Petition to stop being an anarchist

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

there is no “natural elite” in the sense of a “natural elite” of people fit to be rulers.

No shit. Fortunately based on this misunderstanding (or perhaps you’re just being purposefully stupid?) you go on to attack a strawman. As usual. Nobody has ever said that natural elites would be rulers. Merely that they would resolve the less formal disputes between members of the community.

@Brainpolice

I’m talking specifically about political authority. Noone is a “natural elite” in this sense, because noone has a legitimate claim to political authority (at least in the statist sense of the term).

Strawman.

@Brainpolice

Not really - I’m just applying your very same line of argument to other things, and now you’re hypocritically backpeddling when the things in question might be things you personally like. The fact of the matter is that through the bulk of history, the state has relied heavily on religion for its legitimacy. It’s only in the past few hundred years that this has changed significantly.

Nonsense, I’m not backpeddling. I’m saying that whereas egalitarianism is a distinctly statist religion isn’t. It’s merely been coopted by the state.

@Brainpolice

Nationalism is used in democracies all the time; each democracy is partially dependant on its own sense of nationalism. And nationalism and racism can be and have been used to justify states. Nationalism is one of the most fundamental ideologies that states can manipulate, by appealing to people’s sense of loyalty to regions. You’re simply wrong.

Democratic states do not thrive on racism. Democratic states are inherently egalitarian, which is not compatible with racism. Nationalism, perhaps I’ll give you that one. But so what?

@Brainpolice

I was showing that the idea of natural elites easily can be used as an argument for the legitimacy of statism, by claiming those in the state to BE the “natural elite”. This isn’t irrelevant. Obviously you define the “natural elite” as being outside of the state, but that doesn’t mean that the concept of a “natural elite” can’t be and hasn’t in fact been used to justify the power of states and those in patronage with them.

So what? Like I said private property has been used to justify slavery, freedom has been used to justify was a prosperity taxes. This said, the state doesn’t use the concept of natural elites because the state historically suppresses them, even monarchical states.

@Brainpolice

Are you just going to brush off my point about conflict entirely? Are you denying that politics relies on identity-conflict? I don’t see what there is to disagree about!

Yes, the state does rely on conflict. Such as the conflict created by egalitarianism, forced integration would an example of this.

@Brainpolice

I’m sorry, you’ve conflated two related yet not necessarily directly correlated concepts: redistribution and democracy. Redistribution is a particular type of state policy that exists in one form or another in ALL states. All states are redisitributive by their very nature. Secondly, democracy does not in actual fact lead to egalitarian distribution - all you have to do is look around yourself to see that.

I don’t suppose you could do me the favour of highlighting a democratic state that hasn’t engaged in redistribution?

A private ruler must respect property rights simply because his wealth depends on clearly defined laws explaining what is, and isn’t legitimate property and how people should act in regards to this. The same doesn’t apply for democracy because they don’t own their wealth. They’re merely temporary caretakers.

Whether or not democracy does or doesn’t lead to egalitarian distribution doesn’t mean anything. The fact is the justification and implications of democracy, is equality.

@Brainpolice

We’ve already been over this. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat the same clarifications to you, because your generalizations are incorrect. Egalitariansm is not statist by definition (one can be an egalitarian anti-statist), and the state is not egalitarian, such a claim is blatantly absurd. The state does not represent equality, it is a power heirarchy! A political heirarchy is not egalitarian in nature, no matter how much it panders to egalitarian sentiments to justify itself. All states are predicated on economic and power inequality, and they do not make things in society more equal.

One can be an egalitarian anti statist, so what? States abolish private property,and the right to exclusion. Without the right to exclude much of the natural inequality amongst men disappears, not to mention the public property, the egalitarian nonsense spewed the state and its apologists and the pandering to mediocrity.

I’ll repeat, private property and the right to exclusion emphaises the natural inequalities within society. Abolishing this, like the state does, is therefore egalitarian.

@Brainpolice

Once again, this classist elitism is indefensible and ridiculous. It does not necessarily follow from the fact that someone is poor that they are poor because they are less intelligent or capable, and it does not necessarily follow from the fact that someone is rich that they are more intelligent and capable. Some people are born into poverty, some people are born into wealth. Some people are negatively effected by environmental conditions, some people are positively effected by legal privileges. And correlation does not equal causation. To completely overlook the effect of the political system and intergenerational issues, and just act like whatever the status quo happens to be is purely based on merit, is naive. Your class analysis is no better than Marx’s; you’ve just reversed his class roles.

Why is it indefensible? Because you keep posting strawmen? I’ve never ever said the poor are all less intelligent nor that the rich are all smarter. I actually explicitely said otherwise.

Stop attacking a strawman. I said as a general rule. And for you to deny that assumes there are no differences between men, which is just silly.

@Brainpolice

The “stupid rich” are constantly being bailed out by the government with billions of dollars (from the poor and middle classes) whenever they fail. The poor, in comparison, can declare bankrupcy or go on a welfare system that amounts to chump change and stagnation.

They’re by no means stupid. And no, not all the rich are bailed out, many lose millions and many poor make millions. You’re just being evavise and posting red herrings.

@Brainpolice

You have your facts wrong. The vast majority of the poor are not on welfar

Yes they are. Not to mention public healthcare and other such schemes.

@Brainpolice

There’s no way for you to know the specific mental processes of people in this way.

You’re just being silly now. Admit it, the poor aren’t the heroes you’d love them to be. There’s a damn good reason that most libertarians comes from middle and upper class backgrounds.

Most poor have no problems accepting welfare. For the reasons I explained. Stop being so childish and accept that you’re wrong.

@Brainpolice

I disagree. No government rests on consent. Only asquiescance.

Which amounts to consent. Either admit that you were lying about agreeing with La Boetie like you’ve been saying all along or that you’re changing your position now it’s convenient. Else, stop being pedantic.

@Brainpolice

No need to backpeddle, since you clearly have not understood what I’m saying yet, despite the fact that it has been explained in depth.

Or, you’re wrong.

@Brainpolice

I don’t favor “equality” like a communist does, I’ve repeatedly made the point that I’m not talking about absolute equality, I’m talking about mutual aid for those on the lower rung. You’re misrepresenting me again.

Before you said egalitarianism meant good outcomes? You’re not to keen on sticking to one meaning of words are you? Stop the intellectual dishonesty. There’s nothing egalitarian about giving voluntary aid to the poor.

@Brainpolice

I think that Rothbard’s views on children were incorrect.

And yet earlier you appealed to his authority on this? Be consistant.

@Brainpolice

I’m sorry, this is just you speaking from your own cultural bias to deny the rights of a group of people you don’t like. Your claim that such people are incapable of rational argumentation (mostly due to cultural walls to the extent that this is true) is ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that one must have a conception of property rights to have any rights at all is ridiculous. One could argue that the natives in America had no concept of property rights and use this to justify just taking all of their land. The problem is that in actual fact they do have property that they actively occupied and labored upon. The criteria for just appropriation of property doesn’t go out the window just because a certain culture has its own customs that you don’t like. Sharing your culture is not a prerequisite to having rights.

Why is it ridiculous? These people simply aren’t capable of rational argumentation, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences. The fact is they often cannot be brought within the divsion of labour and without any concept of property rights it’s impossible that they own anything. Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it’s f ree to be homesteaded.

As for the native Americans even if they did have the concept of property rights they had no proof in regards to who owned what and as such the land was free to be homesteaded.

@Brainpolice

Then they DO have some rights! You can’t have it both ways.

I never said they don’t.

@Brainpolice

What age is this where rational argumentation becomes possible? There is no such age.

Indeed, hence all the twins that debate whilst still inside the womb.