In the post which you quoted, I was discussing our current situation, not the situation which would exist in a free society. In our current system, you cannot choose who will judge you.
It’s even more amusing that you think your use of fallacies actually helps you.
Do you ever try to actually substantiate any of your claims?
That’s what I’m asking of Moore. Apparently, that point flew right over your head.
what contested claim do you think he needs to substantiate?
i’m just going to throw it out there for your consideration that perhaps you are being contrarian just for the sake of it. do you thing KoB is your enemy to be bested?
If you claim that some one failed to substantiate their claim, you must, if they or some one else requests it and if you want to remain undogmatic, substantiate your claim that they failed to substantiate their claim. I can, therefore, also assert that “[t]hat’s what I’m asking of” you, “[a]pparently, that point flew right over your head”. In other words, you claimed that Moore did not prove his point and then I asked you to prove that Moore did not prove his point.
Moore argued that if, in our current system, we “privatize” the prison system, such action may cause some purely profit-oriented prisons to “pay off” members of the justice system to convict more individuals and therefore to provide to them more prisoners, in order to maximize their profits. Then, I, on the previous page, argued that his argument only applies to situations where the prison system becomes non-monopolic while the rest of the justice system itself remains monopolic and, therefore, that it is not a successful argument against the doctrine anarchocapitalism because, in an anarchocapitalist society, both the prison system and the rest of the justice system would be non-monopolic. But you, as you often do, dismissed his argument as merely “unproven” or ‘irrelevant’ without any substantiation of that claim.
No, I must do no such thing.
I added the condition “if you want to remain undogmatic” because I anticipated that, if I did not include that, you would provide a response which would be similar to the above response. I, apparently, was incorrect; although I added a condition which preëmptively diffused the above response, you decided to still say it.
I will say what I always say in situations like this one: I acknowledge your concession.
I answered that question in the post which directly precedes my previous post.
I just tend to value arguments as a function of their soundness and not just of the content of their conclusion. If I agree with the content of your conclusion, that does not imply that I will not attack your argument.
you think he needs to substantiate the claim that Moore did not substantiate his claim. so you think that Moore substantiated his claim? or are you just being a pedantic contrarian?
Which you then have to support.
And I acknowledge your concession on this matter.
If you read my previous posts, you would know the answer. In the following post, I answered your question explicitly:
And what of Moore’s unsupported assertion was sound? Recall: an argument can be sound. Assertions devoid of backing are not arguments, but rather idle talk.
I also added the condition “if they or some one else requests it” because I anticipated that, if I did not include that, you would provide a response with would be similar to the above response. I, apparently, was incorrect; although I added a condition which preëmptively diffused the above response, you decided to still say it.
I, now, must, in order to remain undogmatic, substantiate the claim which you implicitly challenged:
I said that “[i]f you claim” X, “you must, […] if you want to remain undogmatic, substantiate your claim”. A relevant circumlocution of the word “dogmatic” is, as an example, “a person who does not substantiate his claims”. Therefore, the judgement that “to remain undogmatic” means that you must “substantiate your claim” is tautological.
Which has no bearing.
Again: I accept your concession on this matter. Feel free to continue to flail about.
If one were to have to substantiate every single connection in his argument in order to remain undogmatic, no one whatever would remain undogmatic, because, in every argument, implicit assumptions exist because to completely anticipate what will be the assumptions which your opponents will contest is impossible. So, then, when some one requests that you substantiate one of your implicit assumptions, you must, in order to remain undogmatic, substantiate and therefore explicitize that assumption. As a conclusion, such a condition does “ha[ve] […] bearing”.
I already answered those questions:
“I […] argued that his argument […] applies to situations where the prison system becomes non-monopolic while the rest of the justice system itself remains monopolic.”
That’s a pretty bogus claim, even if you’re talking about semi-privatized prisons and not full-blown anarchy. Anyone can still pay off anyone else to get something done, but that doesn’t mean we completely abolish free enterprise and capitalism. Bribery is already illegal, so the answer to Moore is simply this: don’t let bribery happen. If you have a good police force and strong punishments for those convicted of bribery, you will see the rate of bribery fall.
Moreover, don’t you think that the public would vote out a judge who was shown to put plenty of innocent people in jail?
I know that his ultimate conclusion is that capitalism is evil. But, in the post which you quoted, I only dealt with his argument that, in our current system, the “privatization” of the system of prisons would cause perverse incentives to become existent; I did not deal with his ultimate argument that, because that argument and other arguments are allegedly true, capitalism is evil.
No. The democratic system does not work. I am sure that, as a member of this forum, you understand that.
No, you didn’t. Why? Because it’s impossible to demonstrate that a bunch of unconnected statements are sound.
Look: if you wish to continue in your delusion that Moore’s blatant assertions are sound, so be it.