Minarchism is utopian. The idea that we can have a government that protects rights, without violating rights, is a daydream.
So if we acknowledge that the current paradigm doesn’t protect rights, then fearmongering about anarchism seems like a dishonest emotional appeal to me.
I have no doubt that you can lead your friend in debate, to a proof that the state cannot protect rights without compromising them.
And when he makes an appeal to the greater good, ask him if the greater good supercedes individual freedom.
And if he says it does, then you walk away. You cannot reason with someone who doesn’t see the individual as sovereign, but rather as the means to some collective end.
Not really, not at all. Perhaps I should change my approach to responses to arguments, and how to comprehend them. I understand free markets, and I’m getting refuting other ideas down, but sometimes I’m off (more of a talker, I’m not experienced in handling stupid responses, a bit of anxiety in the mix when in an argument). I really want to work on presenting libertarianism according to the issues of the day and the things people are interested in.
“You cannot reason with someone who doesn’t see the individual as sovereign, but rather as the means to some collective end.” Very good point. It sounds like a good idea to start from.
There’s nothing necessarily utopian about anarchy, generally speaking, people conduct their lives largely in a state of anarchy. When you go into a restaurant you don’t have to bring in the state to ensure that the people who serve you don’t spit in your food, the economic incentives in place will, by and large, solve that problem.
The issue arises because a lot (by no means all) of the people who defend anarchy tend to bring up poor arguments. On these fora, I see a lot of people saying that various problems with be non-issues in a stateless society because people will “believe in natural rights etc.” (no, this doesn’t apply to everybody). But that’s quite besides the point, if everybody respects property rights by assumption then you’ve solved all the real problems. The issues arise when you have to find the institutional structure that will give correct incentives with regards to property rights and peaceful trade. Mankind is just as wont to pillage and plunder as he is to truck and barter.
So, I suppose to some extent there is a utopian element to a lot of the claims on behalf of anarchy. Moreover, I see a lot of people jumping between two extremes when it comes to discussion of anarchism. On the one hand they’ll say that there’s no problems to solve because the state is the cause of all problems (I’m perhaps pushing this a bit), on the other hand they’ll give a blueprint of exactly how anarchism will work without much justification (usually they’ll stop just short of the names of the “PDAs”.)
Translation : no matter how libertarians answer questions about the workings of a free society they will be laughed at by conservative ‘philosophers’. The answers will be dismissed because they are too incomplete, or too complete and detailed, or just too good.
Yes. That is a great hypothesis! I am sure that our opponents are our opponents merely because we are “too complete”, “too detailed” and “too good”.
By the way, what did you say that last time an interviewer asked you “What is your greatest weakness?”? Did you say “My greatest weakness is that I am just too handsome.” or something similar?
I think many of us also have no libertarian/anarchist/panarchist friends or acquaintances in real life.
My all-purpose argument in all situations with Statists is, “If monopoly is bad, why have a monopoly on force?” Not only have most people never even considered this, it also circumvents all the emotionally-charged issues. I’ve never had anyone directly challenge me when I argue from this line of reasoning (except my poli-sci graduate super-history-buff friend who brought up Hobbes).
It’s sad that it took a “poli-sci graduate super-history-buff” to bring up Hobbes…he’s not what I’d call an obscure figure. Though, he’s also not what I’d call convincing, either. [:)]
Most people I’ve been talking to in real life are bartenders, someone sitting next to me on the plane, coworkers, etc. Maybe on a college campus more people would be familiar with Hobbes. I haven’t read Hobbes directly, though, so I couldn’t immediately answer my friend on that one.