Freedomain Radio

I have tried arguing the anarchistic position quite a number of times with quite reasonable people, and a number of counter arguments came up, which make me reconsider whether a total opposition to the state is indeed a good idea. I'd like to bring forward one of these and read your thoughts on it:

As Stef is always the first to point out we are living in a quite irrational and morally questionable society. So, the question that popped up during the discussions is: What happens when we abandon the state and start a free society? We cannot reasonably assume that the majority of people are rational, educated and thinking for themself. But once we abandon the state, its institutions and laws, there will be a gigantic vacuum. What should now prevent cultists, religions, political powermongers to try to assemble a massive followship? And as history shows and Stef himself claims, orally gifted people are very good at talking people into believing the most absurd things, the christian church, muslim believers etc. have a proven record of being the best of the best in this discipline.

They will create alternatives to the state, they will collect money from their members, they will provide free education, they will take care of the poor, etc. They will provide a law code, and while it may be that in the beginning membership is voluntary - a generation down the road they will try, since no one is there to stop them, to establish a state based on their theology. And as an anarchist I cannot even object as long as they buy the land and do it on their own property, but as religions are usually among the wealthiest organisations around, that will not be too much of a problem. But their children will not have the choice anymore, their minds will once again be tormented and destroyed. And soon thereafter the rational anarchist will be in a minority, freedoms will be reduced by the new leadership and in all probability the disbelivers will be killed by some fanatics. And for the live of it, I cannot imagine a DRO that would be able to stop them nor to find any legal grounds to go against a religious organization - all they can do is trying to charge the fanatics who actually perpetrated the crime, which will do nothing to stop a religion. And furthermore: ostracism as a punishment will not be available against a community of believers.

I don't see how I can respond, as I comprehend quite clearly, that religions are an enormous problem for anarchy. And when I claim that the statist I am arguing with threatens me with violence, than he answers that I am threatening his freedom by creating an unstable situation which will lead in all probability to some kind of theological state which will allow much less freedom than we have now. And in order to save the freedoms we enjoy and which many people died in order to claim them in the first place, then by all means, if an anarchist threatens them by destroying the secular fabric of the democratic state then force against him is justified to make it work - as long as force is not so much violence but the enforced collection of taxes to finance the preservance of the freedoms we enjoy, which means: at least a minimal state is justified, alone from practical necessity given history and the human nature.

What stopped the state which previously occupied the anarchy? Assuming the anarchy was created, whatever stopped the state that was previously occupying the anarchy would stop the new states from emerging. If it's powerful enough to bring down an already-huge and dominating state, it ought to be able to take down the small pockets of religions and states attempting to forge themselves up.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but... are you arguing that the only way to preserve freedom is to give it up?

The only way to preserve freedom is to instate mandatory taxation and murder those who do not comply?

 

Tenko:

The only way to preserve freedom is to instate mandatory taxation and murder those who do not comply?

 

It's things like this that make most of you guys sound like cultists.  You've got your dogma all packaged and ready to be deployed at a moments notice like some Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction.

The world requires compromise.  Period (LOL).  If you want security and stability you have to pay for it by promising not to be dangerous or unpredictable yourself.  The problem is that people lie; it's a very effective tactic for getting what you want without having to pay.  The state is there to make sure people do what they promised to do because promising something, and doing something else, will always be an effective tactic.

It's not evil.  There's nothing inherently wrong with lying.  It's just something that happens and has to be accounted for. 

Besides.  Murder is unlawful killing.  If a person refuses to pay taxes and attacks the policeman that comes to his door to collect them it is perfectly lawful for the policeman to use deadly force to defend himself.  That would make it "not murder."  Killing is universal; murder is defined by the laws at the time and place.  To call it murder when someone is killed lawfully means that you must be appealing to a higher standard of law.  Care to explain that standard? 

You quoted it, buy you still haven't argued against "the only way to preserve freedom is to instate mandatory taxation and murder those who do not comply." Do you stand by that?

If you define murder only as Bob killing Joe and not Joe killing Bob, because Joe is a policeman and Bob is not, then you are not using universal morality. You are saying that morality is relative and depends upon a badge. Relative morality is as useful as relative science - not useful at all.

 Well, I think I addressed it rather well.  I pointed out that people will always be able to get ahead by taking advantage of other people so we need the state to enforce the rules.  Taxes ensure the existence of the state.  I also pointed out that the second half of your sentence was baloney.

You need to be more careful with your words.  Consistent morality is based on self-preservation.  The state aids the self-preservation of its citizens through collective action above and beyond the aid they would get without the state.  That means that the preservation of the state directly aids self-preservation.  This means that when citizens give up their right to use deadly force to the state the state gains the right to use deadly force.  This is necessary for the preservation of the state, which is good, and is also not murder because it is done legally.

When I say "state" I am thinking of the relatively benevolent governments of the developed countries of the world, specifically America.  I don't deny that plenty of states in the past and in other places are pretty awful, but that is just a problem with implementing the idea, not with the idea itself.  Edison went through thousands of different lightbulbs before he found the correct implementation of the idea of a lightbulb.

So, to more specifically address your question; it is not about a person killing a person.  It is about a person fulfilling their duties killing a person trying to stop them.  It becomes more than just two private individuals arguing about something private and becomes about the existence of the state that everyone depends on for security and stability.  An off-duty policeman doesn't have any more protection for their actions than any other private citizen, but neither is a private citizen required to deal with criminals.  The responsibility the police have to deal with dangerous situations while on-duty is balanced by the power to deal with them.  Responsibility and power must be balanced.

Would you consider an organization who steals 50% of every dollar we trade, by threat of death, a protective or exploitive organization?

Would you consider a system that killed 270 million people in the last century alone "aiding in the self-preservation of its citizens"?

This is precisely what you'd expect when you give a group of individuals the right to use violence to fund itself, and the right to use violence to get what it wants.

 

How can you "impliment" violence on a grand scale "correctly"?  That is, at least in my eyes, the root hubris of all mankind.   Everyone thinks that if they just had that ring of power, ahhhh, it would all turn out so well.

We have no historical reason to beleive that violence can be implimented correctly on a vast scale.

 

Have you listened to those books yet?  I really have to wonder at your motives here if you haven't listened to those yet.

threebobs:

Would you consider an organization who steals 50% by threat of death a protective or exploitive organization?

 

I'm only about 51% sure that it's worth replying to this.  So I guess I have to do it.  Your mistake is assuming that protective and exploitive are mutually exclusive.  It actually makes a lot of sense to protect the people you exploit.  So, you know, thanks for playing.  Assuming that what you said actually made some sense; this idea is comletely beside the point.  I already explained the framework within which you should examine the state.  Pretending that you can simplify something as complicated as a system involving millions of people into a bumper sticker is absurd.

threebobs:

Would you consider a system that killed 270 million people in the last century alone "aiding in the self-preservation of its citizens"?

Well, did they kill any of their own citizens?  Cuz, you know, that is what it would take for them to not be aiding their own citizens.  Why do I even have to point that out?  I never said that a state gave a damn about the rest of the people in the world because it only exists to protect its own citizens.  That is why states fight.  Duh.

threebobs:

This is precisely what you'd expect when you give a group of individuals the right to use violence to fund itself and the right to use violence to get what it wants.

"It," huh?  So, you think that if you get enough politicians and bureaucrats together they spontaneously combine into some sort of Voltron like creature with its own will?  People want things, organizations are just tools, they don't want anything.  However, assuming what you said made any sense; you are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't pay taxes because they are threatened with violence.  The vast majority of citizens of the developed world don't pay taxes at the barrel of a gun.  They pay them because they are trading a portion of their labor for security and stability.  You can pretend that the state is stealing from them, but that doesn't make it so.

threebobs:

How can you "impliment" violence on a grand scale "correctly"? 

See, now this is the sort of thing that makes me think you have to have a problem with reading comprehension to think anarchy is a good idea.  I was talking about implementing government, not violence.  Duh.  I know that in your mind the two words are synonymous, but that doesn't make them actually synonymous.  Look them up in a thesarus.  The better the government, the less violence is involved.  That is the thrust of what I meant by "correctly."

threebobs:

Everyone thinks that if they just had that ring of power, ahhhh, it would all turn out so well.

 

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say that you know how to fix the system?  Breaking the ring up into a million little pieces for each individual still involves a ring.  Why would you say that it's wrong to think that you have a better solution. . .when you think you have a better solution?

threebobs:

Have you listened to those books yet?  I really have to wonder at your motives here if you haven't listened to those yet.

No.  I've been reading through Practical Anarchy (as I posted) because so much more comprehension happens when you take the time to read.  I only got 60 pages into it, though, because there is so much wrong with it.  Maybe you should actually read it.  Besides, are you scared of my words or something?  How could my "motives" in being "here" possibly matter enough for you to "wonder" about them?

Blueback, I feel very frustated debating with you.

First, because I completely understand your position.  I (we all) grew up with those same ideas.  I was taught the same values that you are parroting. 

You don't need to lecture me on why you think the State is necessary.  It would be like a Christian telling an Atheist that he'll be going to hell.  The atheist doesn't beleive in hell.  And the anarchist doesn't think that order is moral or efficient when done by force.

So while we understand you, the frustration come from the fact that you truly believe you understand the anarchist position, which, from my experience, you don't.

So, I am choosing not to have any more interaction with you.  I have many more productive debates going on.

 blueback - there is a simple solution to this disagreement. you say that people pay taxes not because they have to or because they will be imprisoned if they dont, but because they want a state which provides them with security. well the only way to find out if thats true is to make paying taxes a voluntary thing. if people are still paying them even if they dont have to then you will be correct. people do not need to be forced to pay for things they want do they? so why are they forced to pay for the services the state provides?

sorry to not stick to the topic.

blueback:

 Well, I think I addressed it rather well.  I pointed out that people will always be able to get ahead by taking advantage of other people so we need the state to enforce the rules.  Taxes ensure the existence of the state.  I also pointed out that the second half of your sentence was baloney.

I'd certainly feel safer if there were some kind of service I could take advantage of to help me fight off murderers, muggers, rapists, etc. But the only significant difference between our two arguments is the initiation of violence to fund this protection service. If in order to protect myself from robbers I first must be robbed by a tax collector, and I can't choose to discontinue the protection service, and I'm continuously robbed for my entire life, I can't really say I feel any safer or that my property is not going to be stolen.

 

blueback:

You need to be more careful with your words.  Consistent morality is based on self-preservation.

If that's the case, how can I preserve myself better by submitting myself to a lifetime of theft and threats of murder for non-compliance to state mandates?

blueback:

The state aids the self-preservation of its citizens through collective action above and beyond the aid they would get without the state.  That means that the preservation of the state directly aids self-preservation.

If it is true that the state can help protect someone more than anything else, then the state could be operated as a free market entity giving voluntary services instead of forcing everyone to pay their protection money.

blueback:

This means that when citizens give up their right to use deadly force to the state the state gains the right to use deadly force.  This is necessary for the preservation of the state, which is good, and is also not murder because it is done legally.

Do the citizens really give up their right to use deadly force? Or are they forced to give up their right, forced with deadly force? I agree that slaves are necessary for the preservation of the state, but I do not agree that slavery is good. And your chilling attitude towards murder is really quite shocking. Murder is OK as long as it is legal? So long as it's written into law or voted by the majority, murder, the initiation of violence and the ending of a human life, is good if government says it is? Do you feel that way about the holocaust?

 

 

Elyrion:

As Stef is always the first to point out we are living in a quite irrational and morally questionable society. So, the question that popped up during the discussions is: What happens when we abandon the state and start a free society? We cannot reasonably assume that the majority of people are rational, educated and thinking for themself. But once we abandon the state, its institutions and laws, there will be a gigantic vacuum.

 

This is the crux of the situation. We all agree that people need to be liberated in their personal lives to achieve a stateless society. Hence the reason why Stef has said reapeatedly that we would proabably never see a stateless society in our lifetime.

I think my point is missed here. First of all, the world is not black and white, there is not only slavery and total freedom but a lot of different grades of freedom. I am not sure with how much freedom people are comfortable, but with the development of the state, secularism, the rise of capitalism and the scientific method the human condition has improved a lot and despite taxes we in the western world enjoy more freedoms than ever before. We are free to say what we want, to critizise the state, to travel, and so many things more. These freedoms have been fought for, many of them had to be extracted from theocratic regimes, from kings and dictators, from warlords and fascists.

Nearly all libertarians argue that most men and women are irrational, immoral and uneducated. I say that there will also always be organisations and cults, charismatic leaders and ideologies which will lead to groups, which dominate the life of its members and who will profit from the resources of its members. They will have rules of their own, perhaps the Sharia, and they will educate their children in their beliefs. And soon thereafter, where once was an anarchic society will rise a new theocracy that will restrict the freedoms we enjoy and there seems to be nothing that can be done to safeguard the anarchic society against these kind conversions. And when the children have been taught the false beliefs the outlook is bleak once more.

As long as the state is there, who has an inherent interest to remain as it is, it will not allow the competition and at least leave us the freedoms that have been won. Rules and constitutions have been drafted to prevent the possibilities of a charismatic leader, to ensure that laws can only be made within certain limits and so on. I agree the price we have to pay for our freedoms in taxes is high - in our bureaucratically overboarding democracies to high - but this makes for me the case for a minimalistic government. It is the lesser of the evils and anyone who cries for anarchy should try to explain how it could be sustained when cultists and religions exist that do nothing but prey upon the willing believers. How can a generation down the road children be safed from such a mindkilling environment if there is no law, no prerequisite to go to a school, where they would have at least a chance to escape a religious environment?

Democracy is not Freedom.