Has it ever occured to you that maybe I am just discussing these things to clarify my own position on it, so that I am more effective when debating in future and commit fewer errors? No matter, I certainly owe do not owe you any explanation. You (and others) moved this discussion to the domain of activism, to which it was purely unrelated. I fully agree that demonstrating that an anarchist society can function is the best way to convince others. That still does not mean that, logically, the statist is free from having to prove the things I mentioned.
That’s wrong. Many people worship their country/government. If they were statist out of apathy, they wouldn’t be so keen on loving and sacrificing for the state. They would simply accept it as what they often call it “the lesser of evils”.
That is not the claim they make, nor the claim they need to prove.
That’s not even logical. People accept principles that are not in practice all the time. Universal health care isn’t in practice, yet people flock to the idea of it.
Whether or not it is superior is irrelevant. If they say that only a society under the state can work, they need to prove it.
Also, Anarchy is not a social order. It’s the lack of a coercive social order. They’re arguing for coercion so they need to prove their right to coerce.
Society does work, and we are under a state. I believe, as you do, that it could work better without a state. However, it does work with a state, and there are many people who have fears it might not work without one. I’m not even completely convinced myself, even though at this point I think it’s worth a try.
Anarchy is a social order. It is a social order wherein no person has coercive authority over another. Anarchy is not social chaos, it is a lack of rulers, a lack of power over others. It is people acting truly as equals to the greatest degree their capacities will allow. That is a particular form of society. Just getting rid of things that call themselves government does NOT achieve anarchy.
‘Theory’ shows that freedom leads to human flourishment, and ‘history’ illustrates the point. If people want ‘empirical’ proof, they can compare 19th century America and Europe to 20th century soviet Russia for instance. While 19th century America was not an anarcho-capitalist society by any means, American history shows that a lot of things statists claim only the gov’t can do were, in fact, done through voluntary arrangements.
So…statists have already been proved wrong ‘empirically’ in almost all areas of human action…except they deny that’s the case. What else are anarchists supposed to say in order to convince them ?
Come to think of it, they need to offer an explanation as to why they are divided in their allegiance to the state as well as a market. If they’re for absolute statism, then this too does not exist and historically has failed miserably, so again they’re in no better position. “It has been” only works for what has in fact, been, and given that there is a multitude of possible configurations of state, and that most statists accept alternative configurations, this deprives them of appeals to history. Most statists certainly are not in favour of less state, and thus face the burden of showing why we ought to accept even more interference. This is in addition to everything else I mentioned (i.e. showing why interference is acceptable to begin with.) Minarchists are just stuck with the peculiar position that they think markets are best for everything, except market X - again they should explain why the market cannot work in this industry, when they maintain it is otherwise best for satisfying diverse consumer preferences.
On the other hand, look at the 19th century world versus the modern world. Don’t we live better and longer than we used to, and is not the state larger and more powerful than ever? Hasn’t environmental regulation increased, and our air and water gotten cleaner?
Different perspectives spin things in different ways. It is far more apropros to compare 19th century America to 20th century America, isn’t it?
Did you even read the OP? You’ve just jumped into this discussion with no idea what it’s about.
Oh, and by the way, saying I lack the “stomach” for action when it has no bearing on what I’m discussing (far from even being a “correction”) is something I will treat as ad hominem**,** or at best a red herring. This is the Mises forum, and not a competition to see who’s most activist, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding…
Yes, and the number of civilians killed in wars during the 20th century was maybe one of the biggest ever. Of course, free-markets are to blame for that…
Yes to both, but correlation is not causation =]
Not necessarily. I thought that comparing extreme totalitarianism to a fair degree of laissez-faire did make sense, but…you see my point : facts are meaningless if there’s no theory to interpret them. Statists can claim any nonsense they want because their ‘theory’ is nonsense. So statists ask for empirical proof but at the same time are willing to discard all evidence they don’t like. What’s the point in providing evidence then ?
Well, are there any right answers ? I know none… =/
Right, so then you should know who the statist I was arguing with is, reducing your question to the status of being superfluous, and you should also be aware, that given that you were referring to a post made in response to MaxLiberty, that it was his attribution I was referring to as ad hominem. Any further bones to pick?
Funny that you would refer to me as a statist when I am the one actually proposing and developing a free society. However, my point is that in discussions with people who do advocate for the state they don’t usually advocate the state is essential just that they don’t see how an alternative would work. So from their perspective there is nothing to prove. The state exists and provides certain functions that is a fact. The burden lies with us to show why the state should not exist and then to provide the alternative.
So what? From the theist’s perspective, god is self-evident and that’s that. They don’t feel that they have to prove that there is a god. However, they do in fact have to. Same thing with the statist: it doesn’t matter how they “feel” about the situation. Burden of proof is what it is, regardless of their feelings. Period.
Because there’s never been such a thing as apologetics, right? Or ID folk or what have you? Which theists are you talking about here? How about you not drag in your small-minded bigotry about an unrelated topic? Hmmm?
But atheists who deny there is a god don’t? Convenient. That being said, atheists are losing. People have been, are, and always will be largely religious. Atheism is a trend among nerds so they can feel better than the people who stole their lunch money in school. “Oh, aren’t they silly and primitive, superstitious fools! Ha ha, aren’t we clever and intellectual!”
The burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of God. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God, and a lack of a belief requires no proof.
The ad hom attack is also unecessary. The issue is confusing enough without insults being thrown around.