How would the state handle these things? So far they haven’t done a good job. I can think of a thousand ways anarchy could do a much better job handling any situtation that arises.
Et tu? Where did any anarchist say it is the final argument against statism? No, rather, what is maintained, is that as a matter of logic, the statist is the one responsible for proving both why they think others should not be free to associate as they please and must accept their coercion, and that only the state can provide X good (otherwise, why outlaw it?) So far, what I have seen are a lot of veiled ad hominem attacks, red herrings and strawmen. So the anarchist is not obliged to justify his (or her) denial of the State to the statist - to convince others to join him (her), of course, providing schemes is best for rhetorical purposes, which is why anarchists offer their own detailed proposals; not because they think they have any duty to the statist. See how different that is to what you claimed it is? No cop outs are involved, no “denials” of “reality” or any rubbish to that effect.
-Jon
The problem that many elitists like yourself have is that you are perfect willing to shout at the top of your lungs about the evil of the state but refuse to offer any solution or course of action. Don’t kid yourself that most the people on this forum are out doing something about freedom and they just don’t talk about it. Most people are not doing anything and in fact they are routinely discouraged from doing so by many of the arguements of the intellectual elitists. Arguements like agorism, and waiting for the state to collapse, and that the burden is on the state to give up it’s behavior. All of which to the newly introduced person to freedom is ultimately very discouraging.
You don’t have to agree with the Liberty Colony or any other proposed action, but if you propose no solution to the problem then you are being intellectually dishonest.
Says the person who spends his time on a forum, “calling out” anarchists. Do you even know what agorism is?
-Jon
Again, this is just an assertion on your own part. You don’t even know the people you’re critisizing and what they advocate. Plenty of people here advocate various types of action. It’s not our fault that you automatically assume that we don’t have any proposed solutions. You’ve merely assumed ahead of time that we don’t have any and attack a straw man.
Clearly you don’t understand what is meant by the burden of proof then, because that’s not what is meant. It’s in the context of arguementation. The burden of proof, in an arguement about political philosophy or politics, is on the person who is making positive assertions such as the necessity of the state, the legitimacy of the state, the exclusive ability of the state to provide certain services. That’s simply a matter of basic logic. Someone who claims that the state can legitimacy tax people, for example, faces a burden of proof for this claim. They can’t just assume their own premises as a pretext to the discussion or argument.
It is you who is being intellectually dishonest by refusing to aknowledge that anyone here proposes solutions, or when they actually do propose solutions (like agorism) it is in fact YOU who shoots it down. It is you who is discouraging people. Your entire tirade here is intellectually dishonest.
That has never stopped you.
Why don’t people mention these courses of action then? I’ve been here for a few months, it’s mostly “politics is a waste of time”, “the state will eventually collapse”, “theoretically agorism is the only way to defeat the state”, etc. etc. Did I miss these statements and plans of action?
Agorism cannot withstand the same scrutiny his liberty colony idea has taken?
It’s nearly impossible to get a discussion on agorism the so-called agorists tuck and run when it is brought up. If you are serious about agorism, then I’m challenging you to a debate on it. Will you accept?
But that’s the thing. The anarchist IS obliged to justify his (or her) denial of the State to the statist IF they have the goal of having a market anarchy some day. If an anarchist did not have the goal of having a market anarchy then you are correct, they would not have any obligation to justify but it wouldn’t really matter in that case anyway.
Stopped me from what? I don’t recall ever blatantly strawmanning anyone. I do recall strongly disagreeing with people about their openly stated positions on matters such as immigration, voting and the political spectrum.
I think what you are is (1) willfully ignorant and (2) a bit of a newb to this. The latter I can’t blame you for, the former I can.
We’ve already been through this and I can predict the outcome to a tee. You will continue to speak as if there is a total vacuum in the absence of the political process and mischaracterize apolitical libertarians as “do-nothings”, and I’ll continue to challenge your underlying assumptions.
Okay, then you agree that as a matter of strategy the anarchist should have his alternative plan prepared, but that as a matter of logic, the anarchist has no duty to prove to the statist why he should be free from the statist’s coercion, and that here the burden of proof is the reverse, and that moreover, the statist must prove, if they wish to argue it, that the state is the only way to provide given services (if they do not argue this, they should be questioned why they want to outlaw consentual, free activities.) This isn’t trivial, as it hinders statists from escaping the burden of proving these two arguments, and forces them to adopt weaker ones if they cannot. Agreed?
-Jon
[8-)]
Continuing the art of the dodge. I asked for statements and plans of action you referenced. Your personal critique of me notwithstanding, I’d like more information on what you posted.
Right, but you don’t blatantly strawman, correct?
I have challenged you to a debate on agorism. Do you accept or decline?
In both of the above strategies, the anarchist would get to say that the burden of proof is on the statist - how very convenient. Perhaps this is the division right there. Some anarchists are in apathy and so have no burden of proof but those that are actually seeking change can’t use the apathetic cop outs that the other anarchists use.
Lovley; why don’t you spend time getting my information, get offline, hop on over here, and tell me about being an elitist who spends too much time on a message board? No? You’re just going to sit there and post on the same message board, telling me I’m spending too much time on a message board? Well gee, why aren’t you taking action then? That seems to be a bit hypocritical, honestly…
You are wasting precious time here; you have a Liberty Colony to attend to, remember? You don’t seem to be doing much here other than vulgar marketing via dishonest debates about how other people conduct their lives. It’s too bad we don’t have someone to look out for us, to tell us how to run our lives; it would all be so much simpler then, don’t you agree?
Hypocriticial; what prevents you from being an elitist? How are you exempt from being an elitist yourself?
You are ignoring refutations to this, out of stupidity, dishonesty, or stubborness. Every individual’s situation is absolutley different; you are taking this forum too literally as a representation of the efforts of people, when this forum itself is greatly limited to the medium of communication (debate, discussion, argumentation, etc.). I’m done telling this to you, because it has been said time & time again, but you don’t like that answer, it seems. It seems not everyone has the money, time, & energy to start their own Liberty Colony, and prefer to utilize other various methods:
(this is a general and not complete list, so you will probably use the power of generalization, and try to “make an example” of me as being the absolute limit of what everyone else on this forum does…)
- Agorism
- counter-economics
- communication of basic ideas
- philisophical discussion
- “stirring the pot” of common discourse (I’m sorry, you did not acheieve this, and more or less turned out to be a marketing troll for your own pet project. Hopefully it is actually successful, because if this idea was started by someone less pompous, arrogant, and intolerant than you, I would probably endorse it.)
- doing what little one can given their situation (goes without saying if you are capable of thinking beyond your own ego)
- economic discussion
Notice the trend of discussion here? That might be what a forum is for. Maybe you should try craigslist, newspaper ads, offline meetups, etc. if you are looking for more than just “discussion”.
Redundant, and evidence is abound on the forum of various members mentioning their offline activites sometimes. If you did more than simply market your own idealology & projects, without regard to other’s people ideas (or perhaps asked nicley), you would probably figure this out.
This is comical; this is assuming the so-called “intellectual elitists”, which, I guess means anyone who posts on this forum (maybe including you?), have any power over those that don’t post on here, or who simply observe & read the forum without posting.
I’m also guessing anyone who doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t agree with your methods, doesn’t see the “intellectual elitists” on this forum, dosesn’t join your Liberty Colony are also on your “intellectual elitist” sh*t list.
Elitism:
-
“The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.”
-
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Let me ask you this: how are you exempt from the above definitions? how is your Liberty Colony exempt from the above definition? Is there a difference between elitism of “intellectual elitists”, and various individuals who disagree with you on the same forum whom continually have issue with some of what you have to say?
You are not being censored, you are not being banned of access to this forum, you are not being shut-out based on emotional whims of a favored “intellectual elite”; at least, as far as I can tell.
What’s wrong? You don’t like certain strategies? You don’t like that your ideas are not being considered over others? That doesn’t seem very freedom-ish of you. I thought freedom was about letting other’s be? Or is that just the vitrol of an intellectual elite bearing down upon you speaking?
From what I understand, various strategies & philospohies are considered. You are acting as if those who choose Agorism would not choose or consider any other strategy, despite many probably arriving at Agorism as a possible solution from differing straytegies & approaches before hand. You sound like a child whining about certain people not wanting to play with you and your action figures. From what I also understand, there are a few forum members who genuinley like your idea. Are any of them Agorists? Maybe you should check that out?
What I propose is learning, for now, because I am still learning. I don’t currently know what the best strategy is, because I was only a Statist a year or so ago. You are the dishonest one generalizing one person’s progress onto others.
Even though I’m still learning, I still consider what can I do to make a difference each day. What did I do recently, that might fall under “taking action”, in your view? I witheld the stupid “rebate” check the ggovernment doled out; you might have heard of this strategy as the “reverse money bomb”, concepted by RP community.
I recently began to make a list of basic food items to stock up on to prepare myself for the on coming depression that might be useable via barter (coffee, rice, etc.). I recently started making plans about possibly re-locating to a more favorable area where I could find probably quit my current job & maybe make more money via cash & not rely on a banking account. I had a messy but productive argument with my best friend that greatly eased my fears of friendship being threatened by differences in political opinion. I recently made plans to try and visit the D.C. Really Really ReallyFree Market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Really_Really_Free_Market).
Yea it’s not much, but I’m doing the best I can in my current situation. Sorry to ruin your pedestal with an account of someone of this forum actually trying things, because as we all well know, according to you, not one person here offline does anything remotley productive to back up their discussions on this forum.
For the millionth time, this is a failure to actually understand the anarchist’s position. The burden of proof has to do with argumentation, I.E. someone making a positive claim in a debate about politics faces a burden of proof. To expect the anarchist to assume the statist’s premises before a debate can even start is unfair, nonsensical and intellectually dishonest. Statism (just like theism) involves some underlying assumptions, and they face a burden of proof for those assumptions.
Furthermore, to claim that anarchists “aren’t seeking change” and to accuse them of being “apathetic” is a blatant misunderstanding that contains underlying assumptions (which, yes, must face a burden of proof). In particular, the underlying assumption is that there is a total vacuum of possible action in the absence of conventional political tactics. Hence, the anarchist is incorrectly accused of being a “do nothing”. I can’t think of any group that seeks change more than anarchists.
I’m curious: when’s the last time you purposefully broke one of the state’s laws? When’s the last time you went to a secessionist conferance? Aside from punching a hole in a piece of paper with a few guy’s names on it every few years, what have you done or what are you doing to bring about liberty? While apolitical libertarians and anarchists are constantly being mischaracterized as “apathetic”, I cannot help but think that there is nothing more apathetic and “do-nothing” then repeating the same old behavior and being complacent to the conventional mechanisms of the political process.
While I like your balls to the wall attitude, I don’t think that it even needs to be taken that far. Just recognizing that it is our responsibility to do something is enough. It may well be the case that most anarchists here are apathetic anarchists but it’s not really something that can be proven in discussion so that assertion would just be debated until the end of time. What can be proven in discussion is whether or not someone accepts that it is their responsibility if they want change. That will tell you who you are dealing with right away.
If a person is arguing for a CHANGE to the way things currently are, that is positive. If a person is advocating anarchy in a debate over which system is best, that is a negative. Do you see the distinction I am making here?
By apathetic, I am referring to the people that will have debates with the overall intention (to change the system) removed from the debate in order to force the statist to make the positive assertion. This is apathetic. I am not even getting into what a person is actually doing. If the person is actually doing something and arguing apathetically, then they are having a dishonest debate since they have removed their overall intention from the debate. In this type of situation, I can’t see any reason to remove this intention from the scope of the conversation beyond the need for a cop out.
No, I don’t. It almost seems like you’re implying that in such a circumstance the anarchist should NOT talk about anarchism. Why not? And how is argueing for anarchism NOT argueing for a change to the way things currently are? Why does the anarchist have an obligation in political debates to concede to the very premises that they disagree with? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. What sense does it make for someone who doesn’t believe any system should be imposed to propose a system to be imposed or concede to the premises of others who are argueing for the imposition of a system?
I’m confused. The statist already is making a positive assertion. Furthermore, of course, as I understand it, the anarchist does not seek to “change the system” (a premise that seems to resemble political democracy to me).
How is it “apathetic” to hold strong to one’s own position? I’ve never seen the term apathy used this way before. And what intention?
How is it a cop-out? I don’t have such an intention, since it would defeat the entire purpose.
If the context of the debate is “which system is better”, the statist is forced to make the positive assertion, is he not? In a more formal, pedantic debate, like between students on a debate team at a college, the person arguing for anarchism may or may not actually believe in their position. They may or may not want to change it. It is not assumed that either person has an intention to change anything in the real world. So the whole “intention to change the system” thing doesn’t even enter into the debate. It does not have to be part of the debate context.
In debates such as on this forum, it would obviously be assumed that the person taking the anarchist position actually does want the way things work to change. So the anarchist is making a positive assertion because he is the one wanting to change things. The other person is just fine with the idea of keeping the state.
These are two different debates.
The statist isn’t “forced” to make a positive assertion, they simply ARE making one by the very nature of their position, just like a theist is by the very nature of their position. In a debate between an atheist and a theist, the theist isn’t “forced” to make a positive assertion on the behalf of the existance and legitimacy of a deity, they DO make such an assertion. The same with statism. But based on your framework for argumentation, apparently the theist’s premises are assumed before a debate can even begin.
The anarchist is not necessarily making a positive assertion at all, and the mere intention or desire for change is not a positive assertion. An intention or desire in and of itself is not an assertion, it’s an intention or desire. You’re making no sense to me whatsoever. It makes no sense to assume the statist’s premises before a debate can even begin. The debate can’t begin with the anarchist having to concede to the statist’s premise that the state is good or necessary, the statist has to actually prove such assertions.
Proper debates don’t begin with the assumption that the status quo is justified.
Well sure, that’s a better way of putting it.
Wow, how did the assumption of “wanting to change things” turn into the assumption that the state is good and needed? You know what, even though the “wanting to change things” assumption is a pretty fair an abvious assumption IMO, keeping in mind that the assumption would even be true of yourself, we can drop that assumption and you’re still in the same predicament. If there are no assumptions and then the anarchist is to use the “the burden of proof is on you” argument, at that point he is also implying that he does not actually want to change anything. If he did, then that would be a false statement since the burden of proof would actually be on him because he is the one wanting to change things. With the assumption or without it, you are still in the same predicament.
Good point about intention vs assertion. If we wanted to get real pedantic, it would go like this:
Anarchist: “I do not have to jutify anything, the burden of proof is on you.”
Statist: “But you are the one wanting to change things.”
Anarchist: “That was a positive assertion, you must provide proof of that statement.”
Statist: “Okay, I call my first witness to the stand. Anarchist, do you or do you not want change?”
Anarchist: “Yes, I do.”
Statist: “There is your proof of my assertion. Now the burden of proof is on you as you are the one who wishes to change things.”
But in a rather informal debate setting such as in these forums, people don’t always state the incredibly obvious like this. It is usually assumed but those assumptions can be called out and then they are removed. That’s how I see informal debates working. But sure, if you want to get pedantic about it, I guess you’d just have a conversation like the above. No assumptions and it all goes according to the rules of logic. STILL, the same result. There is no escape from this.
That’s a false analogy.
As it has been repeated ad nauseam (I believe I posted this exact critique before), the claim that anarchists wan’t to change or enforce a social structure is simply fallacious, a straw man, etc.
Let me rewrite your debate.
Anarchist: “I do not have to jutify anything, the burden of proof is on you.”
Statist: “But you are the one wanting to change things.”
Anarchist: “No, I am the one wanting you to leave me alone.”
(and this is what you’re saying should happen next)
Statist: “You need to justify your claim that I should leave you alone, or I’ll keep robing from you and will kidnap/beat/kill you if you disobey my rules.”
Anarchist: “WTF!?”
It is the statist who is making the positive claim of action.