-3 votes

Analysis of the Anarchy debate with Block

Analysis of the Anarchy debate with Block

http://youtu.be/-hsKmqXy55E

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I am not sure how you can reply if you did

not understand the initial post.

1. Democide is the leading unnatural cause cause of death.

See how easy that is BILL3? What I did not do is come back and say well I mean death in this or that sense of term. I changed what I wrote because I do not have a problem saying ok, the premise as stated was invalid. It has now been restated. Let it be known the sense of the expression unnatural cause includes any sense used by a coroner:

"A death by natural causes, as recorded by coroners and on death certificates and associated documents, is one that is primarily attributed to an illness or an internal malfunction of the body not directly influenced by external forces."

Do you have any further objection to the validity of the first premise, Fact #1?

RE: Rummel is the one who re-coined the phrase democide and did the research, and he's not an anarchist.

That is some bullshit based on the way BILL3's brain works making illogical appeals to emotion because it is so irrelevant to the premise or any argument it's not funny.

RE: He concluded that democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not wage war against each other.

Which is a comparison to other forms of "government." It may very well be true democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and wage war against other democracies. Rummel wasn't the first one to develop a theory of like that birds of a feather flock together.

If a republic is a democracy then ... lol ... I do not need to go there because I do not give a crap about any argument over which form of the leading unnatural cause of death ought to be considered legitimate.

RE: "These democide deaths are from totalitarian regimes"

False. I am going to repeat your sentiment. "How did you not know that? Do you even think about the things you say, or do your facts just consist of whatever justifies your beliefs?"

Feel free to dispute data for "centi-kilo murderers" such as the United States:

"Table 13.1 presents the democide and associated sources, estimates, and calculations on the United States. I have separated the United States from the other centi-kilo murderers listed in table 14.1"
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM

RE: There is no comparison of democide to stable anarchy because there has never been stable anarchy

Let's think about proper application of the Socratic method for a moment. If there is no democide data to form a valid premise including anarchy then how can anarchy be eliminated as a hypothesis by comparison to civil war or other, other acts of democide, or claims of political violence? In order to eliminate something by way of the socratic method there must be a valid premise. It just shows the outright level of intellectual dishonesty the anarchist position must endure when engaging in debate.

RE: You haven't shown how anarchical power distribution would be stable.

I do not have to. Fact #2 stands unchallenged. If the distribution of current nation states, feudal systems, etc. are all stable there is an important distinction. It is a distinction validated by the American Revolution. A stateless society will be established by people who believe in a stateless society the same way the Articles of Confederation were established by people who believed in a federal voluntary system of non-coercive requisition.

The term stable means not likely to change or fail, firmly established. The Articles of Confederation were supplanted because a majority of people in a Confederation of States established by founders did not believe in a federal voluntary system of non-coercive requisition. You can not argue an extraordinary claim, such as a stateless society will fail because of people's opinions or beliefs external to any such society without extraordinary evidence. People's opinions or desire in the United States to see Korea fail is no basis for any rational argument about what may or may not happen in Korea.

My point is further amplified considering any libertarian strategy of geographical organization. If the result of any strategy results in being grossly outnumbered by people who do not believe in a voluntary society then it is very possible for the exact same thing which happened to the Articles of Confederation to happen to a stateless society. Hopefully any libertarian effort to geographically organize will take into consideration this important lesson of history and act accordingly by increasing concentration in a given region. The success of such a tactic has been well illustrated by constituents of Israel.

RE: It is arguable that the death toll was much higher than present democide

It appears your own side isn't in agreement:
"#1 Explain why Europe suffered under feudalism, which is close to anarchy ... "

What are democide statistics for feudalism compared to democracy?

Without further objection to Fact #1 as restated and Fact #2 which stands unchallenged, I rest my case both facts utterly destroy any conclusion of government based on the Socratic method by eliminating any hypothesis containing contradictions. Any such contradiction would hinder or prevent a long and happy life.

Amended fact claim: Democide

Amended fact claim:

Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.

False. Over 15,000 people died from auto accidents in 2010 in the United States. How many Americans were murdered by the US government outside of wars (none anyway, but that's the definition of democide).

Rummel is the one you're citing and the one who coined the term democide with this definition. Are you suggesting he chose limited government over anarchy because he thinks anarchy / no government would have fewer political killings, but prefers a moderate level of political killings? No, he isn't an anarchist presumably because he's considered the consequences likely on a political power vacuum to be a setting of warring factions organized in unlimited or totalitarian power structures, as actual political science would predict and history has shown.

I know the democide deaths are non limited, non democratic governments bceause that's what the person who coined democide in this definition and did the numbers-research said so, and just from common sense and basic knowledge of the world, that limited governments aren't committing democide and so the crimes of totalitarian regimes don't get to be applied to governments that aren't committing democide.

Democide is not the leading cause of unnatural deaths in America or Europe or even most countries in general.

There is no way to calculate the number of political deaths that would occur during the transition to an unstable power vacuum (anarchy) to a stable political condition. Probably 80% of the population or greater from economic collapse effects + direct deaths.

The reason the burden is on you to establish an argument for a STABLE ANARCHY is because in the absence a compelling case for this, with historical, empirical evidence along with theory, it is reasonable to assume that the level of political deaths would far exceed the average for all governments and be on par with the worst totalitarian regimes, and probably much higher.

RE: Amended Fact Claim

RE: False.

Untrue statement.

"According to Rummel, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century.[5][6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Source 5:

Democide

RE: Over 15,000 people died from auto accidents in 2010 in the United States. How many Americans were murdered by the US government outside of wars (none anyway, but that's the definition of democide).

That is argumentation based on the way BILL3's brain works. It has no bearing on democide or the statistics of democide. You can argue which form of the leading cause of unnatural death is less harmful until you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.

RE: Rummel is the one you're citing and the one who coined the term democide with this definition. Are you suggesting he chose limited government over anarchy because he thinks anarchy / no government would have fewer political killings, but prefers a moderate level of political killings? No, he isn't an anarchist presumably because he's considered the consequences likely on a political power vacuum to be a setting of warring factions organized in unlimited or totalitarian power structures, as actual political science would predict and history has shown.

All that do I think what Rummel thinks non-sense is just that, non-sense. It has no place in any Socratic debate because what one thinks another thinks has no merit or bearing on any truth.

RE: Democide is not the leading cause of unnatural deaths in America or Europe or even most countries in general.

Another irrelevant argument that does not change the fact democide is the leading cause of unnatural death. You can not argue the American empire is immune to totalitarianism. Nor can you claim because one country is less offending than another country democide is not the leading cause of unnatural death. How many people are imprisoned for victimless crime in the United States? Is imprisonment for victimless crime a contradiction to a long and happy life? Of course it is. Don't get too wet trying to use an irrelevant argument to disprove democide when further analysis of centi-kilo murderers like the United States will show less murder is offset by incarceration.

RE: There is no way to calculate

You better come up with a theory because no hypothesis can be eliminated using the Socratic method based on any premise which is impossible to form. Your problem is not my problem.

RE: The reason the burden is on you

I have no burden of proof when it is a fact the only real check on power is competition. All human devised schemes to limit power are artificial.

RE: in the absence a compelling case

In the absence of any compelling case one relies on observation. Does observation confirm or deny most people at any given time are engaged in acts of democide? Does observation confirm or deny most people at any given time are engaged in acts of gang warfare? Does observation confirm or deny at any given time most people are engaged in acts of violence? Does history confirm or deny at any given time most violence was committed by individual actors or government actors?

Your presumptions about causes of death are wholly unreasonable based on democide data, history, and observation.

As there has been no objection presented to falsify Fact #1 as restated and Fact #2 still stands unchallenged, I rest my case both facts utterly destroy any conclusion of government based on the Socratic method by eliminating any hypothesis containing contradictions. Any such contradiction would hinder or prevent a long and happy life.

Re:

I feel that I've won this debate by my unanimous consent, re: you speaking utter stupid crap, re: can't distinguish between different governments, re: no such thing as stable anarchy, so all human populations have government, re: different governments behave differently, re: most governments do not have democide rates higher than other non natural causes of death, re: Rummel understands this and doesn't advocate anarchy, since he also knows it would produce more democide, and he prefers less democide.

-Re

How you feel

does not falsify the following statement:

"... democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century.[5][6]"

Nor does constantly resorting to ad hominems. If that is how your side intends to win any Socratic debate, plan on losing.

We're not in the 20th

We're not in the 20th century, stop living in the past. All those killings are communism and nazi genocide. Outside of communism and attempts to suppress it, and nazi genocide, you don't see any democide. You don't even see democide rates like that in non democratic governments that weren't fighting over communism.

Democide wasn't the leading cause of death in the other 150 countries, which is why the guy who coined democide didn't draw any conclusions about government as such.

If you had anarchy, the next week you'd had political organizations fighting to establish control and to provide benefits for constituencies, and it would lead to some kind of state in short order. That new state might not be as democidal as Stalin or Mao, but those aren't typical examples. They are historical outliers.

People kill people, and they do it least under a limited government. Anarchy is just a starting condition, a crap shoot leading to power vacuum that is removed by a new government.

Since the vast majority of possible governments are not stable limited governments, then hitting reset to anarchy has a high odds of producing an unstable, non limited government. Your only hope would be to argue for stable anarchy, which you haven't.

Can you possibly be

any more intellectually dishonest?

Your statements:

"He concluded that democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not wage war against each other[3] (see Democratic peace theory). -wiki"

"Democide wasn't the leading cause of death in the other 150 countries, which is why the guy who coined democide didn't draw any conclusions about government as such."

In order to make any comparison between governments he established as fact democide is the leading cause of unnatural death. You do realize how silly your comment is?

You argue he did not draw any conclusion about government as such. Correct, he established democide is the leading cause of unnatural death as a VALID FACTUAL PREMISE IN ORDER TO DRAW A CONCLUSION comparing governments.

Premise: Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.<- this premise is what turns any conclusion into an ethical statement because unnatural death is associated with evil. Without this premise there can be no claim less democide is more ethical if government is a necessary evil because if evil is necessary it doesn't matter how much is required if it is for a greater good. In other words a little or lot of democide means nothing ethically if democide is for a greater good. (using your words here to point out how blaring the intellectual dishonesty is)

Premise: Governments A, B, and C have less democide than Governments D, E, and F.

Premise: Governments A, B, and C are type X whereas Governments D, E, and F are type Y.

Conclusion: Type X has less unnatural death than type Y or type X is better than type Y or type X is morally superior to type Y.

What you are trying to do is take an established fact:

Premise: Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.

And arbitrarily turn it into this:

Premise: Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Voluntary Society or whatever term you want to use is the leading cause of unnatural death.

Without any evidence, observation, or historic parallels comprising any data that can be compared to democide data.

Finally, if one wanted to expand the premises in any of those countries with less democide it can be done by including a comparison of incarceration rates, or other forms of persecution:

Premise: Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.
Premise: Governments A, B, and C have less democide than Governments D, E, and F.
Premise: Governments A, B, and C are type X whereas Governments D, E, and F are type Y.
Premise: Governments A, B, and C have ______ incarceration than Governments D, E, and F. (making any adjustment to the premise as dictated by data)

Conclusion: Type X has less democide and ______ incarceration than type Y. Both conditions, democide and incarceration, not leading to a long and happy life and the Socratic method demands removing any hypothesis with contradictions.

P.S. For shits and giggles while the heralds of truth are busy sounding trumpets over a battlefield comprised of your dead argument corpses:

What is the logic of "type X has less unnatural death than type Y or type X is better than type Y or type X is morally superior to type Y."

It is a NAND statement Q = NOT ( A AND B ).

Conclusion = NOT ( More democide AND Less democide ).

Huh ... where have we heard that before? Oh I know, my evictionism thread:

http://www.dailypaul.com/317712/evictionism

You're mistaken

While your amended fact claim is a good headline grabber, it is false.

Democide was, not is, the leading cause of unnatural death in some locales during parts of the 100 years called 20th century, due to a handful of mostly communist totalitarian regimes and the political repression attendant with their violent transformation of the property and religious institutions of society, and attendant to the suppression of communism itself, and to nazi genocide. That would be the accurate way to state the facts.

Democide was the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century may also be a true statement, but it is less informative than the above formulation.

The rest of what you said was incoherent gibberish and spurious inferences as usual.

roflol

Premise: Government is a necessary evil
Premise: Democide exists.
Premise: Democide is not evil when people are killed by government for a greater good than the ultimate value of a long and happy life.

You can't conclude only communist, totalitarian governments are bad without data including reasons people were killed by governments. You can not conclude if you have no data. The premises, data, and conclusions of democide are not presented in the manner you falsely claim.

This definition:

"Fourth, some may be uncomfortable with the use of the term murder when applied to the actions of a government. I am using this term descriptively in a well defined sense, as the intentional killing of an unarmed and nonphysically threatening person, or the responsibility for a person's death such that it is as though intended (as deaths from overwork and deprivation in forced labor camps or on plantations). This definition excludes combat deaths during war or military action, noncombatants that die as a by-product of military action, and excludes capital punishment for what would normally be capital crimes, such as murder."

Democide does not include any data to distinguish government murder for a greater good. Because we do not have data for all of the 21st century does little for your point because democide has been historically established as a leading cause of death, and democide + war = government is the greatest murderer in human history both are logical contradictions to a long and happy life. The Socratic method demands any hypothesis with a contradiction to be excluded.

It is not that you are just spewing bullshit, since you claim to be rational. Any rational entity that can apply logic or reason and spews the bullshit you are spewing must have an intention to obscure truth or deceive. Otherwise they would formulate premises and apply logic to reasoned conclusions. A rational person would eliminate any government hypothesis containing contradictions to a long and happy life.

The deception is conflating a partial truth, some locales, with pure opinion such as communist, totalitarian regimes. Hey everyone reading this thread gets it. You are a hypocrite. Statists are expected to be hypocrites. Libertarians do not expect anything less of statists than hypocrisy.

I didn't notice any fact claims in this comment

So I withhold comment.

I didn't notice any signs of intelligent life in this comment

So I withhold comment.

Alright Bill,

Not trying to change the subject for you(actually I am deliberately trying to change the subject, for as always this has turned into an argument about rhetoric and logic, and not about the substance of the disagreement) but I have a question.

Lets leave aside our disagreement about land property for now. The context of that disagreement was only relevant to the scenarios that you developed as a proof for the legitimacy of the state. That's not what matters here, and like we discussed last time, I think we both need a moment to digest and internalize those disagreements before we start fighting about them again.

My question is, What do you believe is so necessary about the predation of the state(which I will define as the institution that regards the laws which it claims to enforce on the its subjects with impunity... Ok maybe a little loaded, how about the institution that demands revenue in the form of compulsory taxation, who claims the authority to govern the behavior and actions of its subjects, and who has the a monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a given territory) that without it, we would not be able to organize society in a way where there is a rule of law, and an effective method of achieving justice with a predictable outcome?

Secondly, do you believe that it is just and therefore should be lawful to protect yourself against the use of force or coercion that would infringe upon your rights, with the use of force? Do you believe that it should be legitimate for someone else to protect you or your property with the use of force, whether it be because he was so inclined or his services were paid for, as long as he is doing so within the law?

Séamusín

My post

on the voluntary state shows how all of those things that you attribute to the state can be done voluntarily and historically American communities have formed around unanimous consent, constitutional laws. There may have been exceptions, departures and injustices, like the any system, and different levels of extreme situations can justify coercion for a common defense, but in general there's no reason a predation is necessary. People who don't want to contribute to public goods in a community should just not have access to them, and shouldn't enter the community if they aren't consenting to its norms. It's all laid out clearly in that other post. Rules and dues can be voluntary, by consent, and individuals not consenting or not part of any community can just receive no public goods/defense, as long as they leave others alone.

What if they want to defend, or contract their defense

In a way that is lawful amongst those people who are subject to the voluntary government?

I would like to also say that I wouldn't define government and the state as synonymous. The state relies on predation to exist. Its revenue source is stolen property. There is nothing voluntary about subservience under the state.

Yes early American communities had voluntary systems of law and law enforcement. Alot of them were centered around dispute resolution, and not public decree. Laws were not passed and enforced rather disputes were reconciled. Many times the mechanisms for enforcement were not funded through predation, but a matter of civic duty amongst the general population. This could be an example of government, but it is not how I would define the state.

In regards to public goods, lets say roads for example. If you were a business owner and you wanted there to be access to your establishment to be unrestricted, and there was no mechanism for this access to be subsidized by the community through predation, would you not create access and let it be available for public use?

I do not wish to live in any society that has no rule of law, or no predictable method of dispute resolution. My problem is not with government. It is with the state. The state is what corrupts government and incentivizes authoritarian control. When I first started following this logic about 7 years ago, I envisioned multiple distributed territory-less governments, existing in harmony with each other. That was before I started reading austrian economics. Still have alot to work out for myself, but I am convicted that forceful extraction of revenue through compulsory taxation is not moral, not utilitarian, and leads to authoritarianism as the law necessarily does not apply to.that institution who exacts revenue in this manner.

Séamusín

At a certain point it's just semantics

Anarchists use the word state equivocally, so it's better to avoid it. But the voluntary, NAP-confirming societies I've outlined in two posts would typically be called states by ancaps.

It's certainly possible for a single business owner to build a road to his location and let every other business and consumer free ride, but typically a private road would be toll roads to recoup the cost of the road for those using it, which seems fair and seems people would pay it.

With the exception of the land property dispute,

I would call your model voluntary; until, a property owner decides that he no longer consents to the rules and decides to no longer pay resources to the institution which is responsible for enforcing the rules.

In this case I would call the model voluntary IF that institution did not exact payment from he who no longer consents through use of coercive power.

I do not believe that states are a. Concerned with the rule of law and b. Willing to let the source of their income opt out voluntarily. If I had an example where states behaved this way, I might be more inclined to come down on their side.

Séamusín

Yes but its voluntary on standard NAP formulations

which have property definitions accepted by all post labor theory of value economics. They may be wrong, but they don't think so.

Disappointed in myself. My irrelevent reply title

Trivialized the rest of its content. You responded to my title. I would like you to respond to the content in the reply. Specifically the opt out part.

I apologize for making you do double work here. Lets assume that I subscribe to the same definition of property as your typical an/cap. Then reread the content my reply. Ignore the title.

What I am suggesting is that if a government is not willing to allow for secession and was not willing to respond only with a discontinuation of services provided, that it would not be voluntary.

Séamusín

That brings in just contract theory.

If a member voluntarily binds himself to contract stipulations that specify what enforcement penalty there is from breaking the contract term, then he is bound to that contract and the enforcement apparatus will enforce it/ On your view, people have to be prohibited from making voluntary contracts like that, presumably by some bigger agency that will impose its rules on voluntary contractual associations involving stipulations this bigger force agent/government considers wrong, despite it being voluntary. So you're moving outside of voluntarism into normative justice imposed by a state, when you prohibit people from binding themselves to certain contracts.

Two points of note

1. It is not rational to enter into such a demanding contract that you might not ever be able to break the contract for fear of violent retaliation. If that is the contract your society has entered into with each other, that's fine, who am I to get in there way. However, I would probably go for something more akin to cancelation of services, rather then threat of violence. Again, I would personally have no dispute with someone who entered into a contract like that, and wouldn't try to protect him from the consequences of his own foolish enterprises. I don't care with the guy who takes out a loan with a loan shark, I don't care about this guy.

2. We are not saying that laws don't exist. Just because there is no ultimate arbiter doesn't mean that the case could not be taken to court the same way that anyone could be taken to court now. The difference is that it is my view that private courts would be less likely to partial one way or another, as they would be competing against each other for impartiality.

In a free society, all the just laws that exist today, common, tort, contract would all be fairly the same. The difference is that the legislation wouldn't exist.

There does not need to be a bigger agency imposing its rules on on contract associations it believes its wrong, just as there does not need to be a bigger agency imposing its rules on murder, theft, fraud etc... There could be competitive agencies.

Séamusín

People agreed to Serfdom in

People agreed to Serfdom in the middle ages...

Ventura 2012

Sure, you could say that

Sure, you could say that people agreed to serfdom. The same way you could say the Jews agreed to be killed.

I read some of your posts. We don't seem to have the same view about history, specifically about the period after the roman empire collapsed. May I recommend Kenneth Harl, Phillip Daileader, and Norman Cantor. Harl is quite the authority on western civ from ancient Greece through Rome, Germanic and Viking raiders/settlers, and Byzantium and crusades. Norman Cantor's book "Civilization of the Middle Ages" is a really solid introduction to the period and at a minimum required reading for this discussion. Daileader takes a more west-Eurocentric approach to the dark ages(as a counter point to harp who includes Scandinavian and eastern European perspectives)

Is there any reading material you would recommend I read to further this discussion?

Séamusín

Sure

Read the links I linked to in my discussion with Tommy.

Comparing serfdom, especially in its early voluntary form, with Nazi Germany is dangerously close to accepting the communist view of scarcity/land owndership as theft, but I think that is what you more or less believe, right

Ventura 2012

Not remotely close.

You need the proper historical context to fit my discussion with bill3 into.

Could you at least link me the comment, so I don't have to work?

Séamusín

Ok because it sure seemed

Ok because it sure seemed like it...you wouldn't say peasants were like jews in germany would you?

I linked to a few articles in this discussion

http://www.dailypaul.com/318739#comment-3406676

Ventura 2012

No, i was just pointing out that the analogy was inadequate

When comparing a free people who are interested in creating a social organization whose roots are not in some conquest/usurpation or another to peasants in feudal Europe

Séamusín

The peasants weren't professional revolutionaries

but they were also concerned with obtaining as much material wealth and personal freedom to the extent that they derived utility from it as possible within the confines of scarcity. This is actually axiomatic in praxeology. I would give them more credit.

Also,

people today sign up for military service

and

people in the founding era sold themselves into indentured servitude

and

people in the ancient world sold themselves into slavery.

Ventura 2012

Also, very different circumstances than what is desceibed in the

OP.

Séamusín

1. If its not rational to

1. If its not rational to agree to contracts that allow physical arrest/trial/penalty/expulsion, then a person would never agree to such things in order to live in an ordered community. I would argue that millions of people would consider it very rational and do just that with a territorial force monopolist, just like they do now, rather than just hire a mercenary gang to defend them against all possible arrest or penalty. Sounds like what you're advocating is that everyone pays to have rambo protect them from any laws. But that's silly, not everyone can hire the Expendables... maybe a few wealthy elites could avoid submitting to some arrangement that allows enforcement of commonly accepted rules, even if only fines and expulsion rather than imprisonment or death, but that depends on the person, the conditions, how much they want security, and in any case, my example of NAP-conforming voluntary states didn't state any explicit punishment other than having to leave the defense of the community and its property, except in cases of direct aggression.

So your opinion that it's irrational is just your opinion, and considering that you in fact do abide by the law and choose to live in a communal defense system and pay taxes, rather than hire the Expendables and go to the Amazonian jungle to live without any coercive laws, is evidence that it is rational.

I read the rest of your comment, but honestly I just don't want to discuss this anymore.

Couldn't a small...

...nation somewhere voluntarily, methodically phase the state out of its various roles, peacefully, without a string of violence? Costa Rica, for example, while not stateless, has gotten by well enough without a military for several decades.

Some nations have been able to sway the morality of the people against slavery, without bloodshed -- William Wilberforce in England, for example. If the outlook of the people changed to recognize that it is abominable having a double standard for one person or group of people, excusing them from common decency and morality, versus everyone else who is expected to comply with such morality, then we could maybe also see a peaceful transition, under the right circumstances, to a stateless society.