Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 <<<Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill – through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices – some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly " bomb-throwers " of human history!> >> (from http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html) As pointed out by me recently with appropriate evidence supplied, the death rate from murder in stateless societies dwarfs that of American inner cities, and the death rate of war in stateless societies dwarfs that, in some cases by a factor of 30 or more, of Western society including the world wars. So his argument is bogus. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 In a message dated 1/22/04 12:01:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, slethnobotanist@... writes: > I saw your figures but I missed the part about the total numbers. I > seriously doubt that any stateless society or combination thereof killed > 200,000,000 men, women, and children within a 100 year span. But I'm > open for correction. You're using absolute figures; I'm using percentages. Of course a war between two bands numbering 2000 people each can't produce the deaths of 200 million people between each of them! But in some egalitarian, stateless, hunter-gatherer societies, the death from warfare rate is up to 60%, and the leading cause of death in most such societies is murder (otherwise it's warfare). On the contrary, in societies with states, or, rather, *Western* societies with states, that is, in liberal states, the death from warfare is miniscule, numbering about 1-2% of deaths, including the world wars. So there is no justification for the implication that states raise the death rate from either murder or warfare, and, in fact, they vastly decrease it. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 In a message dated 1/22/04 12:14:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, slethnobotanist@... writes: > I didn't understand him to being saying that, and in a brief review of > the article I still didn't understand him to be saying that. I did, but I'll follow your interpretation of it. > What I do understand him to be saying is that the argument, " it won't > work " as a stand alone argument is illegitimate. I don't think so. In order to advocate a type of societal organization, you must present one that is a) ethical and works. If this is impossible, you need one that does the latter and maximizes the former. A better argument against the " it won't work " argument is that, barring precognition, the anti-anarchist has no proof that it won't work. You can't prove a negative. The " it won't work " argument should be replaced with a question: " -how- will it work? " That argument has been > made on this list in several different forms. Most utilitarians, at > least those I am acquainted with, aren't interested in the other side of > the question. What's ethical is what works by their way of thinking. So > normative concerns versus normal concerns are just not part of the > picture. I agree with you here. Pragmatism is separate from ethics. I'm simply saying that *both* must be considered. The author seemed to me to be saying that ethics trumps pragmatism, and if one takes an ethical stand, one need not concern oneself with utility. > >If the state is unjustified, but it is necessary, then the point of its > lack > >of justification is moot. > Where in the article does he say that the state is necessary? I thought > he said it was unnecessary but most folks at this point in history > believe it is necessary, thus its existence. He doesn't. But he argues that one need not even ask the question of necessity. He makes no argument against the necessity of the state. I'm saying IF it is necessary then the ethics of anarchism simply cannot be fulfilled THEREFORE he must make some attempt to demonstrate how anarchism could work. Both articles were simply dismissive of the need for a state. > >Furthermore, if one refers to the state as a " necessary evil, " then > clearly > >one is passing both an ethical and utilitarian judgment upon it, justifying > it > >on utilitarian grounds, and opposing it on ethical grounds. > > Again where does he say that? There must be a subtle line of reasoning I > am missing. He doesn't. *I* say that, and, to my understanding, libertarians who are not anarchists say that. He's claiming that an anti-anarchist is failing on the ethical ground for supporting the state on the utilitarian ground, but if a non-anarchist libertarian actually believes the state to be a " necessary evil " then the author is essentially building a straw man, because such a libertarian would, in fact, be passing moral judgment against the state. > >I oppose any initiation of violence against person or property. I don't > see > >how those boundaries can be established without a collective agreement that > > >they will be respected. The claim that such a collective agreement > violates the > >principle of property is meritless, because there is effectively no > principle > >of property without that collective agreement. To claim that we cannot > make > >that collective agreement is essentially saying that we should collectively > > >*disagree* on the issue, in which case you've suddenly lost your grounds to > > >claim we can't make the collective agreement. > > I'm not following you here. Are you saying that the delineation of > boundaries for my person cannot be established without a *collective* > agreement > of respect for them? In *effect*, yes. I can recognize those boundaries and you can, but they are only protected to the extent that *everyone* recognizes them. It doesn't do you much good if *you* recognize the boundaries of your person if a criminal intent upon attacking you does not. > And help me to see the relation of this to the article. Is this your > defense against his criticism of minarchy? I didn't think he had much of one... I'm trying to sort out the implications of his article. He claims the state is inherently violent. But if the state is limited to the protection of property, person, and enforcement of contracts, as libertarians wish it to be, then the necessary implication is that the author believes there to be violence within such protection. IOW, he believes that a collective agreement to withold from violence or else suffer violence is violent in itself. If that's so, the only way to enact this ethical stance against violence, is to *allow* violence against person and property by those who do not respect person and property. > > >If moral opposition to the state and consideration of it as a necessary > evil > >makes one an anarchist, then I'm an anarchist. However, that's a > relatively > >absurd definition of anarchism, since a long line of philosophers have > >considered government a necessary evil, and I do believe Madison said > something to the > >effect, despite his participation in the formation of a government. > > Yes it is and no ancap holds to it. Ancaps consider a coercive state an > unnecessary evil. Then ancap has to demonstrate why it is unnecessary and convincing alternative forms of organization. I'm not saying ancap *hasn't* done that, and I suspect it has, but neither of the authors did so in the articles you posted, and they seemed to me to be dismissing the idea that one must do so. And the second author seemed to just be waxing poetic. Like going to the store and buying something is an act of anarchism. Well, fine, we're all anarchists then ;-) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 , > Now this an example of to much trimming. What was he saying or what were > you saying that he was saying? LOL! Sorry! I'd said: >The argument, I think, is rather senseless: he claims that support or >opposition to the state is an " ethical " consideration and not a " utilitarian " >consideration, as if you can't ask the question from both perspectives. Of *course* >you can ask the question from a ultilitarian perspective! Any question about >what " should " or " should not " occur can be asked on both ethical and pragmatic >grounds. It is useless to ask either without also asking the other. Then you'd written: >>I didn't understand him to being saying that, and in a brief review of >>the article I still didn't understand him to be saying that. My interpretation is based on the following passages: " To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will " work " (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or " can " be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. " and " Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, " anarchy won’t work " or is " impractical " or " unlikely to ever occur. " 1 The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified. " Furthermore, he claims that to support a state is to support aggression against " innocent victims " : " Other utilitarian replies like " but we need a state " do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims – i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. " .... which I find rather absurd, because libertarians advocate a state that exercises authority only against those who initiate violence, to prevent that violence from continuing, and to deter such violence. A libertarian does not allow a state that initiates violence against " innocent victims. " Furthermore, it seems at least *conceivable* that a state could be financed wholly on user fees, though I haven't bothered to work it out. Again, I haven't had a chance to read arguments of how an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to fulfill all the legitimate functions of the state or maintain acceptance of property rights and prevent or punish violence. They might be good arguments. But he seems to me to be dismissing the need for such arguments, which I strongly disagree with. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:47:39 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > ><<<Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the >very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for >political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative >analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill – through >wars, genocides, and other deadly practices – some 200,000,000 men, women, and >children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? >Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly " bomb-throwers " of human history!> >>> >(from http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html) > >As pointed out by me recently with appropriate evidence supplied, the death >rate from murder in stateless societies dwarfs that of American inner cities, >and the death rate of war in stateless societies dwarfs that, in some cases by >a factor of 30 or more, of Western society including the world wars. So his >argument is bogus. > >Chris > > I saw your figures but I missed the part about the total numbers. I seriously doubt that any stateless society or combination thereof killed 200,000,000 men, women, and children within a 100 year span. But I'm open for correction. If you take the 200,000,000 number and increase it by a factor of 30 that would be a spectacular to say the least, especially within a 100 year time span. As it is, if memory serves me well, I have a feeling he is not just talking about Western society. Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:16:09 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: >You're using absolute figures; I'm using percentages. Of course a war >between two bands numbering 2000 people each can't produce the deaths of 200 million >people between each of them! But in some egalitarian, stateless, >hunter-gatherer societies, the death from warfare rate is up to 60%, and the leading >cause of death in most such societies is murder (otherwise it's warfare). On the >contrary, in societies with states, or, rather, *Western* societies with >states, that is, in liberal states, the death from warfare is miniscule, numbering >about 1-2% of deaths, including the world wars. > >So there is no justification for the implication that states raise the death >rate from either murder or warfare, and, in fact, they vastly decrease it. In absolute terms most assuredly states raise the death rate. I think that is his point. Reading back through your original post I don't see any justification implying that he was saying otherwise. In absolute terms, states today are more deadly and can butcher a whole lot more people in a much shorter period of time than anything you mentioned. Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:31:48 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: >In a message dated 1/22/04 12:14:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, >slethnobotanist@... writes: > >> I didn't understand him to being saying that, and in a brief review of >> the article I still didn't understand him to be saying that. > >I did, but I'll follow your interpretation of it. > > Hey Now this an example of to much trimming. What was he saying or what were you saying that he was saying? LOL! Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 In a message dated 1/22/04 1:48:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, slethnobotanist@... writes: > In absolute terms most assuredly states raise the death rate. Isn't that a contradiction in itself? " Absolute terms " and " rate " ? The state allows population rise and a massive decrease in the death rate. The operative factor in the absolute numbers of deaths from warfare and murder is the population rise, which is counteracted enormously by the decrease in the murder/war death rate. So, the ultimate cause of the evil he attributes to the state is its effect on population growth, which essentially means that he considers the following two components to be evil: -- increasing the birth rate -- decreasing the death rate > In absolute terms, states today are more deadly and can butcher a whole > lot more people in a much shorter period of time than anything you > mentioned. Maybe, but at best, the argument can't back itself up, because we certainly can't extrapolate from non-statist figures that, with population numbers equal, non-state societies would kill less in warfare. The most generous thing to be said for the argument is that it's comparing apples and oranges. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Suze, Most of what you said is agreeable-- primarily, I agree that mandatory taxation is a form of agression, and I concede each point where that was considered, to the extent I claimed it wasn't. However, I have issues with a couple things you said: > >No, he didn't argue it wasn't necessary. He simply argued it was > >evil, and > >claimed its necessity need not be considered. > > LOL! The entire article is an argument against the necessity of the state > and its unjustified aggression. I think my comment here hardly deserves to be laughed at. Perhaps you are vastly more perceptive than I am, but I read the article, and still have no idea what his argument is, nor do I recall him making any coherent or supported argument against the necessity of the state. In my message to , I selected the passages and pasted them in my email that I believed supported by view that he considers the question of necessity to be irrelevant. If you could please either a) dispute that view, or, preferably, summarize in several sentences what you believe to be the crux of his argument against the necessity of the state, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm being serious. I have no idea what his argument against the necessity of the state is, and I didn't perceive him to even be making one. > i think it's more like an anti-abortionist who uses a morning after pill. I disagree. If we are considering " pregnancy " to be analagous to the initiation of violence, then a prohibition of violence and some means of enforcing said prohibition has as its purposes to 1) deter against violence (condom or other barrier) and 2) punish violence (morning after pill). Of course this a rather crude analogy to use for such a beautiful and miraculous process, but, nevertheless... If the pregnancy is analagous to violence, than an anti-abortionist, I guess, would be an absolute pacifist-- one who believes that violence is never justified, even in self-defense, or in the punishment of violence. It's true, then, that the anti-abortionist would be a hypocrite for using the pill, but the anti-abortionist position is not analogous to the libertarian position, because libertarianism opposes the *initiation* of force, not force per se. Now, you could have a state funded in a variety of ways, and it seems one way would be to allow an individual to opt out of taxation without receiving benefits. Thus, one could not pay taxes, but then would not obtain the services of the police department, would not be able to bring suits in the courts, etc. Although, perhaps that's essentially anarchism? In any case, my main problem with the essay is that he argues that one need not concern oneself with the necessity of the state. I *did* catch his " pessimism, " and I think it illustrates my point: " Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of " impracticality " that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about. " If that's true, then these discussions amount to pure intellectual games and nothing more. Real people have to make real goals in the real world. I'm open to being convinced that the State can be abolished, and frankly, I'd *rather* think that, but I'm certainly not going to be convinced by an article that says it doesn't matter whether the State can be abolished or not, because my support for it makes me ipso facto an immoral advocate of agression, regardless. That's a rather absurd argument coming from someone with the luxury of not caring about reality. Just because he resigns himself to " pessimism, " he can absolve himself of the need to recognize reality, and then cast moral judgment on those who recognize the existence of reality. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 had written: > >> In absolute terms most assuredly states raise the death rate. > And I responded: > Isn't that a contradiction in itself? " Absolute terms " and " rate " ? , It occurred to me that you may have been using " rate " to signify murder per time, which would be a rate, even though it is not the typically used rate, murder per unit of population per unit of time. Also, I think I was being unfair in my response to this article. The State is still responsible for the deaths, whether it prevents other deaths or not. You'd presented both articles, seemingly, in the context of the feasibility of anarchism, and that's what I was looking for in them, but the authors obviously weren't intending to write comprehensive tracts on the trappings of an anarchist society. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2004 Report Share Posted January 24, 2004 >Suze, > >Most of what you said is agreeable-- primarily, I agree that mandatory >taxation is a form of agression, and I concede each point where >that was considered, >to the extent I claimed it wasn't. k. > >However, I have issues with a couple things you said: > >> >No, he didn't argue it wasn't necessary. He simply argued it was >> >evil, and >> >claimed its necessity need not be considered. >> >> LOL! The entire article is an argument against the necessity of the state >> and its unjustified aggression. > >I think my comment here hardly deserves to be laughed at. Perhaps you are >vastly more perceptive than I am, but I read the article, and >still have no idea >what his argument is, nor do I recall him making any coherent or supported >argument against the necessity of the state. oh, sorry, i didn't in any way mean to be rude or condescending - i just thought that was a funny thing to say. listen, i'll tell you what - i honestly think we're both spending way too much time over analyzing a brief article that doesn't even begin to purport that it's a comprehensive defense of anarcho-capitalism. it's just one anarcho-capitalist's view on what it means (to him) to be an anarcho-capitalist. so i'm going to try to be very brief in my responses in the attempt to wind down the thread on this particular article. i do think the subject of anarchy vs. minarchy is interesting and worth considerable thought and discussion, i just don't think this one article deserves so much ink. in regards to kinsella's argument against the necessity of state and its unjustified aggression - basically, the guy makes clear from the very beginning that he's an anarchist, as the title tells us " what it means to be an anarcho-capitalist " . he's identifying himself as an anarchist, which, by definition is some who believes the state is an unnecessary aggressor. Then in the body of the article he goes on to defend anarchy. even the first line states " Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. " here, he's obviously setting up his defense of anarchy, but then he goes on in succeeding paras to explain how minarchists support aggression and anarchists don't (on ethical grounds). there are numerous passages i could quote to support this, but again, i don't see the purpose. if you re-read it i think you will see it. here's just one last line that hopefully makes it very clear in his summary: " After all, the state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified. " he's an anarchist, which we know is someone who believes the state is an unnecessary agressor and here he's saying the state is NOT legitimate and is, in fact, criminal. from all this (and many other passages i didn't quote), it seems clear to me that he's saying the state is an unnecessary aggressor. having said that...does he lay out a detailed argument as to WHY he thinks the state is an unneccessary aggressor? no - that's not the mission of this particular article. but i'm sure you can find more on that subject in the lew rockwell archives or elsewhere on the net. >> i think it's more like an anti-abortionist who uses a morning after pill. > >I disagree. If we are considering " pregnancy " to be analagous to the >initiation of violence, then a prohibition of violence and some >means of enforcing >said prohibition has as its purposes to 1) deter against violence >(condom or >other barrier) and 2) punish violence (morning after pill). Of >course this a >rather crude analogy to use for such a beautiful and miraculous >process, but, >nevertheless... If the pregnancy is analagous to violence, than an >anti-abortionist, I guess, would be an absolute pacifist-- one who >believes that violence is >never justified, even in self-defense, or in the punishment of violence. >It's true, then, that the anti-abortionist would be a hypocrite >for using the >pill, but the anti-abortionist position is not analogous to the >libertarian >position, because libertarianism opposes the *initiation* of >force, not force per >se. this would all be true IF the minarchist state didn't TAX it's citizenry, which is the unjustified aggression *initiated* against the populace. if it taxes it's citizenry (which is the scenario i was considering since it's the one the author discussed) then my analogy would fit better. > >Now, you could have a state funded in a variety of ways, ok, now you are getting into a whole new area and one that i think is interesting and i'd like to see more discussion on it. but it wasn't within the scope of this particular article, so i can't really comment on it vis-a-vis kinsella's article. > > " Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve >minarchy as we >are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is >striking is that almost every criticism of " impracticality " that minarchist >hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly >unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. >Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about. " > >If that's true, then these discussions amount to pure intellectual >games and >nothing more. Real people have to make real goals in the real world. hmmm...now why does that sound familiar? something about hydroponic tomatoes or something like that...<weg> i agree that his pessimistic viewpoint doesn't do much to help anyone who wants to actually strive for an anarchist system. i really think the only point of the article was " i support NO aggression vs. " a little " aggression and my choice is based on ethical grounds. whether or not anarchy or minarchy can ever be implemented (which i don't think either one can) - i simply can't support aggression. " that pretty much is the take home message that i got, no more, no less. in another post to michael you wrote: " You'd presented both articles, seemingly, in the context of the feasibility of anarchism, and that's what I was looking for in them, but the authors obviously weren't intending to write comprehensive tracts on the trappings of an anarchist society. " i think we're in agreement now! :-) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:31:48 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: >> >> I'm not following you here. Are you saying that the delineation of >> boundaries for my person cannot be established without a *collective* >> agreement >> of respect for them? > >In *effect*, yes. I can recognize those boundaries and you can, but they are >only protected to the extent that *everyone* recognizes them. It doesn't do >you much good if *you* recognize the boundaries of your person if a criminal >intent upon attacking you does not. Isn't that by definition what a criminal does? Criminals don't respect boundaries. That is what defense is all about. It is not dependent on whether a criminal recognizes such or not. If he doesn't, at least in my case, it won't do *him* much good. > >> And help me to see the relation of this to the article. Is this your >> defense against his criticism of minarchy? > >I didn't think he had much of one... I'm trying to sort out the implications >of his article. He claims the state is inherently violent. But if the state >is limited to the protection of property, person, and enforcement of >contracts, as libertarians wish it to be, then the necessary implication is that the >author believes there to be violence within such protection. IOW, he believes >that a collective agreement to withold from violence or else suffer violence is >violent in itself. If that's so, the only way to enact this ethical stance >against violence, is to *allow* violence against person and property by those >who do not respect person and property. I don't think so. *Taxation* by the state is inherently violent. The provision of the protection of property, person and the enforcement of contracts by the state occurs through taxation. If it occurs voluntarily then we are talking anarchism. I thought you might find the articles of interest. I didn't mean to suggest by any means that they were definitive. Abolish the FDA!! http://tinyurl.com/25nu8 " They told just the same, That just because a tyrant has the might By force of arms to murder men downright And burn down house and home and leave all flat They call the man a captain, just for that. But since an outlaw with his little band Cannot bring half such mischief on the land Or be the cause of so much harm and grief, He only earns the title of a thief. " --Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.