Freedomain Radio

Since it's been slow with the new podcasts as of late, I've started exploring some skeptical podcasts because I like science.  I dig the skeptoid podcasts a lot and highly recommend them.  There's very little blatant statism, they're short, and the guy has a dry sense of humor that isn't bad.

As for the point of this post, however, I wanted to talk about The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.  Now, this podcast has a LOT more information, as it runs about 80 minutes vs. the ~10 minutes of Skeptiod, however, it's got some call for more regulation (e.g. "There should be a law!") or some other such statist nonsense just about every episode.  I was considering going to it's forum to talk about this, and found a thread called "Skepticism of Libertarianism."  Of course, I, too, hate libertarianism, as it's known to most Americans, however, the points that I saw there were the kinds of things that a skeptical mind should destroy in a very short time, yet they were completely incapable of it.  (Of course, as there was 61 pages in that thread, I couldn't stand to read it all and I'm sure there were hundreds of fallacies, but I only saw things like "Corporations are force!"  "Taxation isn't theft because of the social contract!")

Now, I'm considering writing up a pretty indepth post called "Skepticism of the State" including some of the material from EA and PA, with the intent to eventually post the links as soon as I've got a few posts down.

Obviously, we know that these people's families are the reasons they haven't yet applied their skepticism to the state, however, I'd like to know what approaches you guys would take in trying to apply skepticism of the state to a bunch of statists?  Would you go straight for the kill with the AfM or would you use the AfE?  I'm anxious about diving straight into the AfM because I'm not yet confident with how to counter the people who say "Taxation is not violence."

I could make this attempt on my own, however, I'd like to make the post as effective as possible, not with the goal of "converting" anyone... more with the goal of not getting banned or ignored.  I want to draw curiosity and lead them to aiming their skeptic lasers at the state... any suggestions?

I'm not yet confident with how to counter the people who say "Taxation is not violence."

Just ask them what they think will happen to them if they don't pay "their" taxes?

I also find it extremely ironic. The first time I encountered anarchism was in 97 when I was just throwing off more shackles of religion. In a particular atheist AOL chatroom was this anarchist guy (Not Stef, mind you) getting everybody all stirred up. I myself wasn't much into politics and was not attached to any conclusions either way, so I decided to, rather than verbally abuse the guy, have a serious discussion and hear him out. He eventually gave me all the info I needed to realize I was an anarchist. After that I started noticing how these atheists/statists would argue like xians when you challenge their statists beliefs. I couldn't believe it!

Some attempts have been made by many people to post anarchist information on atheist/skepticism boards. I've seen a few people try that on the Rational Response boards and I think there are a handfull of anarchists there. I would just ask questions and be curious. Avoid heavy debating in the begining so they don't just assume you're a troll trying to stir crap up. Hope that helps.

Great topic Nex. I was actually first introduced to libertariansim at a conference hosted by the Skeptic's Society at Caltech in Pasadena. Michael Shermer is a libertarian so he had some libertarian speakers at this environmental conference. I was blown away and surprised.

It really is a strange situation. Most are very comitted to the scientfic method and reason but also accept so much political dogma at face value.

The argument from effect is a pure time sink, a distracting waste of time purely designed to drop anarchists into the quicksand of endless theory...

I would suggest that you confront your fear of the argument from morality head-on, but you can build the case up more gently than simply stating that taxation is force. You can start by telling them that everyone believes that violence is a bad way to solve social problems -- I'm sure that everyone would agree with you there...

Then, you can do the next step...

 I listen to that podcast every week and I have had the same frustrations. Not frustration based on my need to control others per se, just frustration at the fact that these are not dumb people. They are more than capable of accepting the rediculous nature of religion and psuedo-science but they fully believe that the state and further regulation is the answer to the pressing issues of the scientific community. They can name every logical fallacy in the book and quote from peer reviewed studies almost verbatim but when it comes to the "impenetrable" subject of the state the idea of exercising the very same skepticism that they claim to live thier lives by seems out of reach. I am a member of a local skeptic group here in California and I have noticed that the vast majority of the people in said group are democrats. I hate that they are so agreeable about so many of the things that the average person considers evil and taboo and are completely blind when it comes to the government. Every time I am around them I sense that if I speak up about my anarchist views that I will be at least brow beaten if not entirely shunned. What's funny is thier lack of curiousity. You would think that someone who allegedly lives thier lives by the scientific method would be a bit more open to considering alternate viewpoints.

nexalacer:

Since it's been slow with the new podcasts as of late, I've started exploring some skeptical podcasts because I like science.  I dig the skeptoid podcasts a lot and highly recommend them.  There's very little blatant statism, they're short, and the guy has a dry sense of humor that isn't bad.

As for the point of this post, however, I wanted to talk about The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.  Now, this podcast has a LOT more information, as it runs about 80 minutes vs. the ~10 minutes of Skeptiod, however, it's got some call for more regulation (e.g. "There should be a law!") or some other such statist nonsense just about every episode.  I was considering going to it's forum to talk about this, and found a thread called "Skepticism of Libertarianism."  Of course, I, too, hate libertarianism, as it's known to most Americans, however, the points that I saw there were the kinds of things that a skeptical mind should destroy in a very short time, yet they were completely incapable of it.  (Of course, as there was 61 pages in that thread, I couldn't stand to read it all and I'm sure there were hundreds of fallacies, but I only saw things like "Corporations are force!"  "Taxation isn't theft because of the social contract!")

I enjoy both of those podcasts as well. Brian Dunning seems like a fairly libertarian kind of guy. I felt the same issues as you do with the SGU for a while, but I realized that when it comes to the kind of fraud they routinely discuss--kinoki footpads, homeopathy, anti-vaccination types, etcetera-- they're not calling for "regulation" in the same way someone else might call for "regulation" of markets, they're calling for basic protection from fraud based on scientific standards. It's no different from saying that car dealers shouldn't be allowed to sell you a car with the brakes cut without your knowledge or that a cook shouldn't secretly poison your food. It does stray into "there outta be a law" territory from time to time, and they aren't anarchists by any means, but these basic things aren't exactly hard to reconcile with voluntarism.

Regarding things like the "skepticism of libertarianism" thread, I honestly wouldn't bother trying to counter that kind of thing on such a forum. Topics like UFOs and psychics attract a much more mixed crowd than FDR does, and it shows. Even trying to tackle anarchism indirectly through topics like the estate tax, I've found that people there are snarky, closeminded, and downright unskeptical of their favored conclusions. Here's what I mean. Of course, my argument there didn't have anything like the force of the argument from morality, and the argument from morality might indeed make some headway, but even in the matter of simple facts the response I got looks like the other person didn't even read what I posted.

I love the irony.... people who argued that we need the state and it's police to protect us in this thread are arguing about never talking to (basically not trusting) the police in this thread....

Cognitive dissonence anyone?

Yes, it is an inevitable result of the axiom that the value of "family" exists independent of any specific actions by any specific family members...

" 

I've got to say that was a tough thread to read. For skeptics they sure seemed a lot like christians.

James T. Roy:

I've got to say that was a tough thread to read. For skeptics they sure seemed a lot like christians.

Some atheists/statists I've debated in the past do often make arguments that could just as well be xian if you replace gov'ment with god.

I invite any of you to come over to the SGU boards argue your anti-state positions. Whats-his-name didn't do so hot, so maybe someone else would like to take a turn? But please don't bother if logic offends you. Most of us give no quarter to the presumed or false premise.

"If the world is ours, it no longer attempts any force against us, but only with us. My selfishness has an interest in the liberation of the world, that it may become - my property." -Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own

In your opinion do you think that this post came across as a heartfelt and genuine invitation to a civil and intelligent debate?

bockman:

In your opinion do you think that this post came across as a heartfelt and genuine invitation to a civil and intelligent debate?

Are you asking me? Yes, that's what it is.

Nexalacer said "all violence is immoral," and then went on to simply offer a different form of coercive government as an alternative to the current state. Those two prongs pretty much popped his raft. I'm guessing some of you could do better, and I'd be fascinated to hear the arguments and proposals.

skidoo:

bockman:

In your opinion do you think that this post came across as a heartfelt and genuine invitation to a civil and intelligent debate?

Are you asking me? Yes, that's what it is.

Nexalacer said "all violence is immoral," and then went on to simply offer a different form of coercive government as an alternative to the current state. Those two prongs pretty much popped his raft. I'm guessing some of you could do better, and I'd be fascinated to hear the arguments and proposals

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it.  Yes, that question was for you.  Isn't it funny how I had quite a different reaction to your post, as opposed to the assertion that you're making now, which is that it was a heartfelt and genuine invitation to civil and intelligent debate? For example, you write:

Whats-his-name didn't do so hot, so maybe someone else would like to take a turn?

Maybe it's just me, but I for one try to learn the name of the person (or at least the screen name of the person) with whom I'm debating. Were I the person debating you, it certainly would make me pause for a moment when I was referred to as "what's his name". May I ask, what were you thinking when you referred to him in that manner?

Next you write:

But please don't bother if logic offends you. Most of us give no quarter to the presumed or false premise.

That's a tad snarky, don't you think? I have pretty thick skin, having debated dozens and dozens of people both on the Internet and in person, and I've seen a lot of different tactics and styles when it comes to discussing this issue. While I certainly wasn't offended, it does strike me as kind of insulting to presume that logic would offend anyone interested in this conversation.

I have to tell you in all honesty that I perused the thread of conversation and I feel that your characterizations of what Nexalacer wrote are in error. I know through my interactions on this board and in the chat room and I've never heard him offer up a substitute system of coercive government as being the solution to our current form of government (which is also based on coercion).   I haven't read every single post in that thread, however (and again, this is a generalized statement), I don't see anyone in this website saying "all violence is immoral".  What is often put forward as a truth statement is, "the initiation of the use of force is immoral."  I'd be very curious what your thoughts are on that truth assertion-- in fact knowing your opinion on that truth assertion could save us both reams of typing and time.

 Is the initiation of the use of force moral?

Thank you very much for coming over here and posting.  I'm a huge fan of the skeptics guide to the universe podcasts.

Dave