Is it still anarchists fault Ron Paul isn't winning?

[TheTexan]

You'd think with a decentralized (sort of) topography the internet could be hailed as a fine example of decentralization. Here is the list of tier one nodes.



Pretty short list eh? That is why I say the internet is centralized. The technology is there for true decentralization, but only the convenience of consolidating power. Along with the parent directives, the internet was created as vast data collection and dissemination tool. Think of all the function that have been consolidated and centralized under this decentralized technology.

Banking, Stock Trading, Education, Licensing, Ad Listings, Bookstore, Bulletin Board, Shopping, Job Searching, Photo Processing, Research, Social Interactions, TV Watching, News Aggregation...

The list goes on and on. All found in one convenient place called, the internet. Sure the technology is decentralized (sort of), but from day one everything we find to be valuable gets heaped into the bottomless pit. It's all out there a few clicks away. Centralized on one vast network. Data is as redundant on the internet as the connections between nodes.

The information is in effect all gathered in one place. As much as we'd like to believe that the internet is dispersed and not centralized. We cannot escape the fact that their exist a core that everything connects to. If that core goes down, the internet goes down. Of course the data is still there, but without the ability to move that data from point A to point B, the information becomes worth less.

That's a very narrow way to look at the infrastructure supporting the internet, for two reasons:

1) if any of those nodes went down, the internet would still function, just more slowly
2) you're equating long-distance route optimization with centralization, when in fact most of the internet's traffic is local

I also dispute this idea that having the internet at your fingertips makes it inherently centralized. The content of the internet is distributed across the world. Simply because you can access it instantaneously does not make it centralized.

I agree that we're headed in a dangerous direction as far as the centralization of the control of the infrastructure, but we're not there yet. The control of the internet may someday become centralized, but the content of the internet will never be.

 

[newbitech]

That's a very narrow way to look at the infrastructure supporting the internet, for two reasons:

1) if any of those nodes went down, the internet would still function, just more slowly
2) you're equating long-distance route optimization with centralization, when in fact most of the internet's traffic is local

I also dispute this idea that having the internet at your fingertips makes it inherently centralized. The content of the internet is distributed across the world. Simply because you can access it instantaneously does not make it centralized.

I agree that we're headed in a dangerous direction as far as the centralization of the control of the infrastructure, but we're not there yet. The control of the internet may someday become centralized, but the content of the internet will never be.

1.) it's not hardware failure that is the risk.
2.) cascade failure.

The control mechanism are widely distributed, but operate on the same set of core rules. Those rules are in the core. The core is closely monitored and guarded and there is no alternative to the core.

a brief on what I am talking about.

http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~hopper/lci_ccs_poster.pdf

 

[otherone]

I'd be interested in hearing how statist criminal law equates to justice. Were slave laws just? Are intellectual property laws just? Are cannabis laws just? Are seatbelt laws just? Is ObamaCare just? Are FDA laws just?

Yeah...the criminal justice system in America right now is pretty effed up. I was hoping you could provide for me a better alternative....

As for why refer to statists as statists, well aside from the obvious, I personally don't like to get distracted from the truth of things. I like to cut through the bullshit and get down to the barebones.

But why is it important that you label minarchists as statists? What is it about the word 'statist' that implies some additional significance?

 

[newbitech]

another interesting tidbit of data about the centralization of the internet.

For years, an extraordinary percent (over 90%) of queries reaching the roots have been invalid, and DITL data suggests that since
2007 the pollution has grown faster than the legitimate traffic.

I knew there were DNS problems. But over 90% pollution at the root? eesshh.. You'd think some of that pollution would be filtered because of the decentralized topography. The sad fact is, that pollution all flows in to the core. The reality is, the internet is a vast and large data collection machine. It aggregates and centralizes that information. It was designed for one purpose, to control the flow of information. It has been wildly successful.

http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2008/root_internet/root_internet.pdf

 

[BSWPaulsen]

It's refreshing to see a minarchist who is at least being intellectually honest, though I would raise some objections to some things you've said here.

I tend to agree that minarchists are generally influenced to one degree or another by utilitarian/consequentialist thought which certainly contributes to their advocacy of minarchy over anarchy. What I don't agree with is that minarchists hold the concept of justice in higher esteem than anarchists; as well, I don't see how you can accurately separate justice and NAP from one another.

Minarchists hold in higher regard the concept of the practical application of justice. Anarchists reject the idea of a state that would oversee law, punish offenders, resolve disputes, et al, and leave themselves a much harder task when it comes to realizing a valid solution that isn't arbitrary, left to the whims of any collective that arises, or just plainly non-existent.

The concept of justice extends from ethics and morality, which NAP is certainly concerned with. So, if anything, anarchists hold justice in the highest regard--so much so that they are willing to completely reject statism at any level due to the inherent injustice associated with it based on NAP-centric morality.

NAP-centric morality does not produce a workable system of justice, disavowing the monopoly of force required to execute the punishment of offenders. You cannot hold the suspects in crimes without violating the NAP due to the possibility they might be innocent.

Or maybe you can, and you want to explain it to myself. Are NAP advocates willing to just hope suspects hang around and willingly go to trial? Good luck with that.

I'd also say (and perhaps this what something of a point you were making) that not all minarchists are necessarily admitted consequentialists or moral subjectivists (though many are) who reject NAP. Rather, I find, that many minarchists like to advocate such things as NAP, and voluntaryist ideology in general, but they fail to be logically consistent in the applications and arguments.

You'll find many minarchists that generally advocate NAP with exceptions based on where it is deemed impractical to the alternatives. It has nothing to do with being concerned with pure philosophical thought, and is chiefly centered around the reality that humans are not uniformly logical or rational creatures.

I'll believe in NAP as the holy grail when the population of voluntaryists/anarchists can agree on a system of justice and see it enforced without, ironically, creating some sort of state.

 

[Cabal]

Minarchists hold in higher regard the concept of the practical application of justice. Anarchists reject the idea of a state that would oversee law, punish offenders, resolve disputes, et al, and leave themselves a much harder task when it comes to realizing a valid solution that isn't arbitrary, left to the whims of any collective that arises, or just plainly non-existent.

Even when you add the stipulation of 'practical application', I still don't see how the State is just in practice with anything, particularly criminal law. I'll concede that it is difficult to put in place a different practice of justice in place when the area of 'justice' is currently monopolized by the State. But there have been many feasible solutions proposed. Practicality would be a much more valid argument were other solutions allowed to be practiced, and succeed or fail. Until then, you can't really deem something impractical and then use practicality as a justification for statism.

NAP-centric morality does not produce a workable system of justice, disavowing the monopoly of force required to execute the punishment of offenders. You cannot hold the suspects in crimes without violating the NAP due to the possibility they might be innocent.

Since when is a monopoly of force required to realize punishment? Actually, you could hold suspects without violating NAP if said suspects had previously consented to some contractual agreement to be held for questioning should they become a suspect.

You'll find many minarchists that generally advocate NAP with exceptions based on where it is deemed impractical to the alternatives. It has nothing to do with being concerned with pure philosophical thought, and is chiefly centered around the reality that humans are not uniformly logical or rational creatures.

What part of NAP says that humans are always purely rational and logical?

Yeah...the criminal justice system in America right now is pretty effed up. I was hoping you could provide for me a better alternative....

But why is it important that you label minarchists as statists? What is it about the word 'statist' that implies some additional significance?

There have been a number of proposed alternatives that I became aware of when I was more inclined to argue from effect--of course they aren't much more than just thought experiments, for the most part, but this isn't a difficult subject to educate yourself on if you're interested in such. That being said, while I agree that alternative solutions would be needed (and thus would necessarily emerge), these days I don't really tend to bother with arguing from effect much because I feel that it distracts from the core issues. Quite frankly, I'm rather sick of hearing people attempt to justify the brutality of the State, for instance, simply because they lack the capacity to fathom how roads might be built without it. I'm not really all that interested (for the moment) in what is to be done with the slaves after they are freed; I just want to see them freed.

I've already explained why I personally refer to statists as statists, if it needed further explanation--in a nutshell, it's just a matter of truth. A statist is one who advocates the centralization of power and the monopoly of force--minarchists fall into this category, however supposedly broad it may be. I don't really care if you (general you) want a small state or a large state, you still want a state; thus you are a statist.

Small government, big government. Republican, democrat. Conservative, liberal. None of these labels really have much real distinction to me anymore. They all advocate the State, even if their menu of statist desires happen to be a bit different. Bread and circuses. Divide and conquer.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Even when you add the stipulation of 'practical application', I still don't see how the State is just in practice with anything, particularly criminal law. I'll concede that it is difficult to put in place a different practice of justice in place when the area of 'justice' is currently monopolized by the State. But there have been many feasible solutions proposed. Practicality would be a much more valid argument were other solutions allowed to be practiced, and succeed or fail. Until then, you can't really deem something impractical and then use practicality as a justification for statism.

You don't see how the state is just in practice with anything? Well, hell, with standards like that no wonder you'd much prefer to have no justice system. Catch and punish a murderer? Hell no, clearly that is unjust because the state did it!

I fully recognize the possibility for error within a state-run justice system, but the utilitarian gain far exceeds any proposed alternative. In this case, that would mean having a justice system is better than having none. Or one that exists in name only. Or one that exists only in your mind. Whichever suits you best.

These "solutions" you referred to are sheer fantasy in practice. Not a single one of them capable of being executed without violating NAP in some manner, because people will most definitely do their best to get out of being punished if it appears viable - that goes for both the innocent and guilty.

You're either going to get something that is a justice system in name only, or none at all so long as NAP is held as some inviolable concept. Period.

Since when is a monopoly of force required to realize punishment? Actually, you could hold suspects without violating NAP if said suspects had previously consented to some contractual agreement to be held for questioning should they become a suspect.

Theory and praxis. Theory and praxis...

The person would never opt in to the contractual agreement in the first place, knowing it would be of no benefit to them. Note that if they never opt in you can't detain them, and in the end you are screwed.

Any attempt to coerce them into the contractual agreement would violate NAP. Where is in the incentive? People form contracts with eachother when there is something to gain - there is nothing to gain there!

Your ideas flatly contradict what would happen in real life. These would be real life problems. Immediate ones - I know for a fact I sure as hell would not opt into something that I stand to gain more by staying out of. So would most people.

What part of NAP says that humans are always purely rational and logical?

Focus. Pay attention to the part where someone adhering to NAP has to execute justice against irrational and illogical individuals that will, at some point, violate the NAP for whatever reason, have to be found guilty, and then punished. Your entire morality precludes any effective means of pursuing this.

There have been a number of proposed alternatives that I became aware of when I was more inclined to argue from effect--of course they aren't much more than just thought experiments, for the most part, but this isn't a difficult subject to educate yourself on if you're interested in such. That being said, while I agree that alternative solutions would be needed (and thus would necessarily emerge), these days I don't really tend to bother with arguing from effect much because I feel that it distracts from the core issues. Quite frankly, I'm rather sick of hearing people attempt to justify the brutality of the State, for instance, simply because they lack the capacity to fathom how roads might be built without it. I'm not really all that interested (for the moment) in what is to be done with the slaves after they are freed; I just want to see them freed.

Yes, yes, tell me all about the brutality of the state in a minarchist vision. The horrors of a justice system! *Shudders*

Note that you're fully aware that what you've offered is tantamount to an intellectual game, not actual solutions.

I've already explained why I personally refer to statists as statists, if it needed further explanation--in a nutshell, it's just a matter of truth. A statist is one who advocates the centralization of power and the monopoly of force--minarchists fall into this category, however supposedly broad it may be. I don't really care if you (general you) want a small state or a large state, you still want a state; thus you are a statist.

Small government, big government. Republican, democrat. Conservative, liberal. None of these labels really have much real distinction to me anymore. They all advocate the State, even if their menu of statist desires happen to be a bit different. Bread and circuses. Divide and conquer.

Yes, yes. Minarchism is evil, anarchism is good. We're all out to get you. Booga booga booga.

 

[Xerographica]

Note that you're fully aware that what you've offered (and what I've seen other anarchists offer) is tantamount to an intellectual game, not actual solutions.

Speaking of actual solutions...I'd be interested in your critical analysis of pragmatarianism. Feel free to share your perspective in this thread so that the anarcho-capitalists won't accuse me of "derailing" their thread with my booga booga booga.

 

[Cabal]

You don't see how the state is just in practice with anything? Well, hell, with standards like that no wonder you'd much prefer to have no justice system. Catch and punish a murderer? Hell no, clearly that is unjust because the state did it!

...and those instances that do result in any real justice (if they exist at all) are surely anomalous at best.

I don't see how right action necessarily absolves the State of its abundance of wrong action. Also, since the State exists and operates by way of taxation which is, by definition, unjust it becomes rather difficult for the State to then somehow become just. Yes, the criminal 'justice' system holds murderers accountable; that same criminal 'justice' system also perpetrates an abundant amount of injustice as well.

You can spare the sarcastic hyperbole in the future.

I fully recognize the possibility for error within a state-run justice system, but the utilitarian gain far exceeds any proposed alternative. In this case, that would mean having a justice system is better than having none. Or one that exists in name only. Or one that exists only in your mind. Whichever suits you best.

I never argued that you didn't believe the utilitarian gain far exceeds proposed alternatives--a contributing factor to why you support the State (however minarchist), I suspect. In any case, I don't see how you can assume there would be no system of justice--however good or bad--without a State.

These "solutions" you referred to are sheer fantasy in practice. Not a single one of them capable of being executed without violating NAP in some manner, because people will most definitely do their best to get out of being punished if it appears viable - that goes for both the innocent and guilty.

Not necessarily. Many of them are just thought experiments at this point--I've already admitted and touched on this in previous posts which you apparently missed; however some of them have some examples of practical application in the past and even today. Nevertheless, again, it's somewhat difficult to test these concept and ideas when the State exists and effectively prevents many of them from being tested.

Analogous to what I speak of here, look at the internet. No one could really do anything with regard to the internet until the State released it from its exclusive grasp. Since then, however, it has evolved into something that most could not have even imagined at the time. Would you say that there could be no internet without the State simply because the State fully regulated and monopolized it? Apparently, that contention has been proven wrong with other things; so I don't see why justice could not be added to that list.

You're either going to get something that is a justice system in name only, or none at all so long as NAP is held as some inviolable concept. Period.

Just for clarification, I'm really not interested in baseless assertions.

The person would never opt in to the contractual agreement in the first place, knowing it would be of no benefit to them. Note that if they never opt in you can't detain them, and in the end you are screwed.

Again, not interested in baseless assertions. How do you know no one would ever develop a contract within a community that others within that community would find preferable? How can you determine what is perceived as beneficial to others? They don't have to opt in, but if opting in is a requisite to living within a particular community, they also won't be granted access to that community either. So, in the end, the community continues enjoying its way and others who do not agree with that way move on to other communities. But this is to be expected when you realize that valuation is subjective.

Any attempt to coerce them into the contractual agreement would violate NAP. Where is in the incentive? People form contracts with eachother when there is something to gain - there is nothing to gain there!

I'm truly sorry you cannot imagine civilization or society without the State; but your lack of capacity to imagine such a thing does not make such a thing impossible.

Your ideas flatly contradict what would happen in real life. These would be real life problems. Immediate ones - I know for a fact I sure as hell would not opt into something that I stand to gain more by staying out of. So would most people.

Presuming to know a future which may concern the individual preferences and actions of countless people in the absence of a State (a reality you have never known) is beyond arrogant.

But, if only the State can remedy 'real life problems' then shouldn't you be advocating big government, as opposed to a minarchist government?

Focus. Pay attention to the part where someone adhering to NAP has to execute justice against irrational and illogical individuals that will, at some point, violate the NAP for whatever reason, have to be found guilty, and then punished. Your entire morality precludes any effective means of pursuing this.

No, it doesn't. Again, NAP doesn't hold that force cannot be used; it merely says it should not be initiated. Defensive force is quite conducive with NAP, even if it is via a third party.

The horrors of a justice system!

Horror is a pretty fair description after even a cursory look at the statistics and realities of the current 'justice' system, to say nothing of other statist systems of 'justice'.

Yes, yes. Minarchism is evil, anarchism is good. We're all out to get you. Booga booga booga.

Pity. I thought you'd actually be worth engaging. Apparently that was expecting too much. Let me know when you're done acting like a buffoon; then perhaps we can continue our discussion.

 

[Revolution9]

I'd be interested in hearing how Justice could exist in the absence of Criminal Law, and how Criminal Law could exist without a de facto state.

As to the minarchy/staty deal, what purpose is served by saying minarchists are actually statists other than to imply they are cut from the same cloth as totalitarians? Why not simply refer to them as minarchists? What purpose does the term 'statist' serve?

It is a part of the backslapper contingent labeling paradigm for excoriation and inclusionary purposes. Kind of their own little government bureaucracy and entitlement system. They like illusions.

HTH
Rev9

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It is a part of the backslapper contingent labeling paradigm for excoriation and inclusionary purposes. Kind of their own little government bureaucracy and entitlement system. They like illusions.

HTH
Rev9

Missed ya, Sam.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I say no because the definition I chose has nothing to do with anarchism. Why? Because I believe anarchism is illogical and impossible outside of the individual self.

But this poses absolutely no problem, since according to your research, "[m]any things cannot logically exist, but they do." Your findings show that being illogical and impossible should pose no obstacle whatsoever to the success of the anarchist philosophy.

Even then, I believe anarchism is not even possible within the self from my experience, but I will leave room to believe that anything is possible with some individuals.

Of course anything is possible! That is, after all, what your research has shown. Even the impossible, such as the applying of a philosophy which is solely about inter-personal relationships, applying it in the absence of any interpersonal relationships, "within" a single individual. Applying the inapplicable is child's play when one wields the power of illogic.

I don't appreciate when people disrespect me by labeling me and trying to put me in a position to defend intellectual attacks that in of themselves fall short of their own standards and practices.

What I appreciate is that you defend illogic -- specifically, you defend the practice of holding mutually contradictory beliefs and you advocate the rejection of reason which is necessary to make that possible -- and then you attack anarchism for alleged illogicality! Such as attack is only possible, of course, because you have already rejected logic. Otherwise, to make such a claim you'd want to prove the claim using logic. Luckily, you have laid the groundwork and so you need do no such thing, for your conclusion is not based on logic but on other invisible and mysterious truth-uncovering devices or methods.

The apparent contradiction -- you are telling the anarchists that they are too rigidly and uncompromisingly logical, and also telling them that their philosophy is wrong because it is too illogical -- is no problem, because contradiction is no problem when logic (by which you mean reason) is not an absolute. If only we were more illogical we could stop being blinded to the other, deeper truths only discoverable via emotion and nonlogic. If only we were more logical we could realize we are failing to rigorously apply these deep truths you've found to our philosophy, truths which prove it to be wrong.

I don't know if you realize how strong your position is, newbitech. It's actually impregnable, invulnerable. One embracing illogic (e.g. you) can attack the logical for being illogical. The fact that his opponent is actually being logical, not illogical, is irrelevant. The illogicality of the attack is merely evidence of his stance and doesn't undermine his position at all. One embracing logic, however, is severely limited -- he can only attack the illogical for being illogical, he cannot attack the illogical for being logical, nor the logical for being logical, nor the logical for being illogical. He is thus at a severe disadvantage.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I don't see how right action necessarily absolves the State of its abundance of wrong action. Also, since the State exists and operates by way of taxation which is, by definition, unjust it becomes rather difficult for the State to then somehow become just. Yes, the criminal 'justice' system holds murderers accountable; that same criminal 'justice' system also perpetrates an abundant amount of injustice as well.

You do admit the state is capable of right action then, correct?

You backtracking to redact any notion it is possible in 3...2...1...

I never argued that you didn't believe the utilitarian gain far exceeds proposed alternatives--a contributing factor to why you support the State (however minarchist), I suspect. In any case, I don't see how you can assume there would be no system of justice--however good or bad--without a State.

There would be none that doesn't violate NAP in some fashion, thus invalidating any potential justice system that isn't hypocritical for an anarchist. That's the point - it undermines your entire morality to even institute one that would actually work.

Not necessarily. Many of them are just thought experiments at this point--I've already admitted and touched on this in previous posts which you apparently missed; however some of them have some examples of practical application in the past and even today. Nevertheless, again, it's somewhat difficult to test these concept and ideas when the State exists and effectively prevents many of them from being tested.

All of them are just thought experiments. Fin.

Apparently it's not a reasonable possibility that the ideas were examined and found wanting. Hell no, clearly it's just the state (that always just seems to pop up) getting in your way.

Analogous to what I speak of here, look at the internet. No one could really do anything with regard to the internet until the State released it from its exclusive grasp. Since then, however, it has evolved into something that most could not have even imagined at the time. Would you say that there could be no internet without the State simply because the State fully regulated and monopolized it? Apparently, that contention has been proven wrong with other things; so I don't see why justice could not be added to that list.

That's a terrible analogy. Now return to finding a justice system that doesn't violate NAP. Thanks.

Just for clarification, I'm really not interested in baseless assertions.

Contracts are based on mutual gain. There is nothing to gain from entering a contract that only surrenders your ability to evade whatever justice system others want to implement. NAP at work and all that, can't be forcing innocent individuals into contracts - afterall, the state does that.

It's not baseless. It's precisely what would happen in reality. I know you really, really hate to consider the possibility that things happen in real life, but they do.

Again, not interested in baseless assertions. How do you know no one would ever develop a contract within a community that others within that community would find preferable? How can you determine what is perceived as beneficial to others? They don't have to opt in, but if opting in is a requisite to living within a particular community, they also won't be granted access to that community either. So, in the end, the community continues enjoying its way and others who do not agree with that way move on to other communities. But this is to be expected when you realize that valuation is subjective.

...So collectivism can coerce individuals into accepting contracts even under NAP-centric morality by virtue of making their life significantly more inconvenient if they don't take the "offer". Fantastic. No coercion there at all.

I'm truly sorry you cannot imagine civilization or society without the State; but your lack of capacity to imagine such a thing does not make such a thing impossible.

I can imagine it, and it's an extremely unlikely occurrence even if you ignore the (obvious) problems like a lack of justice system if NAP is still the holy grail. Much like with communists you can play No True Scotsman fallacy all day long to defend your notion that, "Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't", but when we have thousands of years of human history to use in examining the possibility of actually getting a truly stateless society it becomes exponentially more doubtful.

I'm interested in the utilitarian aspect, not fantasies.

Presuming to know a future which may concern the individual preferences and actions of countless people in the absence of a State (a reality you have never known) is beyond arrogant.

Not really. Try living the human experience, it's an interesting ride. Try interacting with other people, you may find that there are most definitely a lot of individuals that fit precisely what I describe.

But, if only the State can remedy 'real life problems' then shouldn't you be advocating big government, as opposed to a minarchist government?

Do you want to figure out which fallacy this is? Well, actually there are two at work there, but still...

The State can remedy the justice system problem. It is the result of considering NAP generally good, but defective as an absolute in real life. Viewed from an axiological perspective that still leaves me well away from big government, even if on the statist side of things. I'm cool with that.

No, it doesn't. Again, NAP doesn't hold that force cannot be used; it merely says it should not be initiated. Defensive force is quite conducive with NAP, even if it is via a third party.

Get your head into the real world for a second. You don't always know exactly who initiated the aggression and have to prove it. NAP is going to get violated every time it's not a super-obvious solution. Which is a lot of the time, but hell...don't let reality bother you. It certainly hasn't yet.

Horror is a pretty fair description after even a cursory look at the statistics and realities of the current 'justice' system, to say nothing of other statist systems of 'justice'.

Sure thing boss. Firstly, criticism of the existing system (which isn't how a minarchist would have it, by the way, making it a strawman) still leaves you without a proposed solution. As usual, you don't have any. Secondly, it's better than no system at all as far as I'm concerned - that doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing, however.

Pity. I thought you'd actually be worth engaging. Apparently that was expecting too much. Let me know when you're done acting like a buffoon; then perhaps we can continue our discussion.

There's nothing to engage. I can boil down this waste of time thus:

You: Statism is bad regardless of circumstance, actual solutions are unnecessary. Ignoring common human behavior and circumstances is totally fine.

Me: Minarchism offers a solution that keeps in mind common human behavior and circumstances. NAP is not the holy grail, it just comes close.

We good? We seeing eye to eye? Great - now give me actual solutions or quit discussing the point. Hoping and wishing is not a solution, it's what children do. If you want to believe in pure philosophy somehow winning the day over human nature be my guest, but don't bother me with the nonsense.

 

[Cabal]

So... you're not done? Gotcha.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

But why is it important that you label minarchists as statists? What is it about the word 'statist' that implies some additional significance?

Because... they support the state? In supporting the state they support initiating threats of violence to fund monopoly provision of certain services. That is significant compared to someone who does not support initiating aggressive force against people to fund the provision of services they want and desires decentralized free market solutions.

The difference between these two positions are very significant.

Where do you draw the line between who you consider a statist? It's always "someone who wants more statism than me". Do you think most of the pro-government socialist types you might call "statists" would accept the term? Of course not, it's not like they're fascists, they just want to use the government to "give people more freedom" from a "dysfunctional market", the only difference is they give even less credit to the market than you do, and therefore seek out state-alternatives in more areas, in doing so they support the state more than you do.

If you support the state as a solution, you support statism, therefore you are: a statist. You can't be "a little bit statist" like you can't be "a little bit pregnant"... in the sense that there might be there might be different stages of pregnancy, but if you got a kid growing inside you, that's completely different than someone who doesn't. Minarchists hate the term because they view themselves as anti-state and don't want to consider the last bit of reluctant support as pro-statism (because it's "necessary due to only a minimal failure of the market"). This, along with problems with democracy and the constitution were things I had issues over trying to resolve when I considered myself a minarchist.

Minarchism is simply the least statist position possible before rejecting statism entirely.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

So... you're not done? Gotcha.

Unless you want to propose a solution that works, I am finished. Feel free to come up with something plausible, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Sam I am]

The best way to convert an Anarchist to a Minarchist is to give them anarchy

 

[noneedtoaggress]

The best way to convert an Anarchist a libertarian to a Minarchist socialist is to give them anarchy liberty.

cause the free market doesn't work.

 

[newbitech]

But this poses absolutely no problem, since according to your research, "[m]any things cannot logically exist, but they do." Your findings show that being illogical and impossible should pose no obstacle whatsoever to the success of the anarchist philosophy.

Of course anything is possible! That is, after all, what your research has shown. Even the impossible, such as the applying of a philosophy which is solely about inter-personal relationships, applying it in the absence of any interpersonal relationships, "within" a single individual. Applying the inapplicable is child's play when one wields the power of illogic.

What I appreciate is that you defend illogic -- specifically, you defend the practice of holding mutually contradictory beliefs and you advocate the rejection of reason which is necessary to make that possible -- and then you attack anarchism for alleged illogicality! Such as attack is only possible, of course, because you have already rejected logic. Otherwise, to make such a claim you'd want to prove the claim using logic. Luckily, you have laid the groundwork and so you need do no such thing, for your conclusion is not based on logic but on other invisible and mysterious truth-uncovering devices or methods.

The apparent contradiction -- you are telling the anarchists that they are too rigidly and uncompromisingly logical, and also telling them that their philosophy is wrong because it is too illogical -- is no problem, because contradiction is no problem when logic (by which you mean reason) is not an absolute. If only we were more illogical we could stop being blinded to the other, deeper truths only discoverable via emotion and nonlogic. If only we were more logical we could realize we are failing to rigorously apply these deep truths you've found to our philosophy, truths which prove it to be wrong.

I don't know if you realize how strong your position is, newbitech. It's actually impregnable, invulnerable. One embracing illogic (e.g. you) can attack the logical for being illogical. The fact that his opponent is actually being logical, not illogical, is irrelevant. The illogicality of the attack is merely evidence of his stance and doesn't undermine his position at all. One embracing logic, however, is severely limited -- he can only attack the illogical for being illogical, he cannot attack the illogical for being logical, nor the logical for being logical, nor the logical for being illogical. He is thus at a severe disadvantage.

Solid observation. Take a look at this chapter. http://wac.colostate.edu/books/ramage_argument/chapter2.pdf

and some select quotes to get us moving in the right direction.

Ironically, Plato’s stance toward the Sophists is articulated in a series of oratorical
set pieces in which he deploys a range of rhetorical practices that bear
an uncanny resemblance to the ones he charges against his adversaries.
To make matters worse, Plato’s practices are even less savory than those
promoted by some of his targets. In particular, Plato’s is a markedly
“asymmetrical” rhetoric, to borrow a term from Thomas Conley (6-7).

Plato’s genius lies not in his ability
to craft logically airtight arguments but rather in his unmatched ability to disguise his asymmetrical rhetoric as dialogue.

In contrast to Plato’s reliance on asymmetrical rhetoric, Protagoras is generally credited with developing a form of “antilogic” that renders
dialogue open-ended, allowing the beliefs (doxa) of each speaker to
play a role in the resolution of an issue.

By the way, here is the PDF for the entire book http://wac.colostate.edu/books/ramage_argument/argument.pdf

And a link to the source website, in case you wanted to check out the authors info. http://wac.colostate.edu/books/ramage_argument/

and a link to the series of books. http://wac.colostate.edu/books/reference_guides.cfm

 

[ProIndividual]

Me: Minarchism offers a solution that keeps in mind common human behavior and circumstances. NAP is not the holy grail, it just comes close.

I agree...but I'm an anarchist. Read my thread on NAP, Utilitarianism, and Natural Law. I endeavor to show both NAP and utility fail to limit coercion in every circumstance. I also try to show that deontonlogical and consequentialist ethics fail to accurately predict human behavior in different conditions. I also try and explain why both are apllicable in the same cases sometimes, one or the other is applicable other times, but at no time does practicality make something moral or lawful (according to natural law).

My conclusion is at the end of the post, but in short it's that the state is still a criminal operation and must not go unpunished or unrecognized as such. The fact extortion or theft can have better outcomes than not aggressing, in extreme situations, doesn't logically mean that it ceases to be a criminal act. What it means is that corroborating and mitigating circumstances must be taken into account in sentencing of this crime once prosecuted (via a private legal system under panarchism - an anarchist legal order - obviously), leading to different renumerative and retributive (if any) penalties given the specific case by case circumstances.