Anarchism

[Arkolon]

Anarchism is more absurd then claiming one's self to be a 400 foot tall purple platypus bear with pink horns and silver wings.

I also find anarchism to be a silly ideology, but saying that is not a good way to explain why anarchism is a bad thing.

It would be more effective in general if all arguments against anarchism actually stood true.

[The Scientific States]

I also find anarchism to be a silly ideology, but saying that is not a good way to explain why anarchism is a bad thing.

It would be more effective in general if all arguments against anarchism actually stood true.

I don't see how arguments such as, "how would the poor receive any sort of benefits", "how would legal systems function" and the like don't stand true.

[Arkolon]

It would be more effective in general if all arguments against anarchism actually stood true.

I don't see how arguments such as, "how would the poor receive any sort of benefits", "how would legal systems function" and the like don't stand true.

Usually people learn a little bit about anarchism before throwing out arguments similar to "but who will build the roads?", but OK. The poor wouldn't need benefits (it seems as if you never even read the PDF I linked you to), and you seriously just need to type Murray Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism into your search bar to spare me from copying and pasting from three- to four-hundred years of anarchist thought.

[The Scientific States]

I don't see how arguments such as, "how would the poor receive any sort of benefits", "how would legal systems function" and the like don't stand true.

Usually people learn a little bit about anarchism before throwing out arguments similar to "but who will build the roads?", but OK. The poor wouldn't need benefits (it seems as if you never even read the PDF I linked you to), and you seriously just need to type Murray Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism into your search bar to spare me from copying and pasting from three- to four-hundred years of anarchist thought.

Every time I ask you these questions, it seems as if you want me to read giant PDFs. You seem to be quite knowledgable on anarchism, Minarchsim, and the like, so I do believe that you could explain it to me. That's how debate works, when people debate, most of the time someone debating doesn't just say "I understand your point, here's a 200 page PDF."

[Zottistan]

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

I don't see anything about coercion, and I've never heard before that a state was characterized by the coercive monopoly of violence.

My point seems to have been misunderstood. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to an institution with a monopoly on force, but others, namely myself and the voluntary statist stripe of voluntaryist pseudo-anarchism (even I don't pretend to be an anarchist), are opposed to any institution with a coercive monopoly on force. You should also search Wikipedia for what a coercive monopoly is, and you should notice that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence.

Minarchism isn't anarchism, though, and whether all modern states are coercive or not, coercion is not a defining characteristic for statehood.

[Sociobiology]

sounds like no true scotsman combines with moving the goal post, what exactly is the difference between a monopoly on force and a coercive monopoly on force.

here

so there is no difference, in fact thats exactly what the anarchist system described would do.

[Sociobiology]

My point seems to have been misunderstood. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to an institution with a monopoly on force, but others, namely myself and the voluntary statist stripe of voluntaryist pseudo-anarchism (even I don't pretend to be an anarchist), are opposed to any institution with a coercive monopoly on force. You should also search Wikipedia for what a coercive monopoly is, and you should notice that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence.

Minarchism isn't anarchism, though, and whether all modern states are coercive or not, coercion is not a defining characteristic for statehood.

although it might be a defining characteristic of society.

[Atlanticatia]

My opposition to anarchism is that both negative liberties and positive liberties are equally important, and neither are absolute. Compromise is necessary to respect both types of liberties. Social democracy is the structure that is needed for a society that respects people's' positive and negative liberties, and achieve social justice. Anarchism is incompatible with social justice, social democracy, and it does not respect positive liberty. In order to fully respect positive liberty and advance social justice, a structured and supportive society is needed - to ensure both liberty and rights.

[Arkolon]

My point seems to have been misunderstood. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to an institution with a monopoly on force, but others, namely myself and the voluntary statist stripe of voluntaryist pseudo-anarchism (even I don't pretend to be an anarchist), are opposed to any institution with a coercive monopoly on force. You should also search Wikipedia for what a coercive monopoly is, and you should notice that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence.

Minarchism isn't anarchism, though, and whether all modern states are coercive or not, coercion is not a defining characteristic for statehood.

I'm not much of a minarchist, either. Minarchism imples consequentialism, which I do not pertain to. I didn't say a coercive monopoly was necessary for statehood (if it was I would be a technical anarchist), just that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence. That was the misunderstanding.

[Arkolon]

here

so there is no difference, in fact thats exactly what the anarchist system described would do.

Depends which type of anarchism, because such a broad term encompasses those in favour of violent revolution, the anarcho-punk anarcho-arsonist variety, as well as Kropotkinites and Rothbardians. Voluntaryists, however, and voluntaryism would never have a state with a coercive monopoly on violence.

[Arkolon]

Usually people learn a little bit about anarchism before throwing out arguments similar to "but who will build the roads?", but OK. The poor wouldn't need benefits (it seems as if you never even read the PDF I linked you to), and you seriously just need to type Murray Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism into your search bar to spare me from copying and pasting from three- to four-hundred years of anarchist thought.

Every time I ask you these questions, it seems as if you want me to read giant PDFs. You seem to be quite knowledgable on anarchism, Minarchsim, and the like, so I do believe that you could explain it to me. That's how debate works, when people debate, most of the time someone debating doesn't just say "I understand your point, here's a 200 page PDF."

If I could sum up 300 years of anarchist thought in a single post on an Internet forum, I wouldn't be here on NS. I would be teaching at Harvard.

[Zottistan]

Minarchism isn't anarchism, though, and whether all modern states are coercive or not, coercion is not a defining characteristic for statehood.

I'm not much of a minarchist, either. Minarchism imples consequentialism, which I do not pertain to. I didn't say a coercive monopoly was necessary for statehood (if it was I would be a technical anarchist), just that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence. That was the misunderstanding.

I didn't know that minarchism implied consequentialism or deontologicalism, but anyway, you get what I mean.

[Arkolon]

I'm not much of a minarchist, either. Minarchism imples consequentialism, which I do not pertain to. I didn't say a coercive monopoly was necessary for statehood (if it was I would be a technical anarchist), just that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence. That was the misunderstanding.

I didn't know that minarchism implied consequentialism or deontologicalism, but anyway, you get what I mean.

I don't see how minarchism could be argued for deontologically, keeping in mind that Robert Nozick argued for the voluntary state limited to its minarchist form, and not the consequentialist state bounded to the individual by a fictitious social contract. Locke, for instance, used a social contract for his consequentialist minarchist state.

[Zottistan]

I didn't know that minarchism implied consequentialism or deontologicalism, but anyway, you get what I mean.

I don't see how minarchism could be argued for deontologically, keeping in mind that Robert Nozick argued for the voluntary state limited to its minarchist form, and not the consequentialist state bounded to the individual by a fictitious social contract. Locke, for instance, used a social contract for his consequentialist minarchist state.

I always thought minarchism was just a term for minimal states, for any reason.

[Arkolon]

I don't see how minarchism could be argued for deontologically, keeping in mind that Robert Nozick argued for the voluntary state limited to its minarchist form, and not the consequentialist state bounded to the individual by a fictitious social contract. Locke, for instance, used a social contract for his consequentialist minarchist state.

I always thought minarchism was just a term for minimal states, for any reason.

The minarchist state has a coercive monopoly on violence. The voluntary state is minimal and doesn't have this coercive monopoly. I guess you could safely use the term in the way you thought, but I prefer making the distinction.

Really, I like this distinction because I really want to distance myself from the "libertarian conservative" appropriation of the word "minarchism".

[Zottistan]

I always thought minarchism was just a term for minimal states, for any reason.

The minarchist state has a coercive monopoly on violence. The voluntary state is minimal and doesn't have this coercive monopoly. I guess you could safely use the term in the way you thought, but I prefer making the distinction.

Really, I like this distinction because I really want to distance myself from the "libertarian conservative" appropriation of the word "minarchism".

Ok. The point still stands that non-coercive voluntary statism is still statism and not anarchism.

[Arkolon]

The minarchist state has a coercive monopoly on violence. The voluntary state is minimal and doesn't have this coercive monopoly. I guess you could safely use the term in the way you thought, but I prefer making the distinction.

Really, I like this distinction because I really want to distance myself from the "libertarian conservative" appropriation of the word "minarchism".

Ok. The point still stands that non-coercive voluntary statism is still statism and not anarchism.

Yeah, sure.

[The Liberated Territories]

I don't see how minarchism could be argued for deontologically, keeping in mind that Robert Nozick argued for the voluntary state limited to its minarchist form, and not the consequentialist state bounded to the individual by a fictitious social contract. Locke, for instance, used a social contract for his consequentialist minarchist state.

I always thought minarchism was just a term for minimal states, for any reason.

This.

I don't understand where this notion of a "voluntary state" comes from.

The most radical form of minarchism is the nightwatchman state, which controls the police, military, and courts, and that's it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Anarchism is more absurd then claiming one's self to be a 400 foot tall purple platypus bear with pink horns and silver wings.

I also find anarchism to be a silly ideology, but saying that is not a good way to explain why anarchism is a bad thing.

I thought it was hilarious and apt.

[Arkolon]

I also find anarchism to be a silly ideology, but saying that is not a good way to explain why anarchism is a bad thing.

I thought it was hilarious and apt.

Hmm. I'm more of an ancap-sympathiser, to be honest. I just don't see how consequentialist libertarianism, especially statism through coercive monopolies, can be justified.

[The Flood]

Anarchism is more absurd then claiming one's self to be a 400 foot tall purple platypus bear with pink horns and silver wings.

I also find anarchism to be a silly ideology, but saying that is not a good way to explain why anarchism is a bad thing.

It's such a nonsensical fringe ideology that it's hardly necessary to debate it. The people that subscribe to anarchism are probably not people who are going to listen to any form of argumentation, but the ideology is also not dangerous because it is so absurd. You ask 100 people on the streets if you think society can function without a government, and you'd be lucky to find even 1 who said i could.

[Shaggai]

Except that having a monopoly on force and/or the initiation thereof is beneficial, because without it it becomes far more difficult to deal with cooperation problems. The classic example is the Prisoner's Dilemma (which doesn't quite work the same way in reality, but there are plenty of similar problems that do work). Normally, self-interest leads both prisoners to defect, resulting in a mutually harmful outcome. However, if the mob boss threatens to kill any defectors, they won't defect and the outcome will be better for both.

I'm not sure a mob boss metaphor helps your argument. It usually doesn't work out for anyone.

Yeah, that was a bad metaphor, but there isn't a better one for the Prisoner's Dilemma. There are plenty of other examples of coordination problems that can only be solved by an entity with sufficient power and the ability to use it.

[Margno]

My opposition to anarchism is that both negative liberties and positive liberties are equally important, and neither are absolute. Compromise is necessary to respect both types of liberties. Social democracy is the structure that is needed for a society that respects people's' positive and negative liberties, and achieve social justice. Anarchism is incompatible with social justice, social democracy, and it does not respect positive liberty. In order to fully respect positive liberty and advance social justice, a structured and supportive society is needed - to ensure both liberty and rights.

Are positive and negative liberties really so separable? If, for example, you had a positive right to health and a negative right not to be harmed, wouldn't both have the same consequences so long as you accept the premise that one can harm through inaction? The principle could be rewritten: wherever possible, a person must maximize the health of others.
If your point is that people have a responsibility to act in the benefit of others, (or, to put it in the inverse, that people have positive rights which others must respect, or alternatively still, that it is possible to violate another person's rights through inaction) then I would agree, although egoist anarchists presumably would not.
But I don't quite see what you mean by a compromise between positive and negative rights. In most of the cases I can think of, I guess it seems to me that one right is in conflict with another, as when one's own right to food is in conflict with someone else's right to life (in the case of giving food to a starving man.) But is the positive expression of a right ever in conflict with the negative expression of the same right?

[Atlanticatia]

My opposition to anarchism is that both negative liberties and positive liberties are equally important, and neither are absolute. Compromise is necessary to respect both types of liberties. Social democracy is the structure that is needed for a society that respects people's' positive and negative liberties, and achieve social justice. Anarchism is incompatible with social justice, social democracy, and it does not respect positive liberty. In order to fully respect positive liberty and advance social justice, a structured and supportive society is needed - to ensure both liberty and rights.

Are positive and negative liberties really so separable? If, for example, you had a positive right to health and a negative right not to be harmed, wouldn't both have the same consequences so long as you accept the premise that one can harm through inaction? The principle could be rewritten: wherever possible, a person must maximize the health of others.
If your point is that people have a responsibility to act in the benefit of others, (or, to put it in the inverse, that people have positive rights which others must respect, or alternatively still, that it is possible to violate another person's rights through inaction) then I would agree, although egoist anarchists presumably would not.
But I don't quite see what you mean by a compromise between positive and negative rights. In most of the cases I can think of, I guess it seems to me that one right is in conflict with another, as when one's own right to food is in conflict with someone else's right to life (in the case of giving food to a starving man.) But is the positive expression of a right ever in conflict with the negative expression of the same right?

I mean that both negative and positive liberty is important. It'd be unjust to only respect negative liberty - as positive liberty is equally important, and we live in a wealthy, structured society that is able to protect both negative and positive liberty. Just as it'd be wrong to only respect positive liberty. For example, it'd be immoral to abolish all forms of tax collecting at the expense of free education. However, it would also be immoral to impose 100% effective tax rates on people to provide free education. So, a balance must be ensured - we can respect positive liberty (by providing free education when it does not wholly restrict negative liberty), while respecting negative liberty (by imposing a smaller tax burden, that still allows for the ownership of private property).
Since we live in a wealthy society, we are able to respect both rights: if we lived in a society where one person had $1 trillion everyone else had no money, it would be immoral to confiscate all of the $1 trillion to protect someone's positive liberty (the right to education) - because that would completely destroy their property rights. However, in a wealthy society like ours, we are able to respect both negative and positive liberty: we can collect some tax to provide some free education, police protection, health care, etc - while people's right to own private property is not wholly infringed (as only a portion of their income goes to tax).

So it's a balancing act - social democracy is about combining negative liberty, positive liberty, solidarity, justice, social justice, equality of opportunity. This means that things are able to be cohesive: all people can have a relative right to income security, education, and health care - while all people can have a right to own private property in a free market. This mix of negative and positive liberty results in a decent, progressive, and prosperous society that achieves social justice for all people - while advancing the overall human condition. It benefits both the individual and the collective good.

Both negative and positive liberty can complement each other, and the protection of both is necessary in a just society.

[Sociobiology]

so there is no difference, in fact thats exactly what the anarchist system described would do.

Depends which type of anarchism, because such a broad term encompasses those in favour of violent revolution, the anarcho-punk anarcho-arsonist variety, as well as Kropotkinites and Rothbardians. Voluntaryists, however, and voluntaryism would never have a state with a coercive monopoly on violence.

except that is exactly what has been described for voluntaryists society.