I bet the statist cowards will be too afraid to argue with your unassailable aprioristic logic!
Any political argument dealing with “pure” emotion or an argument that has no merit:
-“but, but don’t you want to help people” -any leftist supporting a new government policy.
I believe Milton Friedman always said it best, “just because an economic or social policy has a good intention, doesn’t make it good”. Let the data lead to the outcome. This is what the left and many Republicans don’t understand. Intention isn’t good enough.
On th relegation of all non-anarchists as feeble-minded state-huggers, I believe Robert Nozick made a compelling point: “Once having pigeonholed people and figured out what they are saying, we do not welcome new information that would require us to re-understand and re-classify them, and we resent their forcing us to devote fresh energy to this when we expended more than enough in their direction already.”
That’s a failing we all have, of course, but the symptom becomes especially apparent when rigid pigeonholing manifests (e.g., disqualifying large amounts of libertarians as “statists”).
@Student, the reason they don’t agree with you is because they are scared of any significant changes. Humans have a tendency to avoid taking risk, and since the State has always been here, no good argument can uproot the State in one blow. It depends on how analytical you are about this type of stuff, and most anti-statists prefer rationality to emotion (from my experience ), so we’re not really afraid of change.
Of course there are those who worship the State, but it arises from the same flaw. They hate corporations and want their abolition, so they automatically become wealth redistributors via the State. They see capitalism as poisoning democracy, not the other way around. This is because since “greedy” companies are dissolvable and have gone under before, it seems more expendable compared to the State, who has always been there. That’s my theory . Regardless, I think since socialists are so obsessed with controlling behavior and their assuredness that their system of morality is right for everyone else that it wouldn’t really matter.
@StrangeLoop, of course there are positions with nuance. That doesn’t change the fact that fundamentally there is a difference between Statists and anti-Statists: The acceptance of aggression. That is a big difference, so it’s worth pointing out. Minarchists may hate the state but see it as a matter of practicality, but that means they accept coercion in some form. It’s an important distinction to be made.
There really shouldn’t be such a disdain for “pigeonholing.” When I hear that, I think more along the lines of a strawman. It’s the same difference between theism and atheism; atheism arises as a rejection of theism on one central point. Statism/anti-Statism is the same situation.
Am I just blind to blatant sarcasm, or has Student become a “Rothbardian”? I can almost feel myself about to get mocked for posting this…
False dichotomy. I am in favor of complete anarchy, but don’t a priori reject agression, either.
Calling statism “aggression” only matters normatively. That’s fine, but don’t expect to get much traction out of your moral philosophy. For instance, why is killing an animal for its tasty flesh not “aggression”?
Nozick’s point on “pigeonholing” is that it precludes additional thought; rather than re-think opposing arguments, they are easily dismissed by pre-established convictions. We cannot philosophize indefintely, but we should avoid the other extreme, as well.
Well then you don’t accept the monopolization of aggression, in one form or another, Jackson
Or coercion, I suppose. It doesn’t have to be a moral stance, it can be completely amoral as well.
How would you define “coercion” amorally?
Well, let’s say I don’t really care, as long as I’m not part of their monopoly. Also, I’m skeptical that a monopoly of force could be maintained without superstition.
I don’t understand how.
You’re way too much of a Stinerite, bro. Not every idea is a spook.
Initiated aggression that is involuntary by one party in order to achieve compliance. The difference between coercion and aggression would be that an anarcho-capitalist society would use aggression as a means to achieve what the intersubjective consensus demands by way of preferences. Coercion would be the use of force to gain compliance for “unnecessary” ends, which is an entirely subjective thing. Like killing in self-defense would be aggression, but not coercion because most people sympathize with you because you are being aggressed against. Stealing somebody’s wallet would qualify as coercion because you are using aggression and you started the aggressing for no “good” reason.
Of course you can turn my definition on its head by saying that the majority supports the State. This doesn’t make it “right” or “wrong” in my book, but I think these people are being inconsistent and the best I can do is show alternatives as to how they may prefer society to operate in ways they haven’t considered. My point to be made as a voluntaryist is that there is another way of doing things and that you may appreciate instead of how we do things currently. Or, make an appeal to consistency via the self-ownership axiom.
Why are you here, Jackson? It’s not because you support the State, is it?
If the state is defined as being a monopoly of force, and you don’t support the State, you are anti-Statist. Unless you have a different definition of what a State is…
Seems like there’s a big disconnect here. Student and that other guy seem to have an axe to grind with “anarchists” and are therefore pushing the idea that extreme, unflinching positions are bad. I don’t think one need to split up the world into two different camps in order to be extreme and dedicated to one position. An anarchist calling someone a statist doesn’t mean that they are calling you Stalin or Mao, it just means that they are qualifying you as one who believes that there should be a monopoly provider of law, defense, and protection within a given geographical territory. Is that wrong? It’s just a word to describe a position, not an insult.
As for my feelings on this, I’ve been becoming more and more disillusioned with conservatism lately. I’m beginning to think that the (weak) philosophical underpinnings of conservatism are far too different from libertarianism to ever be a faithful ally. Therefore, right now, conservatives piss me off the most because it’s basic ideas seem to be a contradiction.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think the following quote presents too much of a divisive extreme: using public policy at all does mean it is illegitimate to still call oneself “pro-market.”
LOL, it’s too bad you didn’t refer to me as a “Stirnerite Turd”, like E.R. Olovetto. It’s one of my all-time favorite passages I’ve ever readon this forum.
Anyways, in regard to your assertion, which ideas are not spooks? How can I tell? Why do you believe this?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold the phone chief. The majority using force to supress a minority? Sounds more like mob rule (or for you diehards, democracy) than an an-cap scenario. I think that market forces are the only measure of acceptability (excluding the absolutes of property rights, and the NAP. Is that all?) in a hypothetical an-cap situation.
You’re either free market or you are not. An apple is an apple, not an orange. This is basic law of identity stuff.
It is contradictory. It is a logical contradiction for something to be both A and not A at the same time. You can be a “mostly free marketer” but that is not a “free marketer”. I think it is dishonest when intelligent people eschew the use of logic. You may believe it is just ignorance or some other thing, but I see persistent denial of logic to be fundamentally dishonest.
Mises said there was no third way, and I agree with him.
Sounds like evasion, obfuscation and bullcrap to me.
It’s not possible to be a libertarian and advocate taxes. Unless being a libertarian has no meaning whatsoever, which is probably the position of “nuance” I am apparently not able to understand.
Who is Gary Becker and why would I care? These academics are so not important to the discussion of ethics, since they have no more expertise in ethics than anyone else. Also, statist is not ambiguous. If you are ok with aggression, then you’re a statist. It’s super easy to understand.
Thank you.