Should there be a limit of how much land someone can buy?
When a libertarian society is created (from this current one), do I still own the land i legaly owned in the "previous" society?
If they answered yes to all of this, then states should be legal. Its a bunch of people who at one point took a part of the land and made it theirs. Just because they are born here, doesnt mean its still the property of us.
I think slavery has been almost a constant throughout human history. The exceptions occur where the state has a monopoly of coercion are sparing in its use. What makes them spare the rod and what their boundaries are is the big question. Thank you raising these questions. Very fair minded I think.
Looks like someone is going to try libertarian utopia, google an article:
"A billionaire's Waterworld takes libertarianism to new depths"
It is an offshore platform on international water where they will have no welfare, little gun control, no minimum wage and looser building codes. I will give it few months before the whole thing collapses on its own stupidity.
@Saukko31 No it wont collapse, because its not what you think it is. Its not some home for normal people. Bying prperty there is so expensive only rich people can afford it. And thats what its created for. Its also known as a tax paradise because it wont have taxes. So if you legaly move your adress to that place, you are not part of USA any longer, and dont pay taxes to USA. It wont collapse because its constructed by the rich for the rich.
@PostITnoteGUY There is a reason none of the ancient stateless societies or city states survived. They all fought among one another and built empires. There will always be someone some where in the world who will seek to conquer and build new empires. The state provides more security than could a stateless society or a small city state. The utopian dreams of stateless societies always living in peace and harmony all over the globe has never existed and it never will.
Would you have told the Wright Brothers that no heavier-than-air aircraft had ever flown before? Would you have told George Washington that no colony had ever successfully broken from the parent and formed its own country through revolution? Would you have told Thomas Edison that no one had ever made a light bulb? Why should ANY of these men have been discouraged by your argument?
@DavidJohnWellman Okay, I just wasted a whole lot of my time reading that garbage. If there's ever a better example of an equivocation fallacy, I haven't seen it--and certainly not compounded over that many iterations!
What is it about you that makes you think you're doing anything resembling rational argumentation? All you're doing is starting with your conclusions, coming up with fallacious reasons to support it, and then trying to disguise those fallacies any way you can.
@DavidJohnWellman Oh, geez, what DIDN'T you equivocate? First you equivocated "evidence" to "prima facie evidence" (without even realizing that this is a hideous fallacy as it could be used to support, say, Geocentrism). Then you equivocated on the word "impossible" to mean "something we should reasonably see in a certain timespan but didn't" (equally fallacious). Then you changed that to "withhold judgement" for reasons I still can't fathom, but isn't what you're doing anyway.
@shanedk I believe that what I was doing was clarification, not equivocation. But would it satisfy you if I formally retracted the statements in this video, inasmuch as they conflict with propositions (5), (6) and (7)?
@DavidJohnWellman frankly, I'm glad you didn't bother with him in the end. He can't even tell the difference between debt and deficit, and doesn't like to be corrected on things he's clearly wrong about.
@shanedk Perhaps you're not aware that I don't allow multi-part comments on my channel. If you have something to say that won't fit in 500 characters, make a video or take it to my blog.
@shanedk I haven't deleted any posts. The comments that have been posted so far have been hidden because I installed Disqus -- if you'd like, I can cut and paste the comments that have been posted thus far into the new system.
@shanedk Have you posted on my blog? I still have all of the pre-Disqus comments stored, and will repost them if asked, but I haven't seen you post there anywhere.
@PostITnoteGUY Now you're lying about what you said, and what your sources said. But I'm curious, why did you post this in this video, instead of at the video where this discussion was actually taking place? Could it have been, perhaps, to get around my calling a halt to discussion at that video, as it was being moved to my blog? Are you that desperate for attention on YouTube that you'll actually switch videos to make your point?
I'm done with you. Let the intelligent anarchists speak for you
@PostITnoteGUY So how does property exist outside of 'the state'? How does the concept of ownership exist? If there was no enforcement by the state - what is to stop the rich and powerful from taking whatever they want? Their sense of morality?? I'll rely on the state over a rich man's morals, thanks anyways. History is full of examples of powerful individuals doing whatever they please to the weak until something stops them. Isn't history enough proof that we need government?
@PostITnoteGUY Well in reality you do not own anything at all. It is just a law and value and contract that makes such things like private propety exists.
@PostITnoteGUY yeah those systems thend to devolop with devolpment of the state.
May I tell you something. One freedom where I live is the freedom to roam if we have your plutocratic dystopia that freedom will disapear because the private propety wild life will matter more.. Or mayvbe not because nothing protects private propety.
Yeah, we know how to provide affordable security that (when it operates well) is applied to everyone without bias or discrimination. We do it by paying taxes and having regulations determining what the police and courts can do.
You're advocating mercenaries who are in the employ of a small group of relatively wealthy people shitting on the poor. Way to go.
@bdf2718 "that (when it operates well) is applied to everyone without bias or discrimination. "
That 'when it operates well' is telling. You're comparing an idealized version of the state _as you believe it should be_ rather than as it actually exists and has existed, to a 'worst case scenario' distopian vision of a stateless society.
So when Massey wants to strip mine the Appalachians the protests of the locals makes them stop? Does it fuck.
Non-locals buy the coal without knowing or caring about the environmental damage. Non-locals buy shares without knowing or caring about the environmental damage. No matter how much SOME people protest on the internet about the environmental damage, most people aren't either don't read it or don't care.
One day you might learn of something we call "reality."
You guys, anarchists and libertarians keep telling us that less regulation is our salvation. History proves it concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few.
So now you claim that everyone in an anarchy can afford a private police force. This is fucking insane. You cannot afford a police force of n people unless their average pay is less than 1/n of your pay.
Oh, now you'll say nobody has police. Then it's down to the guy with the biggest fists.
In an anarchy, courts would also be privatized. In addition to punitive sentences and court costs, convicted criminals have to also pay retribution -- if you steal a thousand dollars from me, you have to give it back, plus whatever I can show I would have at this point had you not taken the thousand dollars. What better way for the DJW Court, Inc. to siphon off the competition than by offering 200% retribution to crime victims?
You're right about courts, but there's only so much I can fit into 500 chars and you dislike continued comments.
Anarchy can work in small, isolated communities where ostracism is a powerful force and no group has a concentration of wealth or a stranglehold on employment. From that sentence it's easy to figure out what can cause anarchy to rapidly fail.
So the difference between state police and private police is the state forces you to pay taxes but you can choose whether or not to hire private police - if you can pay.
And in your anarchistic utopia, some people will be richer than others. A few can afford private police but most cannot. One day the rich get the idea they can use their mercenaries to threaten the small guys with coercive force. Buh-bye anarchism, hello plutarchy.
You and your merry men have been insisting that the state uses/threatens PHYSICAL FORCE to make people obey laws. That, you nutters say, DEFINES WHAT A STATE IS.
And now, when I've pointed out the flaws that arise when you idiots say that private police is OK you claim that it's taxes that defines a state.
So do these private police, who use/threaten force to get obedience, work for free?
I'm not part of the crowd which defines a state as something that uses physical force (or threats thereof) to impose its will and THEN turns around and says that in an anarchy you can hire private police (which also use/threaten force).
In short I'm not intellectually bankrupt and you are.
@PostITnoteGUY Preston does not adequately address the free rider problem. He basically concedes that a national defense with a large number of free riders would be fucked, so he simply posits that that won't happen in an anarchistic society. Not impressed.
Show me a single example of an anarchistic society with a working national defense.
Nope, as soon as two people organize you have an ad-hoc government. One doesn't have to assert a right to govern the other. Or have you never heard of mutual co-operation? Hint: you can always decide not to co-operate on certain issues.
Violence is not an intrinsic part of gov't. Not if everyone agrees to abide by the laws. Hint: you don't have to be forced to go to jail if you agree to it.
Pragmatically, all gov'ts we've seen so far employed force at some level.
@bdf2718 "Violence is not an intrinsic part of gov't. Not if everyone agrees to abide by the laws."
There are a bunch of confusions here: Law is not an enterprise that's the exclusive domain of government/the state. The ultimate threat of deadly force _is_ where law derives its efficacy, it is an intrinsic part of law. If all were happy to act in accordance with the law w/out that threat, there would be no need for the law, with it's intrinsic threat of force.
The enforcement of law does NOT necessarily require force or even the threat of force of any kind. This is fact.
Pragmatically, the enforcement of law usually requires all sorts of threats.
It is important, when dealing with idealogues making ridiculous claims at odds with reality, to point out where their assumptions are faulty. Particularly when they justify those assumptions by assuming an ideal world.
Anarchy is impossible. As soon as two people interact they organize in some way, be it mutual agreement or domination or whatever.
Free market capitalism doesn't scale beyond small, isolated societies where ostracism can control behaviour (and even that is only possible if one person/corporation is not responsible for the majority of the livelihoods).
Randroids, libertarians and anarchists are either insane or self-serving liars.
Yep. Same reason anarchism doesn't scale beyond those limits. One word answer: ostracism.
On a small scale people all know each other. One guy starts fucking it up for everyone else and he gets ostracised. He can't sell stuff, he can't buy stuff, nobody talks to him.
He is FORCED to change his ways without physical coercion that you nutcases call "force."
@thereprieve Eh, Godlessons seems to prefer the blunt swords he has on his wall. I'm more worried about his kids, who keep guns in their bedrooms. ;-)
I'm not an anarchist, but at 1:10, doesen't the fact that there has never been a considerably long period of time in humanity's record history without war mean that any anti-war arguments can be dismissed outright?
No, it can't. True anarchy doesn't last long (the Icelandic "Thing" was a form of communal government) because it has very undesirable results. We are justified in arguing that anarchy is a bad idea.
Sadly, people who get into power find that war enhances that power. But war has very undesirable results. We are justified in arguing that war is a bad idea.
@bdf2718 "True anarchy doesn't last long because it has very undesirable results."
Assuming this could be established for all historical examples (i don't believe it can); based on past experience people once claimed that all swans were white. I believe you're making the same mistake.
At last one of the tag team shows signs of intelligence.
Yes, undesirable results in all historical cases - it collapses within a few years. The notable exception was no such thing as any honest anarchist/libertarian would admit.
But at least you point out that it could be the white swan fallacy.
I don't know how you can say that anarchists were an unintended target; you certainly haven't been addressing the beliefs of any libertarians who aren't also anarchists. Just what kind of society do you think people who consider all contracts, property rights, and government to be invalid are pushing for?
Your portrayal of libertarians continues to be about as accurate as the portrayals of republicans as racist, rich Christians & democrats as gay, welfare-receiving atheists.
@army103 I'm forced to concede your point, but not quite for the reasons you say. This will be something I'll have to address in part 7.
For now, I'll just say that, insofar that libertarians and randroids are minarchists rather than anarchists, I'm presently addressing them in another forum: my Tuesday Afternoon debate regarding liberalism vs. conservatism. I know conservatism isn't minarchism, but many of the same arguments apply.
@DavidJohnWellman "insofar that libertarians and randroids are minarchists rather than anarchists"
If anarchist is being used to mean anti-state, then libertarian (small L) is a category that includes them. Objectivist, at least to the extent that they are loyal to Rand, doesn't.
when you come to anarchist do you end up with a problem, the left anarchist or the right wing anarchist is totally different. left wing is socialist, communist and syndicalist and other Marxists. The right wing is anarchists are randriods and other right wing liberterians
much respect for taking on republican social conservatives with an identity crisis (aka libertarians) and part time nihilists with a small sack (aka randroids). it needed to be done, and should be done more often but.... the tedium.... my god.... the tedium.
I am not an anarchist, nor a libertarian, but doesn't your argument based on the fact that there has been no anarchist societies before require you to show that it has been attempted? I'm not sure, but it seems a bit weak without this to back it up.
@Cainjonm If no one has ever even TRIED to institute a formal anarchistic society, then that would substantiate the point that it's never succeeded, and the fact would remain that there is no evidence that one can succeed. If anything, it would establish that anarchists are cowards.
@DavidJohnWellman I meant for the maintenance of the institution of slavery. That since the beginning of recorded history there has been slavery, the idea of abolishing slavery should be dismissed.
@DavidJohnWellman What exactly do you want? It's a general appeal to tradition, like here: Google: arguments for slavery. first link. The apologetic they use was that sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South, and that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind.
@DKshad0w That page gives no sources. It shows the covers of a couple anti-abolition tracts, both of which date to 1864 -- by which time many slaveless societies were in existence. Do you have any instances of anti-abolitionists arguing for a slave society from an ACTUAL lack of slaveless societies to that point? Also, again, where in the Bible is such an argument made?
@DavidJohnWellman Well strictly speaking, statism and slavery wasn't the default position, they came about after the advent of agriculture. So it's false to claim statism or slavery as the default, those things simply is or was. There were stateless society after agriculture google: History of anarchist communities. I never said anti-abolitionist used the nonexistence of slaveless societies as an argument against abolitionist. It doesn't matter if there wasn't any, that's just a is,not an ought.
@DKshad0w You said, "The it has never happen so we can dismiss it argument, could be and has been used for the institution of slavery." I'm holding you accountable for that statement. Show me where it has been successfully (in the sense of having a true premise) used, or retract your statement.
@DavidJohnWellman Successfully used? What does successfully used mean? It doesn't have a true premise, it's a logical fallacy. Let me put it like this: Just because X hasn't occurred, doesn't mean X can't occur. Since X has never occurred, there is no evidence X is possible, therefore arguments for X being possible can be dismissed.
@DKshad0w True premises and logical validity are separate things. What I'm asking is if anyone has made an argument to lack of evidence that a slaveless society is an option against an actual background of there having been no slaveless society to that point. You said that such arguments have been made. I'm holding you accountable for that statement. Provide evidence.
@DKshad0w Yeah, Thomas Cobb used a version of this argument. His claim was that there were no known examples of free blacks who had achieved prosperity, implying that free blacks were incapable of doing so. He used this faulty reasoning to support his idea that it was better to maintain slavery.
There's a mention of it at (google): CWL---Defending Slavery: Proslavery Thought in the Old South
@bitbutter His reasoning was faulty -- but the relevant point here is, so was his premise. Cobb published in 1858, by which time Frederick Douglass had been free for two decades and had achieved a great amount of prosperity, just to name the most famous example of the time. Additionally, Cobb did not seem to be arguing that a slaveless society had never occurred.
You're probably the most intelligent detractor I have; can YOU name a successful anarchistic society in history?
@DavidJohnWellman "His reasoning was faulty -- but the relevant point here is, so was his premise."
Either would be enough to ruin his argument.
"Additionally, Cobb did not seem to be arguing that a slaveless society had never occurred."
Not clear why this is relevant. The form of his argument was the same as the one the statist implicitly makes: A successful (what criteria? never stated) stateless society hasn't existed in the past, therefore it can't exist in the future. Fails.
08:50-09:12
hahahahaha, LOL. I gues LordHawkEye needs to fuck of then.
gulbirk 3 months ago
I would ask libertarians the following.
Are they in favour of a person bying land?
Should there be a limit of how much land someone can buy?
When a libertarian society is created (from this current one), do I still own the land i legaly owned in the "previous" society?
If they answered yes to all of this, then states should be legal. Its a bunch of people who at one point took a part of the land and made it theirs. Just because they are born here, doesnt mean its still the property of us.
gulbirk 3 months ago 3
"property is the initiation of force"
that little piece of logic just removed a stefbot sized brain tumor i once had
RadicalSyndicate 3 months ago
I think slavery has been almost a constant throughout human history. The exceptions occur where the state has a monopoly of coercion are sparing in its use. What makes them spare the rod and what their boundaries are is the big question. Thank you raising these questions. Very fair minded I think.
oldickeastman 3 months ago
Looks like someone is going to try libertarian utopia, google an article:
"A billionaire's Waterworld takes libertarianism to new depths"
It is an offshore platform on international water where they will have no welfare, little gun control, no minimum wage and looser building codes. I will give it few months before the whole thing collapses on its own stupidity.
Saukko31 6 months ago
@Saukko31 No it wont collapse, because its not what you think it is. Its not some home for normal people. Bying prperty there is so expensive only rich people can afford it. And thats what its created for. Its also known as a tax paradise because it wont have taxes. So if you legaly move your adress to that place, you are not part of USA any longer, and dont pay taxes to USA. It wont collapse because its constructed by the rich for the rich.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY There is a reason none of the ancient stateless societies or city states survived. They all fought among one another and built empires. There will always be someone some where in the world who will seek to conquer and build new empires. The state provides more security than could a stateless society or a small city state. The utopian dreams of stateless societies always living in peace and harmony all over the globe has never existed and it never will.
xexixk 8 months ago
Would you have told the Wright Brothers that no heavier-than-air aircraft had ever flown before? Would you have told George Washington that no colony had ever successfully broken from the parent and formed its own country through revolution? Would you have told Thomas Edison that no one had ever made a light bulb? Why should ANY of these men have been discouraged by your argument?
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Addressed on my blog.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Okay, I just wasted a whole lot of my time reading that garbage. If there's ever a better example of an equivocation fallacy, I haven't seen it--and certainly not compounded over that many iterations!
What is it about you that makes you think you're doing anything resembling rational argumentation? All you're doing is starting with your conclusions, coming up with fallacious reasons to support it, and then trying to disguise those fallacies any way you can.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk What term or terms have been equivocated?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Oh, geez, what DIDN'T you equivocate? First you equivocated "evidence" to "prima facie evidence" (without even realizing that this is a hideous fallacy as it could be used to support, say, Geocentrism). Then you equivocated on the word "impossible" to mean "something we should reasonably see in a certain timespan but didn't" (equally fallacious). Then you changed that to "withhold judgement" for reasons I still can't fathom, but isn't what you're doing anyway.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk I believe that what I was doing was clarification, not equivocation. But would it satisfy you if I formally retracted the statements in this video, inasmuch as they conflict with propositions (5), (6) and (7)?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman frankly, I'm glad you didn't bother with him in the end. He can't even tell the difference between debt and deficit, and doesn't like to be corrected on things he's clearly wrong about.
FSAthe1st 4 months ago in playlist Libertarian nonsense and rational responses
@shanedk Perhaps you're not aware that I don't allow multi-part comments on my channel. If you have something to say that won't fit in 500 characters, make a video or take it to my blog.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman And how can I take it to your blog when you're such an incredible coward you deleted the post and all the comments?
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk I haven't deleted any posts. The comments that have been posted so far have been hidden because I installed Disqus -- if you'd like, I can cut and paste the comments that have been posted thus far into the new system.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Oh, I see, you've "only" hidden them. Do you HONESTLY think this is a proper way of behaving?
Geez, and you tried to accuse ME of censorship!
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Like I said, if you'd like, I can cut and paste the comments that have been posted thus far into the new system.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@shanedk Have you posted on my blog? I still have all of the pre-Disqus comments stored, and will repost them if asked, but I haven't seen you post there anywhere.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Now you're lying about what you said, and what your sources said. But I'm curious, why did you post this in this video, instead of at the video where this discussion was actually taking place? Could it have been, perhaps, to get around my calling a halt to discussion at that video, as it was being moved to my blog? Are you that desperate for attention on YouTube that you'll actually switch videos to make your point?
I'm done with you. Let the intelligent anarchists speak for you
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY So how does property exist outside of 'the state'? How does the concept of ownership exist? If there was no enforcement by the state - what is to stop the rich and powerful from taking whatever they want? Their sense of morality?? I'll rely on the state over a rich man's morals, thanks anyways. History is full of examples of powerful individuals doing whatever they please to the weak until something stops them. Isn't history enough proof that we need government?
TZ3k 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Well in reality you do not own anything at all. It is just a law and value and contract that makes such things like private propety exists.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY yeah those systems thend to devolop with devolpment of the state.
May I tell you something. One freedom where I live is the freedom to roam if we have your plutocratic dystopia that freedom will disapear because the private propety wild life will matter more.. Or mayvbe not because nothing protects private propety.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Yeah, we know how to provide affordable security that (when it operates well) is applied to everyone without bias or discrimination. We do it by paying taxes and having regulations determining what the police and courts can do.
You're advocating mercenaries who are in the employ of a small group of relatively wealthy people shitting on the poor. Way to go.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@bdf2718 "that (when it operates well) is applied to everyone without bias or discrimination. "
That 'when it operates well' is telling. You're comparing an idealized version of the state _as you believe it should be_ rather than as it actually exists and has existed, to a 'worst case scenario' distopian vision of a stateless society.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
So when Massey wants to strip mine the Appalachians the protests of the locals makes them stop? Does it fuck.
Non-locals buy the coal without knowing or caring about the environmental damage. Non-locals buy shares without knowing or caring about the environmental damage. No matter how much SOME people protest on the internet about the environmental damage, most people aren't either don't read it or don't care.
One day you might learn of something we call "reality."
bdf2718 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY So do you or don't you believe that everyone will be able to afford private police in an anarchy?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY You said that all can afford private police.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
You guys, anarchists and libertarians keep telling us that less regulation is our salvation. History proves it concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few.
So now you claim that everyone in an anarchy can afford a private police force. This is fucking insane. You cannot afford a police force of n people unless their average pay is less than 1/n of your pay.
Oh, now you'll say nobody has police. Then it's down to the guy with the biggest fists.
It's unstable.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@bdf2718 It's not just police.
In an anarchy, courts would also be privatized. In addition to punitive sentences and court costs, convicted criminals have to also pay retribution -- if you steal a thousand dollars from me, you have to give it back, plus whatever I can show I would have at this point had you not taken the thousand dollars. What better way for the DJW Court, Inc. to siphon off the competition than by offering 200% retribution to crime victims?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman
You're right about courts, but there's only so much I can fit into 500 chars and you dislike continued comments.
Anarchy can work in small, isolated communities where ostracism is a powerful force and no group has a concentration of wealth or a stranglehold on employment. From that sentence it's easy to figure out what can cause anarchy to rapidly fail.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Thanks for being so predictable.
So the difference between state police and private police is the state forces you to pay taxes but you can choose whether or not to hire private police - if you can pay.
And in your anarchistic utopia, some people will be richer than others. A few can afford private police but most cannot. One day the rich get the idea they can use their mercenaries to threaten the small guys with coercive force. Buh-bye anarchism, hello plutarchy.
You lose
bdf2718 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
You are sooooooooo funny!!!!
You and your merry men have been insisting that the state uses/threatens PHYSICAL FORCE to make people obey laws. That, you nutters say, DEFINES WHAT A STATE IS.
And now, when I've pointed out the flaws that arise when you idiots say that private police is OK you claim that it's taxes that defines a state.
So do these private police, who use/threaten force to get obedience, work for free?
I can guess what's coming next. Make my day.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
I'm not part of the crowd which defines a state as something that uses physical force (or threats thereof) to impose its will and THEN turns around and says that in an anarchy you can hire private police (which also use/threaten force).
In short I'm not intellectually bankrupt and you are.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY You haven't shown it's possible. You've only speculated that it's possible.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY In other words, I've disproved the basis for your having made the point, but you're right anyway.
Now I remember why I said I was done with you.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Preston does not adequately address the free rider problem. He basically concedes that a national defense with a large number of free riders would be fucked, so he simply posits that that won't happen in an anarchistic society. Not impressed.
Show me a single example of an anarchistic society with a working national defense.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
I've really enjoyed the series so far. You have helped to clarify my thinking on Randian philosophy.
sachamm 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Nope, as soon as two people organize you have an ad-hoc government. One doesn't have to assert a right to govern the other. Or have you never heard of mutual co-operation? Hint: you can always decide not to co-operate on certain issues.
Violence is not an intrinsic part of gov't. Not if everyone agrees to abide by the laws. Hint: you don't have to be forced to go to jail if you agree to it.
Pragmatically, all gov'ts we've seen so far employed force at some level.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@bdf2718 "Violence is not an intrinsic part of gov't. Not if everyone agrees to abide by the laws."
There are a bunch of confusions here: Law is not an enterprise that's the exclusive domain of government/the state. The ultimate threat of deadly force _is_ where law derives its efficacy, it is an intrinsic part of law. If all were happy to act in accordance with the law w/out that threat, there would be no need for the law, with it's intrinsic threat of force.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
Do you guys operate as a tag team?
The enforcement of law does NOT necessarily require force or even the threat of force of any kind. This is fact.
Pragmatically, the enforcement of law usually requires all sorts of threats.
It is important, when dealing with idealogues making ridiculous claims at odds with reality, to point out where their assumptions are faulty. Particularly when they justify those assumptions by assuming an ideal world.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@bdf2718 "The enforcement of law does NOT necessarily require force or even the threat of force of any kind. This is fact."
Amazing claim. Can you explain how enforcement can exist without the ultimate threat of force?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY National defense.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Two people, in isolation, organizing in some way constitutes an ad hoc government. There can be no true anarchy.
Violence is not an intrinsic part of government, it just happens to have been a part of most governments throughout history.
bdf2718 11 months ago
djw I've an idea for your next video...how can the worlds only superpower produce sarah palin as a 'serious' presidential candidate?
chrisbuxton1958 11 months ago
Anarchy is impossible. As soon as two people interact they organize in some way, be it mutual agreement or domination or whatever.
Free market capitalism doesn't scale beyond small, isolated societies where ostracism can control behaviour (and even that is only possible if one person/corporation is not responsible for the majority of the livelihoods).
Randroids, libertarians and anarchists are either insane or self-serving liars.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@bdf2718 "Free market capitalism doesn't scale beyond small, isolated societies where ostracism can control behaviour"
An incredible claim, stated as though it were self evident fact. Can you show your reasoning?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
Yep. Same reason anarchism doesn't scale beyond those limits. One word answer: ostracism.
On a small scale people all know each other. One guy starts fucking it up for everyone else and he gets ostracised. He can't sell stuff, he can't buy stuff, nobody talks to him.
He is FORCED to change his ways without physical coercion that you nutcases call "force."
bdf2718 11 months ago
"...will make some people wonder and others come gunning for me."
Interesting choice of words... given the debate circumstances. =)
thereprieve 11 months ago
@thereprieve Eh, Godlessons seems to prefer the blunt swords he has on his wall. I'm more worried about his kids, who keep guns in their bedrooms. ;-)
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
I'm not an anarchist, but at 1:10, doesen't the fact that there has never been a considerably long period of time in humanity's record history without war mean that any anti-war arguments can be dismissed outright?
Zebarbas 11 months ago
@Zebarbas
No, it can't. True anarchy doesn't last long (the Icelandic "Thing" was a form of communal government) because it has very undesirable results. We are justified in arguing that anarchy is a bad idea.
Sadly, people who get into power find that war enhances that power. But war has very undesirable results. We are justified in arguing that war is a bad idea.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@bdf2718 "True anarchy doesn't last long because it has very undesirable results."
Assuming this could be established for all historical examples (i don't believe it can); based on past experience people once claimed that all swans were white. I believe you're making the same mistake.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
At last one of the tag team shows signs of intelligence.
Yes, undesirable results in all historical cases - it collapses within a few years. The notable exception was no such thing as any honest anarchist/libertarian would admit.
But at least you point out that it could be the white swan fallacy.
bdf2718 11 months ago
I don't know how you can say that anarchists were an unintended target; you certainly haven't been addressing the beliefs of any libertarians who aren't also anarchists. Just what kind of society do you think people who consider all contracts, property rights, and government to be invalid are pushing for?
Your portrayal of libertarians continues to be about as accurate as the portrayals of republicans as racist, rich Christians & democrats as gay, welfare-receiving atheists.
army103 11 months ago
@army103 I'm forced to concede your point, but not quite for the reasons you say. This will be something I'll have to address in part 7.
For now, I'll just say that, insofar that libertarians and randroids are minarchists rather than anarchists, I'm presently addressing them in another forum: my Tuesday Afternoon debate regarding liberalism vs. conservatism. I know conservatism isn't minarchism, but many of the same arguments apply.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman
Fair enough. Until part 7, then.
army103 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman "insofar that libertarians and randroids are minarchists rather than anarchists"
If anarchist is being used to mean anti-state, then libertarian (small L) is a category that includes them. Objectivist, at least to the extent that they are loyal to Rand, doesn't.
bitbutter 11 months ago
when you come to anarchist do you end up with a problem, the left anarchist or the right wing anarchist is totally different. left wing is socialist, communist and syndicalist and other Marxists. The right wing is anarchists are randriods and other right wing liberterians
Gripen1974 11 months ago
much respect for taking on republican social conservatives with an identity crisis (aka libertarians) and part time nihilists with a small sack (aka randroids). it needed to be done, and should be done more often but.... the tedium.... my god.... the tedium.
i never save your vids for later.
MpowerdAPE 11 months ago
Good series.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
I am not an anarchist, nor a libertarian, but doesn't your argument based on the fact that there has been no anarchist societies before require you to show that it has been attempted? I'm not sure, but it seems a bit weak without this to back it up.
Cainjonm 11 months ago
@Cainjonm If no one has ever even TRIED to institute a formal anarchistic society, then that would substantiate the point that it's never succeeded, and the fact would remain that there is no evidence that one can succeed. If anything, it would establish that anarchists are cowards.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
The it has never happen so we can dismiss it argument, could be and has been used for the institution of slavery.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Do you mean for abolitionism? If so, can you cite some historical references?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman I meant for the maintenance of the institution of slavery. That since the beginning of recorded history there has been slavery, the idea of abolishing slavery should be dismissed.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Right, I should have said against abolitionism. But again, what's your source?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Well the logical fallacy is called: argumentum ad antiquitatem or Appeal to tradition.
The bible for one, Southern pamphlets. It is also a Is-ought fallacy, just because slavery is, doesn't mean it ought to be.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Which verse in the Bible? What southern pamphlets?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman What exactly do you want? It's a general appeal to tradition, like here: Google: arguments for slavery. first link. The apologetic they use was that sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South, and that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w That page gives no sources. It shows the covers of a couple anti-abolition tracts, both of which date to 1864 -- by which time many slaveless societies were in existence. Do you have any instances of anti-abolitionists arguing for a slave society from an ACTUAL lack of slaveless societies to that point? Also, again, where in the Bible is such an argument made?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Well strictly speaking, statism and slavery wasn't the default position, they came about after the advent of agriculture. So it's false to claim statism or slavery as the default, those things simply is or was. There were stateless society after agriculture google: History of anarchist communities. I never said anti-abolitionist used the nonexistence of slaveless societies as an argument against abolitionist. It doesn't matter if there wasn't any, that's just a is,not an ought.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w You said, "The it has never happen so we can dismiss it argument, could be and has been used for the institution of slavery." I'm holding you accountable for that statement. Show me where it has been successfully (in the sense of having a true premise) used, or retract your statement.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Successfully used? What does successfully used mean? It doesn't have a true premise, it's a logical fallacy. Let me put it like this: Just because X hasn't occurred, doesn't mean X can't occur. Since X has never occurred, there is no evidence X is possible, therefore arguments for X being possible can be dismissed.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w "Just because X hasn't occurred, doesn't mean X can't occur."
Exactly. Nor is this reason to suppose that X will not occur, or even that it's unlikely to occur.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@DKshad0w True premises and logical validity are separate things. What I'm asking is if anyone has made an argument to lack of evidence that a slaveless society is an option against an actual background of there having been no slaveless society to that point. You said that such arguments have been made. I'm holding you accountable for that statement. Provide evidence.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Yeah, Thomas Cobb used a version of this argument. His claim was that there were no known examples of free blacks who had achieved prosperity, implying that free blacks were incapable of doing so. He used this faulty reasoning to support his idea that it was better to maintain slavery.
There's a mention of it at (google): CWL---Defending Slavery: Proslavery Thought in the Old South
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Interesting, thanks.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@bitbutter His reasoning was faulty -- but the relevant point here is, so was his premise. Cobb published in 1858, by which time Frederick Douglass had been free for two decades and had achieved a great amount of prosperity, just to name the most famous example of the time. Additionally, Cobb did not seem to be arguing that a slaveless society had never occurred.
You're probably the most intelligent detractor I have; can YOU name a successful anarchistic society in history?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman "His reasoning was faulty -- but the relevant point here is, so was his premise."
Either would be enough to ruin his argument.
"Additionally, Cobb did not seem to be arguing that a slaveless society had never occurred."
Not clear why this is relevant. The form of his argument was the same as the one the statist implicitly makes: A successful (what criteria? never stated) stateless society hasn't existed in the past, therefore it can't exist in the future. Fails.
bitbutter 11 months ago