Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't even realize that we were having a debate. I'm just sharing a different perspective. I'm not trying to win an argument. I find anarchist viewpoints to be naive and willfully ignorant of human nature and you have not swayed my thinking one bit. I didn't think you were even trying to.
I don't know the full extent of your views, but from what I can gather, you are against all forms of government, but you haven't provided any type of alternative which could be realistically implemented. The odd thing is that you enjoy living in a system of government, but claim that you are fighting to change the system. I think that you just like to imagine that you are taking some type of meaningful action, when in reality you are affecting nothing.
Maybe I shouldn't have lumped you in, since I don't remember who I was talking to about what. I have provided an alternative, and I'm not fighting to change the system. I'm trying to help get rid of the idea that we need a system imposed on everyone.
Here's the quick rundown from a couple different angles:
1. I believe it's wrong to initiate force. If someone uses force against you or other non-violent people first, you can use force in retaliation to stop them (otherwise that would be pacifism), but it's not okay to bring violence into a peaceful situation. It's also wrong to violate people's property rights. Basically, don't hit and don't steal. Extending those basic principles out, that eliminates the state. The only thing that differentiates regular citizens and organizations from the state is that they aren't allowed to initiate force and the state is. That's what makes the state the state. It's a group that is given societal permission to do things that "normal" people aren't allowed to do. That's all anyone wants it for. So, since we can't support the state and be consistent with those 2 principles, we have to reject it and find alternatives.
The alternative is to allow people to organize themselves to solve problems voluntarily instead of forcing everyone into one system. If you look at countries today, they all operate under their own rules, but they coexist. Some work together as allies, some cause trouble, and others just mind their own business. They don't have a super one-world government forcing every country to follow the same set of rules. Each one decides for themselves how they're run, and if someone is causing trouble, they work together to stop them. Now apply that to individual people. It's the same thing on a smaller scale...everyone would be like their own country, and they could form alliances, protect each other, or whatever they decide they want to do. You could even join a government designed exactly the way it is now, but you'd be doing it voluntarily (and not forcing anyone else into it if they didn't consent).
2. I have 3 logical proofs that government authority can't possibly be legitimate:
a) You can't delegate a right that you don't have yourself. If I don't have the right to rob you, I can't just delegate that right to my friend John. It's still wrong for him to rob you. I could try to give that right to 100000 people and they still wouldn't have the right to rob you. So how did Congress get the right to tax, for example?
b) You can't have an obligation to do what you think is wrong. For example, if a Jewish family was running from the Nazis and were about to escape, but the Nazis ordered you and your friends to stop them, knowing that they would be killed, you don't have an obligation to do it just because the state told you to. You're actually doing the right thing by disobeying.
c) Legislation can't alter morality. If it's wrong to do something, the law is redundant. If it's okay to do something, the law is oppressive by trying to stop it. The law doesn't make a good act bad, or a bad act good.
However, people will claim that the citizens give the government the right to rule, that you're supposed to go against your own conscience if the authority figures order you to, and that breaking the law is wrong. None of those can be true.
I have a lot of other ways of looking at it too, but those were the ones that had an impact on me when I used to support government.
That's exactly what I think about people arguing for the state a lot of the time - sophists. I'll point out logically how it can't be legitimate, how they're contradicting themselves, how they aren't thinking rationally or scientifically, and I'll get an answer like "you may be right in theory, but it just wouldn't work in the real world". So I proved that they can't possibly be right using logic, and now they're changing the subject and trying to divert attention from their inconsistencies.
Your second line is a big red flag. When you try to use logic to find out the truth about something (philosophy), some will reject that logic by making it seem as if things are much too complex to be narrowed down to a "limited" black and white view. I think of a guy getting caught stealing and he tries to weasel his way out of it by redefining what theft really is, and trying to contort things in his favor.
Maybe I shouldn't have lumped you in, since I don't remember who I was talking to about what. I have provided an alternative, and I'm not fighting to change the system. I'm trying to help get rid of the idea that we need a system imposed on everyone.
Here's the quick rundown from a couple different angles:
1. I believe it's wrong to initiate force. If someone uses force against you or other non-violent people first, you can use force in retaliation to stop them (otherwise that would be pacifism), but it's not okay to bring violence into a peaceful situation. It's also wrong to violate people's property rights. Basically, don't hit and don't steal. Extending those basic principles out, that eliminates the state. The only thing that differentiates regular citizens and organizations from the state is that they aren't allowed to initiate force and the state is. That's what makes the state the state. It's a group that is given societal permission to do things that "normal" people aren't allowed to do. That's all anyone wants it for. So, since we can't support the state and be consistent with those 2 principles, we have to reject it and find alternatives.
The alternative is to allow people to organize themselves to solve problems voluntarily instead of forcing everyone into one system. If you look at countries today, they all operate under their own rules, but they coexist. Some work together as allies, some cause trouble, and others just mind their own business. They don't have a super one-world government forcing every country to follow the same set of rules. Each one decides for themselves how they're run, and if someone is causing trouble, they work together to stop them. Now apply that to individual people. It's the same thing on a smaller scale...everyone would be like their own country, and they could form alliances, protect each other, or whatever they decide they want to do. You could even join a government designed exactly the way it is now, but you'd be doing it voluntarily (and not forcing anyone else into it if they didn't consent).
2. I have 3 logical proofs that government authority can't possibly be legitimate:
a) You can't delegate a right that you don't have yourself. If I don't have the right to rob you, I can't just delegate that right to my friend John. It's still wrong for him to rob you. I could try to give that right to 100000 people and they still wouldn't have the right to rob you. So how did Congress get the right to tax, for example?
b) You can't have an obligation to do what you think is wrong. For example, if a Jewish family was running from the Nazis and were about to escape, but the Nazis ordered you and your friends to stop them, knowing that they would be killed, you don't have an obligation to do it just because the state told you to. You're actually doing the right thing by disobeying.
c) Legislation can't alter morality. If it's wrong to do something, the law is redundant. If it's okay to do something, the law is oppressive by trying to stop it. The law doesn't make a good act bad, or a bad act good.
However, people will claim that the citizens give the government the right to rule, that you're supposed to go against your own conscience if the authority figures order you to, and that breaking the law is wrong. None of those can be true.
I have a lot of other ways of looking at it too, but those were the ones that had an impact on me when I used to support government.
You're making an argument against authoritarianism, but you're pretending that your points apply to all government. I don't believe that the government should have unrestrained power or that we should be blindly obedient to the government, but I also don't believe that we should have no government.
It goes back to my initial post in this thread. From where does your right to own property come from? It comes from your fellow citizens via the power of the government. Don't believe that? Then if there was no government who would protect your claim to property? Could you just go stake out some land then claim it as yours? What if someone else claimed that land? Who would settle the dispute? You could get a private arbitrator, but what if the other party refuses. What if he decided to use lethal force to settle that claim? Maybe he has more people who support his claim than you do. Is he initiating force? You claimed property that he says is rightfully his. Who is in the right here? Who settles this? Force settles it. That's the bottom line.
Your philosophy ignores real situations that would inevitably arise, with claims to property being one of the most obvious examples.
It's nice to believe in a society where all people are moral and no one would want to gain power over others, but that's not a realistic worldview. Many people are deeply immoral and would not respect your personal or property rights. It's that way today, even with a government in place to met out punishment and to keep these types in line. It would be much worse without a government at all.
The libertarian movement is just starting to germinate. It had its resurgence in 2007, coinciding with Ron Paul's presidential campaign and the onset of the economic crisis, and has been growing steadily since. It's just that eight years is far too soon for any new movement to have an impact politically—the conventional way of thinking is still thoroughly entrenched, and it will take decades, if not generations, to change enough minds for a libertarian candidate to have a realistic chance at getting elected to the Presidency. I could not care less about the 2016 election. What's important is that more people are interested in libertarian ideas now than ever. It's not the Pauls who carry the movement, its the libertarian think tanks, journalists, teachers, and bloggers. And there are a hell of a lot more of us now than there were in 2007.
Last edited by ineedhelp253; 08-30-2015 at 10:43 PM..
Just have pity on me. It's a statist world. You've "won".
Forgive me if I choose not to have pity on you, that would be playing into the victim game.
I don't view these types of discussions as debates or 'winning' arguments. I would actually like to 'get somewhere' even if it means changing my mind. I would gladly change my mind if presented with new information, evidence, et cetera. Most of what has been presented here is based on circular reasoning, begging the question, or other logical fallacies, et cetera.
...
c) Legislation can't alter morality. If it's wrong to do something, the law is redundant. If it's okay to do something, the law is oppressive by trying to stop it. The law doesn't make a good act bad, or a bad act good.
...
You've most likely 'given up' on altering my morality although personally I think it would be a mistake to do so. Rationale persuasion (& sometimes leading to legislation) is always a possibility. Rationale persuasion can influence changes in feeling, thinking & behavior.
Legislation on labor (here in US) tended to change how people feel, think & act re: labor.
Legislation on immigration (here in US) tended to change how people feel, think & act re: immigration.
Legislation on business (here in US) tended to change how people feel, think & act about business.
Legislation on the institution of slavery (here in US) tended to change how people feel, think & act about slavery.
Civil Rights Legislation tended to change how people feel, think & act re: civil rights.
Legislation on sexuality (here in US) tended to change how people feel, think & act about sexuality.
... & so on.
Granted, all acts of rational persuasion are a 'work in progress' & tend to be an experiment of sorts on folks & how they think, feel, & act regarding particular issues.
You're making an argument against authoritarianism, but you're pretending that your points apply to all government. I don't believe that the government should have unrestrained power or that we should be blindly obedient to the government, but I also don't believe that we should have no government.
All government is authoritarian, but to differing degrees. Even the most minimalist government will order you to pay taxes and fund things you might not support.
Quote:
It goes back to my initial post in this thread. From where does your right to own property come from? It comes from your fellow citizens via the power of the government. Don't believe that? Then if there was no government who would protect your claim to property? Could you just go stake out some land then claim it as yours? What if someone else claimed that land? Who would settle the dispute? You could get a private arbitrator, but what if the other party refuses. What if he decided to use lethal force to settle that claim? Maybe he has more people who support his claim than you do. Is he initiating force? You claimed property that he says is rightfully his. Who is in the right here? Who settles this? Force settles it. That's the bottom line.
Government isn't necessary to uphold property rights. It actually ALWAYS, by its very nature, violates property rights, so it's kind of funny that we think of it as protecting them. As for how it could work without government, you could either defend it yourself, have agreements with neighbors/community, hire security, or have a third party organization help as you mentioned. Sometimes this is called a DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization). I'm in a little bit of a hurry, so I can explain that later...but if the other party refuses to comply, there are things that can be done. Force will always need to be used to defend yourself and your property, but it doesn't have to be a protection racket like the government. "Pay us for your protection...and you don't actually have a choice. We'll do bad things to you if you don't."
Quote:
Your philosophy ignores real situations that would inevitably arise, with claims to property being one of the most obvious examples.
It's nice to believe in a society where all people are moral and no one would want to gain power over others, but that's not a realistic worldview. Many people are deeply immoral and would not respect your personal or property rights. It's that way today, even with a government in place to met out punishment and to keep these types in line. It would be much worse without a government at all.
I think government creates a fast lane for bad people to ignore our rights, actually...but your point is a common one. Voluntaryists/Anarchists would say that human nature (although I don't necessarily believe there is such a thing) is a reason to be against government. It's circular logic to say "People are bad, so we need a government made up of people...are bad, so we need a government made up of people..." as if being elected and having a fancy ceremony makes people treat others better. It's the opposite, as power corrupts.
The libertarian movement is just starting to germinate. It had its resurgence in 2007, coinciding with Ron Paul's presidential campaign and the onset of the economic crisis, and has been growing steadily since. It's just that eight years is far too soon for any new movement to have an impact politically—the conventional way of thinking is still thoroughly entrenched, and it will take decades, if not generations, to change enough minds for a libertarian candidate to have a realistic chance at getting elected to the Presidency. I could not care less about the 2016 election. What's important is that more people are interested in libertarian ideas now than ever. It's not the Pauls who carry the movement, its the libertarian think tanks, journalists, teachers, and bloggers. And there are a hell of a lot more of us now than there were in 2007.
Part of it is Ron Paul, part of it is also frustration with government. By votes the Libertarian Party is bigger than it has been since 1980 but was that partially some far right fiscal conservatives who didn't want to vote Romney that maybe would have voted for Paul? The Libertarian Party isn't growing by a lot and still don't have any politicians in Washington or governorship of any of the 50 states but there are "little-l" libertarians like Rand Paul. I honestly think, they are the best bet if you want a libertarian voice in government. If you don't and don't vote, you are just catching yourself in a trap that you deal with the choice the rest of society made for you by voting whole you didn't.
Part of it is Ron Paul, part of it is also frustration with government. By votes the Libertarian Party is bigger than it has been since 1980 but was that partially some far right fiscal conservatives who didn't want to vote Romney that maybe would have voted for Paul? The Libertarian Party isn't growing by a lot and still don't have any politicians in Washington or governorship of any of the 50 states but there are "little-l" libertarians like Rand Paul. I honestly think, they are the best bet if you want a libertarian voice in government. If you don't and don't vote, you are just catching yourself in a trap that you deal with the choice the rest of society made for you by voting whole you didn't.
Another way of looking at it is that voting validates candidates that people don't actually support. If people keep voting, they can claim that the people are behind them when they're just voting for the lesser of two evils.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
