Anarchism Skepticism Part 2 (for stargazer)

[benjayk]

Your "States formed out of anarchy" is a bad argument.

When we were hunter and gatherers there was no large scale warfare and it became common all over the world, yet you hopefully don't think this is reason to support war, right?

States may just have formed because "modern" (post stone age) society made it possible to achieve large scale control (and human psychology may be vulnerable to strong leaders because this worked at small scales), not because anarchy didn't work.

[benjayk]

Your road example is valid for some conceptions of anarchism. But many anarchists are not that idealistic and will not be fundamentally opposed to the idea that some people are forced to sell their houses at reasonable prices if it is a sufficiently important cause. Not every anarchist buys into some strict form of non-aggression.

[travis0629]

you are quite civil for someone who uses force to solve their problems.

I dont understand why you didn't just threaten this guy if he didn't except ur position.

its as if you would rather settle it peacefully. strange...

[smttysmth02gt]

I think you make some good points. However, towards the end you said you see no signs the U.S. could collapse and we've been in worse situations? I think not...

The anarchist argument is normally an intellectual facade IMO. Intelligent people attempting to present logical and well thought out arguments, that are ultimately based upon a utopia world built upon by emotion (desire for freedom).

I can agree with both statist and anarchist views.

[Stargazer5781]

@smttysmth02gt There is nothing utopian about anarchism. It simply accepts the reality that omnibenevolent gods don't exist and we can't expect those with power to behave in a non-abusive way, which is why they can never be given power. As far as appealing to emotion, I would ask that you name a single ideology that does not. All human action is motivated by the fulfillment of emotional ends. For the record, I don't see freedom as an end, but a prerequisite for people achieving happiness.

[smttysmth02gt]

@Stargazer5781 Sure there is. You're accepting one "reality" that you can't prove based upon what you are capable of seeing in front of you. So based upon nothing, you assume there is nothing, then slap a label of "reality" on it. That isn't very logical. To also assume all ideology is based upon emotion and there is no difference between the logical rationale is quite humorous. Anarchism is driven by the unknown assuming it's "better" or "reality" and a desire for complete freedom.

[smttysmth02gt]

@Stargazer5781 You also attempt to label people who advocate for some form of govt, as "status quo". That is ludicrous. I don't know a single person, not even staunch rep/dem's who are satisfied with the status quo. It is possible you know, to be an advocate for "some form" of a state without being the "statist" that you claim them to be. Just because someone thinks a govt can be a good idea, or do good things, doesn't mean that they justify or advocate the evil that is done.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt He labeled himself as someone who favors the status quo in the video. Some advocate a class of powerful people who are both wise, and loving. I am skeptical that such a class would emerge as both wise, and loving. I'd like you to show an example of "good government".

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I must've not heard that part about status quo. That's rather disappointing actually. You want an example of good government? That's quite easy actually...just watch the local news in your area. You'll see murderers, rapists, thieves, molestors, and the like all arrested. Regardless of the mechanism that pays the police, and the negative things they do, there are still GOOD things they do. Or DOT, or fire/rescue, or national guard, etc. That's too easy.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Well, I'd think my cousin who was shot by an ex-vietnam guy for having his music on too loud would have to disagree with you. At least, if a corps could argue. They thought they were going to get a big drug bust because there were drug dealers that lived in the neighborhood, but not my cousin.

The drug wars, placing people in cages for selecting vegetation is not what I'd call "good government" I don't want to know about your theories. I want to know about the bodies.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty You asked for examples and I gave them to you. I never insisted or even hinted that I believe it's ALL good. Nor did I mention any opinion on the retarded drug wars. I think there is very little legitimate support for an argument that states the situation as far as police goes would be any better under an anarchistic ideology. I'm 95% certain it would be much worse due to human nature. That being said, I gave you what you asked for.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt If there are two groups of people, one group A who is capable of competantly ruling other people in certain aspects of life, and one group B who is apparently incapable, and one group C which is a union of A and B, what makes you think that those in group C are going to pick the people in group A? If they are incompetent in making those arrangements for themselves, what makes them competent as rulers?

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I'm not sure if you meant this for someone else, as I see no relevance in your analogy to anything that I was saying. Therefore I have no idea what kind of response you were looking for?

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Also you cannot separate local government from federal government, because the federal government controls it. It is not as though the Constitution lead to any deaths, like say, the "Civil War". Of course, if everyone murders each other in government uniforms, it is called a civil war, and when citizens murder each other it is called murder. Sure hundreds of thousands died, but at least they were in uniform and everything didn't plunge into chaos.... oh wait.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I think you're hung up on the bad things govt does and you're justifying a complete absence based upon said bad things. I can understand that, I just disagree with it. I think it's terrible what govt has done in certain instances, however, their is a distinction between the local and federal govt and there is no legitimate argument that supports any control the fed has over local, other than greater threat of force. Legally speaking you are incorrect in a general sense.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Oh, legally speaking I'm incorrect! Tell that to the federal government. It is so naive to believe that the government will follow the law.

You're hung up on government if you actually believe that kidnapping people into courtrooms and throwing them into boxes for vegitation is a good thing. You're hung up on government if you think that stealing a third of someone's income per year so that the government can build bomb factories to kill others making people less safe is good.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty Yes. You are incorrect. Read the laws before you spout out about that garbage. Of course I don't advocate what you're claiming I do, however, a judge's ruling does not mean that he's legally correct...it only means his threat of force is larger than yours. At the end of the day, the people with the most force rules.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Lol, the laws do not promote liberty. You're just pre-supposing that the State brings peace and justice. There are many dead who would disagree with you, and there are many innocents in cages that would disagree with you as well. Face it. The government kidnaps, steals, poisons, and murders far, far, more than the private sector does. The only difference is the veil of legitimacy. Once that is gone, then crime is seen for what it actually is.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty Laws do not promote liberty? So a law that says don't kill someone else doesn't promote liberty? Or a law that says you can't kidnap someone's kid and rape them? Seriously? That is ludicrous. While I don't agree with the majority of laws, and quite frankly probably half of police activity, discounting the good that is done is a huge disservice to those out there who do indeed lay down their life to protect others. I think you're wrong in your disdain towards those people.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Well, I think there should be laws against murder and kidnapping. That is why I agree with Murray N. Rothbard that the State is a criminal gang writ large. Law needs to be privatized. If uniforms truly make no difference in deeds, then the conclusion is inescapable.

People will pay for protection, and protection agencies will determine whether or not to go to war, or go to court. Most of the time they will go to court because war is expensive.

I'm not anti-law, just anti-mob.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I cannot agree with you on that. The poor get screwed in that system you're promoting. I'd prefer the system we currently have, only hold them accountable. This is where I feel the constitution has let down the entire country. They should have told the sheep what to do if the politicians, military, or police shit on their oath. Because of this I both acknowledge the failure of the constitution, as well as any type of system that promotes a lack of law or govt.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I don't get the impression you're anti-law necessarily, but you obviously have an anarchistic/anti govt/police type of impression you give off. I find that you can only take that so far. For example, if a foreign country invades us...who will grab the weaponry and fight them off? The military and police. Who will run into a burning building or a massacre where a madman is shooting everyone? That's my point. Regardless of the trash, there are noble people in m&p.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt I've written about questions like this before. There are also numerous other authors who've read more than I who have answered it. I'd think that a protection agency would have a profit motive to both serve as a welfare as part of the insurance plan, and also defense. So, yes the military and police go after the bad guys. Except, they do it for profit rather than for graft. Rather than have one monopoly protection agency called gov't, introduce competition and see what happens.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Basically, just let me start up a "government company" that handles the functions people would normally associate with the state. These companies are not geographically oriented, but fill the same necessary roles of governance. Whoever charges the least for protection while offering the best services will be the ones that rise on the market place. If a government company helps someone while he's down, then they'll be buying his loyalty when he's back on his feet again.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I've heard all of these ideas and arguments before. Sorry but I don't think privatizing police and military would ever benefit anyone except those private entities (ie: blackwater???). Fascism would ensue and it would be a catastrophy. At least with the rule of law in place, part of the time the police have guidelines that must be followed.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Yeah, don't think we have to worry about fascism... it just is silly, there is no answer to the argument on rulers. If there is a group of people in A who are able to rule, and a group of people B that need rulers, and C represents both A and B together, then HOW do the competent rulers land in power? The people in set C who are unable to make their own choices for themselves are not going to be any more capable of selecting rulers. Fascism has arrived.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty Yes but I don't think the problem is the system...it's the people within the system. The spineless tards who've allowed things to go this far out of wack. In your analogy, what would happen if people in A were forced by people B to abide by the law? Then the system would work. I'm not a big fan of the anarchist mindset, although I do understand it. It just doesn't seem realistic at all.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Well, so far, it seems pretty utopian to me to expect people in group A to actually land in power, and far more utopian still to expect them to obey magic scrolls. If they are uneducated and need rulers, then how does one expect them to pick rulers, and how does one expect them to be intelligent enough to keep government to size, especially when there are perverse incentives for individuals to defect and reap huge profits from government intervention. It's rubbish.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty Couldn't the same be said about your anarchistic ideas? Me thinks so. I'd rather trust something that has worked in time when followed, rather than something that would not work with such stupid and incompetent people.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Yeah, well, surely you are aware of anarchist societies that have lasted for longer periods of time with far less killing, lower taxes, and better justice than the US.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty Nope. I've only been told about one, which was a long time ago and I don't remember. Either way, I doubt it was stupid people lazy americans either. Don't get me wrong I understand everything you're saying, I simply think it would never work in this country.......ever.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Blaming blackwater is like blaming the messenger. If the governments create huge subsidies for windmills, do you blame the free market for making windmills instead of something more efficient to produce energy?

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty In corporatism, it doesn't matter. Remember, is it the politicians or the corporations calling the shots? Or does it matter when they are both the same?The problem exists in a lack of enforcement of laws, not in the existence of them.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Lol, the US has one of the largest prison populations in the world, 2.2M. I'm pretty sure that the problem is the lawmakers and the people who pay them off, and the sheeple who think that elections that make the sheeple think the process is legitimate. If people are meant to guard the government and keep it in its cage, then well, I'd rethink that wisdom about now.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty Indeed . Which is why I'd say the constitution failed. :-)

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt If prices are put on people's heads, low and behold, of course the market is going to fill it.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt If people are too ignorant to govern themselves in all affairs, then what makes you think that somehow they will pick wise and just rulers. If they are fools they will pick fools. If they are unjust then they will pick unjust rulers. If they are both wise and just, then they have no reason to pick rulers. It is a garbage-in, garbage-out system. George Carlin was right.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty It looks like you misunderstood my stance.  I'm partially in agreement with anarchists, however, I do not have that much faith in humanity to believe no govt is needed. I think that the society we live in is not terrible by any means, however the things the fed govt does in terms of invasions, extortion, theft, etc is completely unnecessary and wrong. I am pro-liberty, but just not to the extreme that you guys are. I'm not an advocate for big govt at all.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Well, I just extend that lack of faith in humanity to elections. It doesn't make things any better. It's just garbage-in garbage-out. =(

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I do not believe in voting any more. I have no way of verifying that votes are even counted or goes towards the individual being voted for, and the system is so far gone (corrupt) that I doubt it's legitimate. Therefore I choose not to participate.

[leavesofliberty]

@smttysmth02gt Even juries are impossible without letters in the mail to threaten to kidnap. If you do not participate in conscription into jury duty, you are locked in a cage. So, you are kidnapped through the threat of coercion. It's just not called crime because the government has the right to coerce, because there is the veil of legitimacy. Uniforms!

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I agree with you on most all of what you're saying. Where I disagree is for your obvious bias towards "all govt is bad" attitude. That simply is incorrect.

[smttysmth02gt]

@leavesofliberty I also refuse to discount the good things that local govt (and even sometimes the evil fed) has done to right the wrong, promote justice, and protect the innocent. I do think, however, that there is a fine line between protecting the innocent, and harassing them. IE: violations of the bill of rights. Indeed, our current system is far past the realm that it was intended...yet ignorance continues to increase to the point where people say "what is this constitution you speak of?"

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

@smttysmth02gt Why do you think the United States is going to collapse? I see no economic indications of this.

[smttysmth02gt]

@ithinkronpaulissmart Are you not paying attention to unemployment numbers? Or the amount of inflation that is likely to occur in the next decade or so? I'd say collapse of some form is not only probable, but likely.

Btw...commodities pricing jumping 50% in a matter of months is no economic indication? Check pricing since June for wheat, corn, sugar, etc...

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

@smttysmth02gt Unemployment went higher than this in the 1980s. We've had huge inflation rates before too. From a global or historical perspective, these numbers aren't really that crazy and most economists believe the economy is improving.

[smttysmth02gt]

@ithinkronpaulissmart So China and Russia has dropped the dollar before? And unemployment numbers were as high as they currently are, AND included ALL unemployed? Quantitative easing has happened before? or how about the fed reserve loaning out trillions while printing more money. I think stating anything is improving, without production or innovation improving is a rather obvious mistake. There is no reason to state it's "improving" if you have a basic understanding of history and economics.

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

@smttysmth02gt To me, those sound like problems. I think it's a stretch to conclude from that that the government is about to collapse. Unemployment has been higher and I don't think the methodology has changed, but I could be wrong. Relative to GDP, I think the government has printed similar amounts of money historically.

To be honest, I don't know that much about this issue, but I think we;re doing better than the Soviet Union was.

[smttysmth02gt]

@ithinkronpaulissmart Well I'm not saying specifically the govt will collapse. I know that we cannot continue on like we are...history dictates some form of collapse will occur. I think there are simply no signs of improvement on the horizon, other than lies from the govt.

[smttysmth02gt]

@ithinkronpaulissmart Perhaps you should change your user name, since you are apparently disregarding anything RP says about this particular topic. :-)

[billyjoeallen]

@ithinkronpaulissmart 1. unsustainable growth in government debt.

2. credit saturation (almost no credit worthy borrowers want to take on more debt).

3. recessions in our export markets 4. accelerating breakdown in rule of law (fraudclosure, rigged markets, etc) 5. uncertain tax and regulatory environments make additional investment unattractive 6. Structurally high unemployment 7. growing wealth disparity with attendant social unrest

[IndividualAutonomy]

IRIS do you know how to post this as a response to part 1 of your video?

[wood9670]

ithinkronpaulissmart, How many lives do you believe have been saved through licensing laws & regulations relative to those lives lost through lack of access to services due to inflated costs associated with State protected medical cartels?

Look up "The Case Against Licensing Health Professionals" by Stanley J. Gross for a better discussion on this point.

Free persons have the right to employ others at their own risk. Especially, if in doing so they can save their own lives.

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

@wood9670 To be honest, I actually completely agree with you. I think licenses should probably be abolished regardless if you have a state or not (for the reason you mention). In hindsight, I probably wouldn't have included that argument, because I really don't agree with it that much. It was just something that I came up with on the fly as a random problem you might run into.

[gunsandbullhorns]

I'm not hip to Molyneux's conception of Anarchism, so maybe I'm wrong about this... but I would assume that the “out-of-town rapist” would be subject to the authority of whatever DRO has jurisdiction of the property the rapist was on when he committed the rape.

I would also assume that DROs would make agreements amongst themselves to coöperate with eachother, and that a person who subscribes to an uncoöperative DRO would be banned from jurisdictions of other DROs.

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

@gunsandbullhorns I think that conception of territorial D.R.O.s is really indistinguishable from small governments, particularly in the long run.

[gunsandbullhorns]

@ithinkronpaulissmart

I agree. In fact I refer to DROs as “Free-Market Governments”. And I don't see why a FMG couldn't have an Eminent domain clause in its Constitution (or "contract"). But I don't think it's necessary that DROs/FMGs be small.

...which brings me to my next point: The controversy over the ‘Large Firms’ and ‘Large DROs’ — would they really be non-competitive or unaccountable to consumers? I think that's a hasty assumption.

[abortabraham]

@gunsandbullhorns thats what governments do when they agree to extradite criminals. as ITRPIS said, territorial DROs are indistinguishable from an ultra republican form of governance, which really then boils down to democracy on the micro level. communities form with shared values and agree (or marginally agree) on which laws to enforce. a DRO would be exactly the same thing. the rent-a-cop version as proposed by anarchists would be highly inefficient and "the law" would be very arbitrary.

[abortabraham]

@gunsandbullhorns also you can't assume that DROs would make agreements to cooperate. thats like assuming states will cooperate. law has little to no cost analysis. dollars & cents are not a factor in determining whether or not we will protect free speech, only the capacity. do you think the US would extradite a man to north korea because he said "the korean government is tyrannical" while in pyongyang? why would there be ANY assumption a DRO would do this? money? do you feel safer knowing that?

[gunsandbullhorns]

@abortabraham

If governmental protection were a market service, consumer demand would have the greatest influence on policy.

[Stargazer5781]

Satisfactorily responding to everything here would require a book of no less than 400 pages. I'll see what I can do in videos though. Thanks for the polite response and articulate arguments. I think this will be a good conversation.

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

@Stargazer5781 Yeah, it's funny how arguments can often be made way quicker than they can be responded to. I would totally understand and appreciate if you narrowed the focus.