SOCAL's Razor

[carlfense]

 

I believe knapplc is just showing that simply repeating something like "anarchy is hippopotamus applesauce" or "coercive monopoly based on theft and violence" does not make them true. There's certainly a dearth of facts in this discussion. Much circular logic . . . many appeals to authority . . . but little in the way of facts.

Are you implying that government is not a coercive monopoly based on theft and violence? If so, how would you define it? Is it voluntary? How is it funded?

 

Also, can you give a few examples of the "much circular logic" in this discussion and what you deem to be " many appeals to authority?"

 

I'll just address two of those because I've been down this road with you before. I know exactly where it goes.

 

appeal to authority: Linking lengthy Rothbard articles or whichever Austrian economist you are currently trumpeting. (As in . . . it's true because this verbose online essay claims that it's true!)

 

circular logic: Government is a coercive monopoly based on theft and violence because government is a coercive monopoly based on theft and violence. (No facts . . . just repetition. Don't forget to sprinkle in a "how could you deny this?" for good measure.)

 

Anyways. Have fun.

[Husker_x]

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

[carlfense]

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

 

Let me guess at an answer:

 

Absolutely it should be legal if you mean the question in the sense of should a coercive and violent monopoly prohibit by force something that is the individual's natural right.

 

However, in an anarcho-capitalist society there is natural law. This should not be confused with an absence of law. Natural law essentially means that you can't initiate violence against anyone else and what you own as an individual is yours absolutely.

 

Therefore, because the only purpose for a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence, no one in an anarcho-capitalist society would ever WANT to create a nuclear weapon. Everyone would be too busy prospering and increasing their market share to worry about a silly nuke. Why would anyone need or want a nuke if the very existence of natural law EXPRESSY PROHIBITS the initiation of violence or the destruction of another's property? Of course if someone did try to make a nuke, you, as a prosperous young Rand-ian, could hire the local law enforcement franchise to prevent the use of said weapon against someone else. Now of course, the private law enforcement franchise can't actually act against the nuke manufacturer because natural law prevents the interference with another individual. Still with me? (Not to mention the fact that violence is solely a product of government. Who else would even want a nuclear weapon? What could they possibly gain with it?)

 

:moreinteresting

[Enhance]

 

You're not trying to understand anything. You're backpedaling furiously because you have no way of showing that your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is even remotely viable, so your whole argument has devolved into dickering over the reality of something as unreal as an analogy.

Backpedaling? Dickering? If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who tried to pass the analogy off as proof that without the state everything would be a monopoly, and a coercive one at that. And now that your stank has been shown as the BS it really is, you're resorting to non-arguments and diversion tactics.

 

No matter how many different ways you spell it, excuses you make to cover for it, or myths and lies you concoct to shield it; it is never ok, beneficial or moral to initiate theft and violence as a means to one's ends. And since this is true, there is no rational, moral or beneficial reason to advocate or support government. Doing so only proves how inhumane, illogical, irrational, narcissistic and truly psychotic some individual's truly are, and is merely another reason why there should never exist a tool that enables those type of people to control and rule others.

 

Because you intentionally misrepresent my stance doesn't make it my stance, any more than hippopotamus applesauce becomes your stance the more I repeat it.

 

Government isn't perfect, and nobody ever said it was. It's simply a tool, like a shovel, that does a job. How well it does its job depends on those using it. Shovels, like government, can be misused and even used violently. That doesn't make the shovel an inherently violent tool, and that's where you continue to - willfully - misunderstand. Because you refuse to see another point of view doesn't make that point of view wrong. Because you refuse to concede that an analogy can be representative without being a 1:1 comparison doesn't make that analogy incorrect. Analogies, like government, aren't perfect.

 

Your position is that, because government can be misused, it should be abolished. You ignore the fact that anarchism can also be misused, as if that somehow makes it a better societal model. As I've maintained this whole time, ANY societal model can be misused. Because there are no examples of the kind of society you're talking about, you pretend that it would be some utopia, when, as you've already conceded, avarice negates that utopia completely.

/thread. Nice post.

[Husker_x]

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

 

Let me guess at an answer:

 

Absolutely it should be legal if you mean the question in the sense of should a coercive and violent monopoly prohibit by force something that is the individual's natural right.

 

However, in an anarcho-capitalist society there is natural law. This should not be confused with an absence of law. Natural law essentially means that you can't initiate violence against anyone else and what you own as an individual is yours absolutely.

 

Therefore, because the only purpose for a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence, no one in an anarcho-capitalist society would ever WANT to create a nuclear weapon. Everyone would be too busy prospering and increasing their market share to worry about a silly nuke. Why would anyone need or want a nuke if the very existence of natural law EXPRESSY PROHIBITS the initiation of violence or the destruction of another's property? Of course if someone did try to make a nuke, you, as a prosperous young Rand-ian, could hire the local law enforcement franchise to prevent the use of said weapon against someone else. Now of course, the private law enforcement franchise can't actually act against the nuke manufacturer because natural law prevents the interference with another individual. Still with me? (Not to mention the fact that violence is solely a product of government. Who else would even want a nuclear weapon? What could they possibly gain with it?)

 

:moreinteresting

 

Well...I suppose that's one answer.

[SOCALHUSKER]

No it doesn't. It is by DEFINITION a "coercive monopoly." It is funded by theft, it is not voluntary, it does not allow competition. Simply put, a coercive monopoly, that is not my point of view, those are facts.

Yes, it does. I voluntarily pay my taxes. See? Voluntary. What you espouse is a point of view.

Really? Can you choose not to pay them? If you don't, what happens?

The same thing that happens if I choose not to pay for the food I eat at a restaurant. Dine and Dash

Except that in the case of dine and dash, you also have the option of choosing where you eat or even not eating out at all. With government you can neither choose your services nor elect not to participate. Therefore, your comparision lacks serious relevancy because you're comparing a voluntary transaction to one that is not voluntary. There's a huge difference.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Because you intentionally misrepresent my stance doesn't make it my stance, any more than hippopotamus applesauce becomes your stance the more I repeat it.

You support government. Government is a monopoly on theft and violence. Just because you repeat that it is not does not change the fatc that it is.

 

Government isn't perfect, and nobody ever said it was. It's simply a tool, like a shovel, that does a job. How well it does its job depends on those using it. Shovels, like government, can be misused and even used violently. That doesn't make the shovel an inherently violent tool, and that's where you continue to - willfully - misunderstand. Because you refuse to see another point of view doesn't make that point of view wrong. Because you refuse to concede that an analogy can be representative without being a 1:1 comparison doesn't make that analogy incorrect. Analogies, like government, aren't perfect.

Nobody said that anarchy is perfect either, but rather that it is non-contradictory, fair and moral. That is a far cry from a system that is contradictory, unjust and immoral. And once again comparing a shovel, or any other tool, to government is completely irrelavent. Sure, they are both tools that can be used for violence, but the difference is that one can only exist through theft and violence, the other does not require theft and violence to exist.

 

Your position is that, because government can be misused, it should be abolished. You ignore the fact that anarchism can also be misused, as if that somehow makes it a better societal model. As I've maintained this whole time, ANY societal model can be misused. Because there are no examples of the kind of society you're talking about, you pretend that it would be some utopia, when, as you've already conceded, avarice negates that utopia completely.

Not that it CAN be misused, for that's a gross understatement, but rather that in order for it to even EXIST, theft and violence must occur. A government cannot exist without stealing from and initiating violence against individuals in a certain geographical area. There's a huge difference between that an a system that relies solely on voluntary and mutual consent.

[knapplc]

Here's the thing, SOCAL, we're never going to agree on even the basic definitions of this conversation. I just don't see where you're coming from, and you don't see where I'm coming from. So let's.... so let's... just let this.... go..... HHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNH!!!!!! ghhhhhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhuhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Husker_x]

I still want my nuke question answered.

 

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

[carlfense]

Here's the thing, SOCAL, we're never going to agree on even the basic definitions of this conversation. I just don't see where you're coming from, and you don't see where I'm coming from. So let's.... so let's... just let this.... go..... HHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNH!!!!!! ghhhhhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhuhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

The death of knapplc?

[Husker_x]

That or he took a massive sh#t.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

 

Let me guess at an answer:

 

Absolutely it should be legal if you mean the question in the sense of should a coercive and violent monopoly prohibit by force something that is the individual's natural right.

 

However, in an anarcho-capitalist society there is natural law. This should not be confused with an absence of law. Natural law essentially means that you can't initiate violence against anyone else and what you own as an individual is yours absolutely.

 

Therefore, because the only purpose for a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence, no one in an anarcho-capitalist society would ever WANT to create a nuclear weapon. Everyone would be too busy prospering and increasing their market share to worry about a silly nuke. Why would anyone need or want a nuke if the very existence of natural law EXPRESSY PROHIBITS the initiation of violence or the destruction of another's property? Of course if someone did try to make a nuke, you, as a prosperous young Rand-ian, could hire the local law enforcement franchise to prevent the use of said weapon against someone else. Now of course, the private law enforcement franchise can't actually act against the nuke manufacturer because natural law prevents the interference with another individual. Still with me? (Not to mention the fact that violence is solely a product of government. Who else would even want a nuclear weapon? What could they possibly gain with it?)

 

:moreinteresting

@ HuskerX,

 

As long as a person does not initiate theft or violence against another individual or their property they can do, sell, purchase, or manufacture whatever it is they desire. However, besides the obvious cost, knowledge and resources involved in the research and manufacture of nuclear weapons what good or advantage could any individual possibly gain from owning one since he has no right or means of stopping other individuals from creating, purchasing or manufacturing the same thing? Do you expect me, or any one else, to believe that only one person in the entire world can own, sell, or maufacture nuclear weapons?

 

And though carlfense attempts to sarcastically portrays a free society as one lacking violence and blatantly misconstrues my viewpoint that violence is solely a product of government (though all governments do exist on theft and violence), what he implies could not be further from the truth. Anarchism acknowledges that individuals do act irrational and it is for precisely that reason that no individual, or group of individuals, should ever be given control of an organization that claims to have monopoly power on violence or justice. Does he truly believe that a piece of paper and the good will of all the people, including all the irrational ones, is really going to stop an truly irrational person from gaining power and using it as he sees fit? No law is ever going to stop an irrational person from acting, but in many cases it sure will prevent rational individuals from acting in their own best interest.

 

And who said that the sole purpose of a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence? Could it not be used for defensive or retalitory purposes?

 

Also, how can someone own something, yet not own it absolutely?

 

Lastly, is initiating violence against others the only way to solve a dispute?

[carlfense]

***snip***

And though carlfense attempts to sarcastically portrays a free society as one lacking violence and blatantly misconstrues my viewpoint that violence is solely a product of government (though all governments do exist on theft and violence), what he implies could not be further from the truth. Anarchism acknowledges that individuals do act irrational and it is for precisely that reason that no individual, or group of individuals, should ever be given control of an organization that claims to have monopoly power on violence or justice. Does he truly believe that a piece of paper and the good will of all the people, including all the irrational ones, is really going to stop an truly irrational person from gaining power and using it as he sees fit? No law is ever going to stop an irrational person from acting, but in many cases it sure will prevent rational individuals from acting in their own best interest.

***snip***

hmmmm.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Here's the thing, SOCAL, we're never going to agree on even the basic definitions of this conversation. I just don't see where you're coming from, and you don't see where I'm coming from. So let's.... so let's... just let this.... go..... HHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNH!!!!!! ghhhhhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhuhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,

PPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUU!!

 

Well, let's hash this out and start at square 1.

 

What is your definition of government?

 

What is your definition of voluntary?

 

What is your definition of monopoly?

 

What is your definition of coercive?

 

What is your definition of rights?

 

What is your definition of property?

 

What is your defintion of theft?

 

What is your defintion of violence?

 

And any definition you seek of me, shoot!!

[SOCALHUSKER]

***snip***

And though carlfense attempts to sarcastically portrays a free society as one lacking violence and blatantly misconstrues my viewpoint that violence is solely a product of government (though all governments do exist on theft and violence), what he implies could not be further from the truth. Anarchism acknowledges that individuals do act irrational and it is for precisely that reason that no individual, or group of individuals, should ever be given control of an organization that claims to have monopoly power on violence or justice. Does he truly believe that a piece of paper and the good will of all the people, including all the irrational ones, is really going to stop an truly irrational person from gaining power and using it as he sees fit? No law is ever going to stop an irrational person from acting, but in many cases it sure will prevent rational individuals from acting in their own best interest.

***snip***

hmmmm.

Was I wrong?