Read the two sentences that come before and after that one again.
I’ve got nothing against giving them what they want. It’s just… why call it “practical”? Now you can go ahead and try to prove that all these things will work, and then they’ll say “oh well I don’t think it’s going to work” (which is basically their premise in the first place unless they’ve utterly refused to research anarchic theories in advance to their making a claim). And you’re back at square one.
I say, avoid the wasted debate and make them prove their claims.
That part isn’t about proving anything to the intellectuals. It’s about providing a viable working alternative to the masses.
When someone makes bold claims like only X can provide a given good, it’s incumbent on them to prove it. They may not like this, and they may try kick dirt in their opponent’s face by bringing in nonsense like a theoretical/practical divide, but as long as they want to maintain any pretense of being motivated by the pursuit of truth, that is how things are. Anarchists have more than shown how an anarchist society might function and work - statists merely dismissing it by decree need to now prove why only their cherished god can do as they say only it can.
-Jon
Those who argue “for” the state, I’ll go with the word “statists” as used in this discussion so far, neglect logic.
The statist uses emotion, guilt by association, appeal to authority, and every other logical fallacy constantly to try and bolster their argument.
Mises.org has a wonderful article, “But wouldn’t the Warlords take over?” Consider that title alone for a moment. Even the possibility of such occurring is designed to make people accept a little government to prevent it. And then the next over-the-top claim justifies a little more, then a little more, ad infinitum.
People who post here generally accept logical argument. Gun control, for instance, is easily countered by pointing out the rates of violent crime prior to the invention of the gun, or the very clear statistical evidence of the last 30 years as gun control has ebbed and flowed in comparison to the varying rates of violent crime.
But these arguments are not for the public schooled. They don’t work on people who think that Lincoln Freed The Slaves, that FDR Saved Capitalism From Itself, or that Reagan Won The Cold War, because we’re arguing facts while the opposition is arguing emotion.
So no, “logic” has very little place. What is needed is emotionally extreme arguments and claims that can then be backed up by logic when the statists claim that we’re making things up.
Like, “Governments kill their own citizens by the millions!”
Or, “What private company could hold the kind of fear and dread that the IRS does?”
Not if they are arguing from the assumed correct position. A statists need only point out that no anarchy has ever worked, that every square inch of the globe is controlled by some government or another, and if anarchy could have worked it would have. With a closure of it something like,
“So that’s it. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy. We will have a government, that’s a given, would you rather have warlords or an elected legislature that represents you? History shows that’s the choice we have to make, and we have to make it now!”
What fantasy-land do you live in that you think these statists have any motivation for truth, or even the pretense of it? They are sick! They have a greed for power over others that infests everything they do.
It has nothing what so ever to do with truth. With rare and wonderful exceptions the state has only been driven back by bloodshed. Statists know that too.
No. They dismiss it by simply saying "It doesn’t work."
We are then left to prove it logically, to a mass public who cannot even grasp that greedy capitalists don’t cause inflation.
Curt-
Correct me if I am wrong, but we are involved in intellectual discussion here and we are pursuing the truth. The masses are irrelevant. As far as this discussion is concerned, statists do have the burden of proof, as they do in general. Whether this will matter for prosyletization is another matter entirely. Oh and yes, without providing an actual reason other than ill-informed appeals to authority/history, the statist has far from proved their case. I think it is facile to assume all statists advocate the state out of pure cynical motivations - some do believe it’s justified.
-Jon
Well, now, you can’t really “make” them do anything, now can you? They have the power, not you.
The real problem is that what we are here is a bunch of intellectuals (read NERDS) writing on an electronic forum. As Curt said above, you will never sway the majority of the population with intellectual arguments. One of the biggest flaws of the Austrian arguments is the assumption that because humans behave in a somewhat rational fashion, that most of them are rational beings. This is false. Most people are no more rational than a dog, dominated by simple emotion. Many refuse to think about issues in any but the most cursory fashion, grabbing some transient opinion, motivated by anything but its philosophical soundness. Even animals can act rationally without being able to think that way, and that is precisely how many, perhaps most, human animals are. Even we intellectuals can have our thought tainted by emotional bias and assumption.
So, what we really need to spread anarchy is emotion and conviction, something the older, left-leaning branch of anarchism is far better at, or used to be anyway. They get upset, passionate, pissed off. You need a charismatic leader who will draw the people in. Wishing people would respond better to intellectual appeals is silly. You will convert the masses to anarchists far sooner than you will convert them to intellectuals. I’m not sure most even have the capacity for it.
You’re wrong.
That is not a truth.
No, it was asserted as such and demonstrably disproven.
No matter how badly the state functions, it does in fact function. That is all the “proof” the statists require.
To you, and other individuals posting here, that may be the case. But regardless of your protestations to the contrary, the statists have in fact proven their case to “the masses”, which leaves you, and I, and the other people here, as a near-irrelevant minority.
So you are right back where you started, having to prove anarchy works, and in fact works so very much better than the state that people should risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to overthrow the state.
Good luck on that, when the people who would spend the price of a years private tuition for their child, instead of public school indocterination, to buy a big-screen TV, are the people you expect to prove it to.
Curt-
No, I’m actually right.
Oh? Then please do tell me what it is we are involved in.
No, what was asserted was your entire post. Feel free to confuse what sells with what is mandatory in a discussion aiming at the pursuit of truth. When jumping into an argument, make sure you know what is being discussed. I do not care what “sells” in this context, nor what hordes of ignorami are willing to believe, but rather as a matter of obligation who has the burden of proof - and in any intellectual debate, it is the statist. When the statist argues that certain things cannot be done absent the state, like the theist arguing a universe could not exist save God, that is for them to prove. That it is more conducive to conversion to provide an alternative story of how the universe may have come about (or in this case, how anarchist societies may function) is obiter.
-Jon
So first they make an illogical claim, and then the anarchist should use logic to prove anarchy correct.
However, they don’t even abide by logic or understand it, so how is providing them with logic going to win them over? Their assertions have been argued against thousands of times, and they still “dont think it works”, they believe they are “realists”. So what’s left? Make them prove fallacies.
Most statist do not argue that the only possible entity that can do certain things is the state rather they argue that the state is the only thing that has been able to do those things effectively. So the statists do not have to prove that the state is the only entity that could possibly do certain things only that it is the only entity which seems capable of doing these things when tested. As evidence, no other option currently exists. That is why it is important to take action to create the free society.
As far as agorism being action, far from it. The advocates of agorism simply use that as a cover to pretend they are doing something when in fact they are not. Agorism is not working, will not work in the future and only serves as a thin veil for the weak at heart.
Yes, you and Jon are very similar in that you have no stomach for actually doing anything. The Liberty Colony imposes no restrictions on anyone so perhaps you can justify exactly what impositions there are in the Liberty Colony that you are talking about. You say you would rather join an “agorist cell”, what is that you and your friends smoking dope in the basement? There are no agorist cells, only in your mind. I am sure you and Jon will use any excuse to not take action.
Good luck with that.
Curt-
You are saying the burden of proof OUGHT to be on the statists. Perhaps you are right, but you might as well say we OUGHT to have three arms. Blame God (or evolution or whatever you believe in) if you don’t like the way things are, but the way things are is that it is the person who wants to change commonly held beliefs who must prove his case convincingly.
It really does speak to a weakness in one’s position when one makes the statement that the burden of proof is on one’s opponent. What you are essentially doing is saying, despite common belief to the contrary, that your belief is the default truth, because you believe it, and that anyone who disagrees is assumed wrong until proven right. It is a double standard favorable to your position and frankly a bit cowardly.
Whenever you take a position, whether it is for the presence or absence of something, it is up to you to support that position.
The burden of proof IS on them. That’s logic, another one of God’s creations. We aren’t discusing a hypothetical system of logic, but the one we actually find ourselves in.
I am not certain God created logic, or whether logic just is. Kinda like time.
How about you respond to my whole point instead of just the first sentence. It’s not that long. Or, is the burden of proof not yours in this case either?
My, my, what presumption. You haven’t the faintest idea about what I do or do not do, yet you deem it appropriate to jump to all sorts of conclusions about my character. Very cute, but as a matter of logic I am correct. It falls upon the statist’s shoulders to argue why individuals should be prohibited from taking certain actions, should rely on the state for its services, that the state can in fact provide anything effectively (as even that much is up for debate.)
Even if I am the type who prefers books to activism, wherein lies the problem with that?
JCFolsom, as I’ve already said, anarchists do have positive models for an anarchist society. That is not what I am addressing…
-Jon
No, they argue that only the state can do it because they can’t think of any other way. They argue that only the state can do it because that’s the way it’s always been. They argue that only the state can do it because they have no imagination. They do not argue that the state is the only thing that can do those things effectively; they argue that there’s no possible way there could be any other way for such things to ever happen because otherwise there would be huge monopolies, a few rich, and everyone else would be starving.
That’s what they argue.
I would welcome your input about what action you are participating in. Intellectual pursuit without purpose has no value. Your discourse suggests you take the subject seriously and yet you propose no course of action.
Most statists are not such by a belief in states but rather in the disbelief that an alternative is possible. The state does exist so they do not have to prove it’s existence nor do they have to prove that in fact the state does certain things, that is a fact. Even if they accept your position in principle it is difficult to accept in practice as it does not exist. So the burden is on us to show that not only is a free society superior to the state but that it in fact is possible.