Actually, it’s quite relevant in this case. He’s complaining about it happening in a “free market” when it happens in the state! Clearly, the state does not offer protection from such–even when there are a few cases when state laws have been overturned by the state or by the overstate. The fact remains that he needs to come up with a better argument, since it’s clear that, historically, states have crafted laws to create second-class citizens based upon race, religion, and sex. And have, at times, set out to murder those same. So whatever his problem is, he must certainly also have a problem with the state.
Remember: never ever fight on the enemy’s terms. Turn the argument back upon him.
Utter nonsense. They always do. They will discount the value of monetary gain, however, as in this case. The parties involved cannot prohibit homesteading of unowned resources and consenting exchanges without thereby becoming criminals in the process. What if they have bigger “gangs”? 1) PDAs 2) Mutual defence 3) don’t move there! Governments can both force more integration than is optimal and do the opposite too. There is no need for them. They themselves entrench permanent class division (ruled/rulers).
So you’re saying that the citizens of Nazi Germany were anti-Jooz and put Hitler into office because of this?
Explain it to me then, because I don’t understand why their would be a small-town government in an anarchic society.
This is idiotic. The state was overturning its own laws and going even further by forcing people to integrate. How is this a case in point of there being something wrong with anarchy?
What does the thread’s title have to do with the question posed in the OP?
That doesn’t make any sense. How can privately owned “small town” be a state by its owners refusing to sell thei**r land, or not allowing a minority to set up a business of their land?
Because the scenario was created in such a way that this racism was just matter of fact. Let’s say a town gets a wave of immigration, and there is a stigma against these immigrants. We were not talking about the U.S., he was using that as an example of RL government integrating minorities into society. He did not consider prior State legislation to be necessary for racism to exist.
This is where you missed my friend’s point. The majority is disallowing those who would sell their land to a minority by threatening the use of force.
This brings up the obvious question: why does one need a larger monopoly on force to deal with the town’s monopoly on force? That is, your friend has admitted that there are towns outside of Racistville. If the minority don’t want to leave, why wouldn’t entrepreneurs from outside Racistville come to serve them security? The minority has been said to highly value staying in the town (for whatever reason), and so they must be willing to offer a high price for security, attracting profit-seeking individuals. I see no reason why a competitive system of security fails in this scenario.
So you’re saying that the citizens of the US (and the UK) were anti-Islam and put GWB into office because of this?
(Surely that can’t be true, that’d be absurd).
How can the immigrants arrive if we established the racist natives won`t sell them property? They stay in motels?
Okay. Question: What derivative right do the other owners have over other owner’s property? Is there a contract whereupon the owners come together to establish a government, and whereupon the owners agree to be bound by the will of the other owners in matters concerning the sell or use their lands? If not, then what I suppose what you friends argument is that, since we are in threat of having our rights violated by anyone, therefore, we need the state. But if this is the case, what will then prevent the state from violating our rights?
I don’t understand how your answer follows from my question.
So are these hypothetical cases set in anarchy or not?
Apparently.
Good post LS.
I think what will happen if you show them this refutation is they will claim that if the state vs state battle is worth fighting if the winning state is more liberal than the alternative. Of course this is a very abusive way to argue, because statists typically get to have whatever state they want in these hypotheticals. We can challenge this on two points: First, that the state will probably not behave the way they want it to due to the Hoppean analysis and etc etc. While I do think it is valid to point this out I have experienced it to be ineffective, because they always insist that the state can be controlled even though they can give no reason or historic precedent.
Secondly, that if they get to invoke a perfect-state plan, why can we not invoke a perfect-voluntarist plan? After all, statists don’t typically advocate all possible states, and anarchists do not choose to draw on all possible anarchies. I think if they begin the argument by creating a scenario where they think anarchy won’t work, their government has to suffer the same deficiencies (racist community → racist gov). This also applies in reverse. The way they frame it is like some erudite supreme justice arrives on a boat and says “NO MORE RACISM”. Obviously this is ridiculous, and anarchists should point out that deus ex machina could also come in the form of a voluntary solution.
At the end of the day, they are choosing violence over voluntarism. I think this is the point to hit home and I believe is what you’re saying LS.
Sadly, I think that too many arguments do dissolve into a debate about one-shot hypotheticals. We can only strip down to the core issues if both participants are willing and able to appreciate the fundamentals.
Let’s consider a timeline.
2000 - Bush II elected into office, partly for being against nation building
2001 - Terr’ists attack WTC
2001 to now - MSM campaign against Muslims and Middle Easterners. Government propaganda campaign against terr’ists (Read: Muslims and Middle Easterners).
2001 - Bush II attacks Afghan’stan
2003 - Bush II invades Iraq
2004 - Bush II re-elected as president to fight terr’ism (Read: Muslims and Middle Easterners)
I brought this up, but he kept on adding conditions. Apparently, now, towns are so spread apart that there is no outside security force interested in providing their services. Or, the minority being the minority, the majority can afford to pay off the security forces (I then suggested that perhaps it would be in the security company’s interest to accept the smaller payment, because if they could be shown to be protecting property rights they would now command more trust amongst other clientel).
He also, more or less, discounted the minorities’ ability to defend themselves, which may make racial segregation too expensive for the majority racists to consider (why attack somebody you don’t like if there is a large chance of you dying).
I think that Liberty Student put it best when he said that perhaps it’s just not worth arguing.
Err, yes.