people are able to think, judge and evaluate, and that their conclusions can indeed be that political freedom / individualism are desirable.

For the same reason I disagree with the notion "power corrupts"; because power only corrupts those who philosophically never opposed coercion to begin with.

[Kbiomech]

Interesting.

I think Lord Acton's actual quote is better: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". It allows for exception.

I had more, but I just got off work and the brain is tired :P

[haggsbo]

on the money man...good work

[tpsisokayiguess]

Cropper's cute somehow. Toobad he's not too open minded...

[nightpotato]

A fine rebuttal.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

dang Cropper is still and Objectivist? That is a while. Is Qtronman still one too?

[XOmniverse]

I was one from age 13 to around age 24 or so. I wonder if any of them can beat 11 years :)

[Chrisnoscrub047]

I didn't know it was that long for you. I think it was about 1 yr for me, but luckily I was on YouTube and had cats like you to pull me out of it.

The thing is, is how young you were when you entered, which also explains your delayed exit. It was a stronger prism, b/c you had been nurturing it for so long. I don't think Qtron or Cropper got in as young as you did, so I didn't think they were still textbook Objectivists. sad face.

[Cailwyn]

I was an Objectivist, or at least closely aligned with objectivism, for about a month or two before I was an anarchist.

I think the reason for my short stay in that camp is that before I actually took the time to read Ayn Rand's stuff I already had strong disagreements with Objectivism on a wide array of topics.

That, and I didn't like her as an author. Terry Goodkind was a greater influence in that regard.

[Cailwyn]

It might seem like ad hominem, but my predisposition against Ayn Rand probably lead me more quickly to Objectivism's logical conclusion; anarchy.

[nonpotentuzi]

Yeah, I've never understood why a person who spoke so highly of laissez-faire wouldn't just go all the way and extend the market into police, military, etc. Sounds like an "inconsistent application of reason" to me.

[D4rkReaver13]

I'm on 5 years; and before that I was a communist. :)

[GARAisSANDMAN]

every goverment is flawed, even no goverment

[Kbiomech]

Agreed. But NO government allows far more flexibility and responsiveness to immediate needs and long term liberty.

[IndividualAutonomy]

A true objectivist!