Debate Bet. Neo Art and Bendira: Poll Open

[Katganistan]

This began in Bendira's thread "Uneducated Police". Since he expressed interest in a one on one debate with Neo Art, here's a thread in which they can debate whatever they determine the final topic to be... with whatever rules Bendira and Neo Art will consent to debate under.

For those joining the program in progress:

If I had the ability to debate any one of you in a 1 on 1 format, you would have been thoroughly humiliated.

You know....what the hell. You're on. You want a 1 on 1 public debate? You got one.

You can have it here: http://www.debate.org.

Oh no no, I'd much prefer to do it here, that way he can humiliate me in front of people I know!

Lol alright. Why don't we start with my 20 man government example. If you would please sir, tell me how that is different from our current government.

No no. You wanted debate. Debates have rules and predefined structures between identified parties. Not you throwing out random hypotheticals in a cluttered thread. Define the topic and the sttricture. Then we will talk. This is not a debate

Isn't it funny that a poster who says he'll "humiliate" anyone who tries to debate him 1 on 1, conveniently ignores the challenge to prove it? All you've done was throw out a random question, in the same open (hardly "1 on 1" thread, without defining the topic, rules, or parameters. You were asked to set your terms, and the topic of the debate. You're remain remarkably silent.

Fucking pathetic.

Giving you a hypothetical scenario to refute is a valid form of debate. Tell me a way to make a 1v1 thread on here and ill do it.

Go ahead and create the rules.

No no, this is not how it works. YOU made the claim, that you'd "humiliate" anyone who tried to debate you one on one. I'm giving you the opportunity. This was your challenge, so you get to back it up. I'm not going to set it up only for you to run off crying that it's "not fair".

You think you can "humiliate" me here? Go ahead and try. You made a claim, now you get to back it up. But I'm not going to give you the opportunity to run off and cry foul that I stacked the deck on you when you can't keep up.

It's put up or shut up time child.

Lol im just honestly to lazy to attempt to set up rules. The rules will be just to stick to the topic I suppose. The topic will be "What does the U.S. Governments jurisdiction derive from?".

Lol im just honestly to lazy to attempt to set up rules.

A debate, by definition, operates under specifically defined structures and rules. Since you are unwilling to operate under those rules, you're unable to hold a debate. So you show up, claim you'd "humiliate" anyone in a one on one debate, then hide like a coward when someone actually calls you on.

Pathetic.

First of all, you need to calm down your tone. Id be more than willing to work something out with you if you would stop talking like some sort of enraged neanderthal.

You claim the unmitigated hubris of being able to "humiliate" me, and I'm the one with the tone? Amusing.

And sad.

Here is the rules of the debate. "You must not deviate from the topic". Here is the topic. "What does the U.S. Governments Jurisdiction derived from?".

Those are not rules. What's the duration, how is the winner determined? What's the length and time limit on replies? What sources are acceptable? These are all things that are predetermined in any debate.

First of all, you need to calm down your tone. Id be more than willing to work something out with you if you would stop talking like some sort of enraged neanderthal.

Here is the rules of the debate. "You must not deviate from the topic". Here is the topic. "What does the U.S. Governments Jurisdiction derived from?".

How about -

Thread created in F7 by observer posting the orignal question, coin is tossed for right to first rebuttal. Both parties have 2 days to post their initial argument, followed by 2 days for rebuttal then 2 further days per counter-rebuttal up to a maximum of 5 per party. Then a further 2 days for a closing argument to be presented.

Sources can be anything the party believes will be accepted however they can be attacked.

Each party would have 1 "real life is in the way" 2 day extension.

I've suggested F7 rather than NSG as I think the Mods would be more amenable to pruning posts in there.

Winner decided by a poll posted after closing arguments have been posted.

That would obviously be biased. Would you be opposed to a webcam debate?

That would obviously be biased. Would you be opposed to a webcam debate?

How in the world would that be biased? And you're damned right I would be opposed to it.

I very much look forward to seeing 1) a final topic of debate agreed upon, 2) the rules agreed upon and 3) the debate to take place here, where the challenge was made.

[Katganistan]

Folks, I know it's not regular but please: leave the thread for Neo Art and Bendira.

[Neo Art]

The original question posed is one hard to answer in any cohesive way, due largely to the part that the one posing it fails to propertly define the terminology and structure for it. He asks by what method does the US derive its jurisdiction. He fails to address exactly what he means by "jurisdiction". On the face of it, the question is easily answered, the enabling statute of federal courts can be found in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-1369 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1452. These statutes define subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (a more elaborate discussion of venue is not really relevant as venue is a more artificial construct not really relevant to judicial jurisdiction).

However I doubt that this is what the opposition means, and instead I believe is refering more to the political philosophical construct of "legitimacy". As such, the more appropriate question is, from what does the U.S. government derive its legitimacy. From a philosophical standpoint, the government is defined as the entity that has the sole legitimate use of force (exceptions for things like self-defense notwithstanding). So for the government to BE a government, the fundamental aspect of it is that it has the ability to use force, free of legal restraints, to effectuate its goals.

Thus the paramount discussion centers on the idea of what makes an agent of the government different from a criminal. An individual who shows up at my door demanding money, and who takes me hostage when I refuse is an extortionist, and a kidnapper. Unless he's the government, in which case, he's merely the tax man. Why does that government have that authority? Well from a simple point, it has that authority because it has the power to enforce it. The tax man is armed, and has many other armed coworkers to enforce that point. So HOW they can do it is a moot point, they simply can.

The broader question becomes then why should we, as a collective society allow that to occur? Thus I propose the rather..poorly defined and somewhat cryptic question posed be modified slightly to state instead "why should the collective society tolerate governmental use of force, and the coercive effect of having that force, when other elements of the society are not permitted to do so?"

Generally that argument falls into two "camps", the statists, and the anarchists. The statists (me, in this instance) and the anarchists (the opposition) who argue that use of force by any entity is no more or less acceptable if not consented to. The general theory of the opposition is "volunteerism", which denotes generally that all human interaction should be fundamentally voluntary, and that the government does not have a right to use force if not consented to.

Statists on the other hand take a varied view. Some social contract theorists argue that implicit concent of the goverened does exist. That the continued existance within that government is a tacit consent to its methods. Others, like Hume, do not overly concern themselves with "consent" as much as a more utilitarian perspective. It exists, because it's the best method.

In the end, while social contract theory makes valid points, it does have a somewhat fatal flaw. If I explicitly reject the use of force, I'm still subject to it. Even if I try to leave the country, I'm still subject to its authority until I do so, no matter how much I state I don't wish to be.

In the end, anarchists tend to use a "natural law" argument in contrary to the nation of the state. They argue terms of legitimacy, illegitimacy, use of force, coercion, and the rejection of it other than when explicitly agreed to, under natural rights arguments.

I find such arguments not only not compelling, but fundamentally flawed. Anarchists inevitably fail to point out the exact source of these "natural laws" when confronted. They fail to show their origins, their purpose, or that they even exist at all. Rather they're some set of guiding principles that exist "in the ether" so to speak. They are because, apparently, they are. Because they say so. It's uncompelling and flawed. Indeed, the only way to properly address what "natural laws" exist is to look at how human society functioned in its Hobbsian "state of nature". A state Hobbes himself described as "nasty, poor, brutish and short". The state of nature is anarchy. It's a state of "war of man against man". And it's a war the opposition would have us return to, under the guise of hopelessly deluded idealism, and philosophical hand wringing about "legitimacy of force". But philosophy must yeild to pragmatism. And theory that relies on propositions routinely disproven aren't worth the ink the print them.

Indeed, the sum total of human social evolution can be seen as, often, a way away from that system. Societies evolved for a reason, heirarchies rise because of it. The seminal work on the theory is, of course, Hobbes' Leviathan, and he lays out quite well the origin, and, indeed, the NEED for such a structure. The opposition's interpretation of anarchy relies on such a patchwork of private enterprises, deregulated militias in the guise of "private security" and some form of good will charity to prevent the collapse into this state of nature that it requires one to come up with some childish fantasy land.

Indeed, the only hope against such a society, such a place of constant war, IS the leviathan. Society needs a leadership heirarchy in order to function. Indeed, the evolution of heirarchy is inevitable. This anarchist dream world of the opposition ends the minute the man with the most guns decides he wants to be in charge.

With that said, the only question becomes, what is the best form of it? If we accept, as I contend, that some authority is not only required, but naturally evolving, the only question remains, by what form do we wish it to take?

And in the end, a simple Hume like utilitarianism is the best. If society exists, if the hegemon exists, to keep us from war of man against man, what other purposes should it serve, what makes one "better" than the other? The answer of course, is the one that provides the most benefit to the subjects. Benefit being, in this instance, the one that best provides an opportunity for success, for happiness, and for health. The one that best allows the subjects to be peaceful, happy, and safe, in the aggregate. Not for everyone, of course, but this is not a failing of the system, so much as it is a failing of volume. Too many people exist with few enough resources, and challenges in that resource allocation. Moreover, fantastical systems that, on paper, that proport to do better than the current, have not been born out (indeed, systems like socialism which MAY fulfill those goals better are even FURTHER from the goal of the opposition).

Democratic peace theorists like David Bremmer have put for the idea that stable, long lasting military and economic peace is the best way to achieve those goals. Which makes stable, democratic nations the ones which best effectuate a system that provides the most benefit to all in the aggregate.

In short, the US government derives its legitimacy because of two primary principles: the fact that not only is society necessary for the continued prosperity of humanity, but its evolution is not only natural, but practically inevitable, and one would have to basically wish into existance a set of conditions that would make it less so, and that the stable, liberal democratic system is the one that most effectuates peace, and is most likely to bring prosperity, happiness, and safety to its subject.

In short, it's legitimate, because pragmatically it's the best system there is that we've currently found. All philosophical handwringing from anarchists about "legitimacy" is just a game of find the red queen. A constant card shuffle to distract from the idea that their version of reality simple fails pragmatically. It make sa nice sound bite, complaining about the "evil government" who comes to your house and takes your hard earned money, no better than a common thief, but that's a distraction, a 3 card monty to distract you from the idea that in the end, all their philosophy is is hot air, complaining about one system while failing to propose one in any way workable.

And as I said, philosophy always must yield to pragmatism.

The opposition is afforded an opportunity to his opening statement, then I will ask my rebuttal statements.

[Bendira]

I am happy that a debate could be set up on this issue. I would like to first start out by saying what I would like to get out of this debate. Hopefully what I expect to get out of this will serve as a basic framework, if you choose to accept it. Firstly, I would like to say right off the bat that I do not wish to attempt to prove any sort of universal secular ethics theory. I do not believe that it is possible to prove the validity of one set of ethics over another. Although I would still assert that I do believe in universal secular ethics, I feel that attempting to explore that section of the debate would be futile. Rather, what I intend to do in this debate is highlight some contradictions inherent within the government system. Also in this debate, I intend to attempt to come to a consensus (with Neo Art) on where the government derives its jurisdictional claims. How does one prove or disprove the legitimacy of a governmental system?

Neo Art has essentially yielded the ethical argument of social contract theory. With this, I have decided to yield the theory of Natural Law. Niether are 100% proveable concepts, as niether exist within the realm of existence. Rights do not "exist" in the world. Rights are not floating in space or an alternate dimension, dictating to us what we should and should not do.

With this in mind however, there is one thing we can do in evaluating the ethics of the government system. We can look at the system and see if it is ethically/morally consistent with itself. For example, why does the law hold that theft is inherently wrong, but taxation is correct? Essentially, taxation is extortion. You are having your money taken away, to pay for goods and services you do not necessarily value or need. I can provide an example, in which the cases are metaphorically the same:

A mugger, while holding a gun to your head, gives a man an apple, and in return demands 10 dollars.

A government, while metaphorically "holding a gun to your head", grants you the useage of its sewer system, and in return demands 100 dollars.

In both examples, a coercive action is taking place. In both examples, an individual is being coerced into accepting a good they do not necessarily need or demand. Both of these are clearly the same exact scenario.

Now, I would expect as a refutiation to this point, a person would say that "Under certain circumstances, such as if a man is wearing a blue suit, it is ok to steal". Making such a claim is technically not invalid, since morality is indeed "relative". This would conveniently explain the logical contradiction here. Although a completely ridiculous claim to make in reality, again, it technically is not invalid. So we must now explore where the government supposibly derives its jurisdiction.

Here is an example of a parallel system to our governments.

Myself and 20 of my friends, in a small town of 100 people, decide that we want to hold an election for police chief. A police chief already exists, and he has one deputy. We put an ad in the local newspaper saying that we will be holding an election inside a barn in the center of town. Obviously, nobody shows up other than myself and my 20 friends. This is presumably because nobody accepts my authority to declare an election. The election goes on as planned nonetheless. My 20 friends vote on my candidacy for police chief. Their cumalative vote, representing roughly 20% of the population, has voted unanimously in my favor. I have now secured a mandate from the public, including those that did not accept my authority and thus, did not vote. We now can claim we have the consent of the governed. After all, those who did not vote essentially implied consent when they chose not to participate in the electoral process. We now vote on a new city ordinance, that I have written on a nearby napkin. It states one law. "No persons within our claimed jurisdiction have the right to breathe, unless they are designated as a public servant". With this new law enacted, we begin to enforce it. Weapons are given to my 20 friends, and we begin to enforce the law. Persons found guilty of breatheing are hauled off to cages, where they are incarcerated.

Clearly this example does not parallel the intricacies of the actual occurences of our system 100%. But the so called "ethical" justifications for government are all here (minus a social contract, which you earlier agreed is ambigous and relative). As we can see from this example, the government did not have the consent of the governed, nor did they have a mandate from the people. Because of this, it is easy to conclude that the only reason this governmental body was able to be formed, was because they had guns. Force is clearly the only justification here. Not even a utilitarian argument can be made here, considering the majority of people did not have a say in the construction of this governmental system.

So in order to tie these two points together: the government logically contradicts itself by saying that theft is bad, unless it is commited by somebody wearing a blue uniform. You can interchange blue uniform with consent of the governed or public mandate or what not, but as we have seen with the small town example, these things are indeed themselves relative and unproveable. The only justification for the government, is the fact that they have all of the guns. As a result, any non-logical assertion they make (which essentially makes it an ethical argument) is unproven. They cannot prove that they have an ethical mandate to declare what is ethical and what is not ethical.

As a result, the governments own definition of "ethics" disproves government. Because the government claims it can make this ethical distinction between taxation and theft, yet the government can not even prove its own ability to render judgements ethically by its own "standards of ethics".

As for the topic of alternatives offered to this situation, I believe those should wait until we can attempt to some to agreeance on certain points here.

[Neo Art]

With this in mind however, there is one thing we can do in evaluating the ethics of the government system. We can look at the system and see if it is ethically/morally consistent with itself. For example, why does the law hold that theft is inherently wrong, but taxation is correct? Essentially, taxation is extortion. You are having your money taken away, to pay for goods and services you do not necessarily value or need. I can provide an example, in which the cases are metaphorically the same:

A mugger, while holding a gun to your head, gives a man an apple, and in return demands 10 dollars.

A government, while metaphorically "holding a gun to your head", grants you the useage of its sewer system, and in return demands 100 dollars.

In both examples, a coercive action is taking place. In both examples, an individual is being coerced into accepting a good they do not necessarily need or demand. Both of these are clearly the same exact scenario.

This example was explicitly addressed in the opening point, almost to the exact example. You have not addressed it, or really done anything to it, other than restate the same premise.

without refutation, the entire premise stands as conceeded.

Now, I would expect as a refutiation to this point, a person would say that "Under certain circumstances, such as if a man is wearing a blue suit, it is ok to steal". Making such a claim is technically not invalid, since morality is indeed "relative". This would conveniently explain the logical contradiction here. Although a completely ridiculous claim to make in reality, again, it technically is not invalid. So we must now explore where the government supposibly derives its jurisdiction.

I do not need to refute it. I already addressed it. It's also disengenuous to presuppose my objection to the argument, as I already raised my objection to the argument. Your post stands as a fallacy. Address the actual arguments I have made, not the ones you wish I had made.

Here is an example of a parallel system to our governments.

Myself and 20 of my friends, in a small town of 100 people, decide that we want to hold an election for police chief. A police chief already exists, and he has one deputy. We put an ad in the local newspaper saying that we will be holding an election inside a barn in the center of town. Obviously, nobody shows up other than myself and my 20 friends. This is presumably because nobody accepts my authority to declare an election. The election goes on as planned nonetheless. My 20 friends vote on my candidacy for police chief. Their cumalative vote, representing roughly 20% of the population, has voted unanimously in my favor. I have now secured a mandate from the public, including those that did not accept my authority and thus, did not vote. We now can claim we have the consent of the governed. After all, those who did not vote essentially implied consent when they chose not to participate in the electoral process. We now vote on a new city ordinance, that I have written on a nearby napkin. It states one law. "No persons within our claimed jurisdiction have the right to breathe, unless they are designated as a public servant". With this new law enacted, we begin to enforce it. Weapons are given to my 20 friends, and we begin to enforce the law. Persons found guilty of breatheing are hauled off to cages, where they are incarcerated.

You seem to be trying to address an argument, once again, that I did not make. You're trying to come up with some response as if I was making a "consent of the goverened" argument, I never made that argument. I never attempted to make that argument. In fact in my opening statements I explicitly stated I had my own flaws in the argument.

Nowhere, at any point in my post, did I make the argument you're arguing against. This is a fallacy. Restrict your comments to the arguments I make.

Clearly this example does not parallel the intricacies of the actual occurences of our system 100%. But the so called "ethical" justifications for government are all here (minus a social contract, which you earlier agreed is ambigous and relative). As we can see from this example, the government did not have the consent of the governed, nor did they have a mandate from the people. Because of this, it is easy to conclude that the only reason this governmental body was able to be formed, was because they had guns. Force is clearly the only justification here.

Nowhere in my post did I make an ethical or moral argument. Your attempt to rebut an argument I did not make is a fallacy. Restrict your comments to the arguments I make.

Not even a utilitarian argument can be made here, considering the majority of people did not have a say in the construction of this governmental system.

You're quite correct that an ordinance "against breathing" can not stand in the face of any argument that it maximizes the health, safety, and well being of the population (which was my ACTUAL argument).

Since you agree that this argument is unworkable, you conceed your own point, thus you leave me nothing to rebut.

So in order to tie these two points together: the government logically contradicts itself by saying that theft is bad, unless it is commited by somebody wearing a blue uniform. You can interchange blue uniform with consent of the governed or public mandate or what not,

Why in the world would I do that when, once again, I never made that argument in the first place? Your attempt to rebut an argument I did not make is a fallacy. Restrict your comments to the arguments I make.

but as we have seen with the small town example, these things are indeed themselves relative and unproveable. The only justification for the government, is the fact that they have all of the guns. As a result, any non-logical assertion they make (which essentially makes it an ethical argument) is unproven. They cannot prove that they have an ethical mandate to declare what is ethical and what is not ethical.

As a result, the governments own definition of "ethics" disproves government. Because the government claims it can make this ethical distinction between taxation and theft, yet the government can not even prove its own ability to render judgements ethically by its own "standards of ethics".

Nowhere in my post did I make an ethical or moral argument. Your attempt to rebut an argument I did not make is a fallacy. Restrict your comments to the arguments I make.

The entirety of your posts consists of attacking arguments that were not made here. I'm left only to conclude that you had some pre-supposed notion of what my arguments were going to be, and formulated your remarks, either not actually reading my actual opening statement, or not knowing how to respond to it.

You attempt to counter a "consent of the goverened" argument. I did not make one.

You attempt to show that government action is unethical. I did not make an ethical or moral standpoing.

My opening statement put forth two central tenants:

1) the rise of a heirarchy in society is inevitable, so anarchism itself is a hopeless exercise
2) That if a heirarchy is inevitable, a government is legitimate insofar as its actions are designed to maximize the subject's health, happiness, prosperity and safety.

You addressed neither of those points. You argued against none of those points. I'm sorry if me making an argument that you weren't expecting inconvenienced you and left you unprepared, but in the end, your post here refutes nothing, debates nothing, counters nothing. You made a series of attacks on arguments that I didn't make, thus leaving me with nothing to respond to. It is not my intention to defend "consent of the goverend" arguments that I did not make. It is not my intention to defend ethical or moral consideration arguments that I did not make. The only thing in your entire post that in any way approaches my actual argument is to admit that your hypothetical does not actually hold a resemblance to the situation as it exists, based on my arguments.

Thus the only response in rebuttal I can possibly state is "you failed to address my arguments". I'm left with no argument to respond to, no rebuttal to consider. No statement to argue against. You failed to address my points. My point is as it always has been. The government is legitimate in that it maximizes health, safety, prosperity and happiness for its citizens.

And as you leave me with no argument to rebut, I'll take this as a concession of my two points above, and with that in mind, my follow up question is thus:

In a system such as anarchy, in which a heirarchical body exists, how do you prevent Hobbs' declaration of "war of man against man?" How do you prevent this from occuring?

Or perhaps I mistate your proposition. Is it your position as an anarchist that perpetual war is preferable to paying taxes? Because given that you've failed to address my point #1, I can only assume that you conceed that anarchy would lead to exactly that. So if you conceed that, I'm left only to conclude that somehow it's preferable to you. And I find that terribly strange.

In the future, restrict your responses to arguments that I've made, not arguments you'd prefer I make. If you believe in a system you should be able to defend it against any arguments against it, you seem to have thought up a defense against one argument, but the problem for you is that it's not an argument I actually made. I didn't raise an ethics argument, so attacking it is a strawman. I didn't raise a consent of the goverened argument, so attacking it is a strawman.

If those are the only arguments you're prepared to defend against, this debate is already over. You're obviously unprepared.

[Bendira]

Nowhere in my post did I make an ethical or moral argument. Your attempt to rebut an argument I did not make is a fallacy. Restrict your comments to the arguments I make.

The entirety of your posts consists of attacking arguments that were not made here. I'm left only to conclude that you had some pre-supposed notion of what my arguments were going to be, and formulated your remarks, either not actually reading my actual opening statement, or not knowing how to respond to it.

You attempt to counter a "consent of the goverened" argument. I did not make one.

You attempt to show that government action is unethical. I did not make an ethical or moral standpoing.

My opening statement put forth two central tenants:

1) the rise of a heirarchy in society is inevitable, so anarchism itself is a hopeless exercise
2) That if a heirarchy is inevitable, a government is legitimate insofar as its actions are designed to maximize the subject's health, happiness, prosperity and safety.

You addressed neither of those points. You argued against none of those points. I'm sorry if me making an argument that you weren't expecting inconvenienced you and left you unprepared, but in the end, your post here refutes nothing, debates nothing, counters nothing. You made a series of attacks on arguments that I didn't make, thus leaving me with nothing to respond to. It is not my intention to defend "consent of the goverend" arguments that I did not make. It is not my intention to defend ethical or moral consideration arguments that I did not make. The only thing in your entire post that in any way approaches my actual argument is to admit that your hypothetical does not actually hold a resemblance to the situation as it exists, based on my arguments.

Thus the only response in rebuttal I can possibly state is "you failed to address my arguments". I'm left with no argument to respond to, no rebuttal to consider. No statement to argue against. You failed to address my points. My point is as it always has been. The government is legitimate in that it maximizes health, safety, prosperity and happiness for its citizens.

And as you leave me with no argument to rebut, I'll take this as a concession of my two points above, and with that in mind, my follow up question is thus:

In a system such as anarchy, in which a heirarchical body exists, how do you prevent Hobbs' declaration of "war of man against man?" How do you prevent this from occuring?

Or perhaps I mistate your proposition. Is it your position as an anarchist that perpetual war is preferable to paying taxes? Because given that you've failed to address my point #1, I can only assume that you conceed that anarchy would lead to exactly that. So if you conceed that, I'm left only to conclude that somehow it's preferable to you. And I find that terribly strange.

In the future, restrict your responses to arguments that I've made, not arguments you'd prefer I make. If you believe in a system you should be able to defend it against any arguments against it, you seem to have thought up a defense against one argument, but the problem for you is that it's not an argument I actually made. I didn't raise an ethics argument, so attacking it is a strawman. I didn't raise a consent of the goverened argument, so attacking it is a strawman.

If those are the only arguments you're prepared to defend against, this debate is already over. You're obviously unprepared.

My opening statement was not meant to be a rebuttal to your opening statement. It was meant to be an opening statement discussing my objection to the governments claim of jurisdiction. Just as your opening statement made clear the perceived holes in the anarcho-capitalist theory. Since I thought the topic to this debate was going to be the moral/ethical/rational justifications for the government, technically I don't believe your argument falls into that category. Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument is that the current system is the only feasible one, making the moral/ethical/rational inconsistencies unimportant?

You must understand my reasoning behind making an opening statement rather than a rebuttal. I seek to find out where we disagree, and persue those avenues. I think I am entitled to an opening statement just as you are.

[Neo Art]

I've given almost two full days for the opposition to address the specific points raised in both of my posts in this thread, and the explicitly asked questions. Obviously he has no intent in doing so.

At no point did he address the concerns raised, make any attempt to rebut the arguments presented, or answer the questions posed. I'm left with no possible conclusion other than he is incapable, or unwilling to do so.

The points, uncontested, stand as conceeded.

[Katganistan]

If there are no further posts to this thread by eleven (or 23:00hrs) (EDT, or GMT -4) tonight, this thread will be locked.

[Bendira]

I've given almost two full days for the opposition to address the specific points raised in both of my posts in this thread, and the explicitly asked questions. Obviously he has no intent in doing so.

At no point did he address the concerns raised, make any attempt to rebut the arguments presented, or answer the questions posed. I'm left with no possible conclusion other than he is incapable, or unwilling to do so.

The points, uncontested, stand as conceeded.

Im not even sure what the topic is, yet you are already declaring victory?

This debate was spawned from a thread where I was attempting to prove that the government has no ethical claim to authority. Now you want to seemingly debate anarcho-capitalism.

[Katganistan]

I've given almost two full days for the opposition to address the specific points raised in both of my posts in this thread, and the explicitly asked questions. Obviously he has no intent in doing so.

At no point did he address the concerns raised, make any attempt to rebut the arguments presented, or answer the questions posed. I'm left with no possible conclusion other than he is incapable, or unwilling to do so.

The points, uncontested, stand as conceeded.

Im not even sure what the topic is, yet you are already declaring victory?

If you intend to continue the debate, I'm willing to leave the thread open...

[Bendira]

Im not even sure what the topic is, yet you are already declaring victory?

If you intend to continue the debate, I'm willing to leave the thread open...

Well if we can agree on an actual topic I would be willing to continue. But he essentially abandoned the entire argument from the thread, and claims now that even though the government is clearly unethical, it is the only system that works. That would lead me to believe that the topic he wants the debate to be about is the viability of anarcho-capitalism, rather than the legitimacy of government. This is a sharp change from what originally spawned this debate.

[Katganistan]

If you intend to continue the debate, I'm willing to leave the thread open...

Well if we can agree on an actual topic I would be willing to continue. But he essentially abandoned the entire argument from the thread, and claims now that even though the government is clearly unethical, it is the only system that works. That would lead me to believe that the topic he wants the debate to be about is the viability of anarcho-capitalism, rather than the legitimacy of government. This is a sharp change from what originally spawned this debate.

...I believe is refering more to the political philosophical construct of "legitimacy". As such, the more appropriate question is, from what does the U.S. government derive its legitimacy. From a philosophical standpoint, the government is defined as the entity that has the sole legitimate use of force (exceptions for things like self-defense notwithstanding). So for the government to BE a government, the fundamental aspect of it is that it has the ability to use force, free of legal restraints, to effectuate its goals.

Thus the paramount discussion centers on the idea of what makes an agent of the government different from a criminal. An individual who shows up at my door demanding money, and who takes me hostage when I refuse is an extortionist, and a kidnapper. Unless he's the government, in which case, he's merely the tax man. Why does that government have that authority? Well from a simple point, it has that authority because it has the power to enforce it. The tax man is armed, and has many other armed coworkers to enforce that point. So HOW they can do it is a moot point, they simply can.

The broader question becomes then why should we, as a collective society allow that to occur? Thus I propose the rather..poorly defined and somewhat cryptic question posed be modified slightly to state instead "why should the collective society tolerate governmental use of force, and the coercive effect of having that force, when other elements of the society are not permitted to do so?"

Is this not what you just said the topic is about?

[Sarkhaan]

If you intend to continue the debate, I'm willing to leave the thread open...

Well if we can agree on an actual topic I would be willing to continue. But he essentially abandoned the entire argument from the thread, and claims now that even though the government is clearly unethical, it is the only system that works. That would lead me to believe that the topic he wants the debate to be about is the viability of anarcho-capitalism, rather than the legitimacy of government. This is a sharp change from what originally spawned this debate.

It seems that you did:
"By what method does the US derive its jurisdiction?"

That question doesn't actually make sense. What you likely meant was "By what method does the government of the United States of America derive its legitimacy?" As he stated, he would be taking the statist side, you would be taking the anarchist side. Arguing that "The state gains legitimacy because it is the only effective method known" is a fair argument against anarchism. It places the responsibility to explain why anarchy is somehow more effective upon you. You support anarchy? Great. Show why it is better. Show why it can pass the test of pragmatism.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

If you intend to continue the debate, I'm willing to leave the thread open...

Well if we can agree on an actual topic I would be willing to continue. But he essentially abandoned the entire argument from the thread, and claims now that even though the government is clearly unethical, it is the only system that works. That would lead me to believe that the topic he wants the debate to be about is the viability of anarcho-capitalism, rather than the legitimacy of government. This is a sharp change from what originally spawned this debate.

Then what, pray-tell, is your actual argument? What do you think an argument of "government is illegitimate" is?

EDIT: Never mind the fact that "legitimate" and "ethical" are NOT the same thing.

[Bendira]

The topic was made to prove that there are contradictions in government. I was not intending to prove an alternative. Like I said, if he wants to just admit that the government is flawed, yet anarchism is even more flawed, he can take that position. But we must change the topic. Because right now we are both in agreeance on the topic, making there no real debate to have.

[Bendira]

"The state gains legitimacy because it is the only effective method known" is a fair argument against anarchism. It places the responsibility to explain why anarchy is somehow more effective upon you. You support anarchy? Great. Show why it is better. Show why it can pass the test of pragmatism.

Id be fine in doing so, if Neo Art would return, and we would agree that the topic be changed to the viability of anarcho-capitalism. Saying that the government magically gets legitimacy because it is the only effective method known isnt an argument though. Your not disproving the illegitimacy of the government, your just saying we have to accept it.

In other words, if a company manufactures a product that is defected on arrival, it dosn't make it "not defected" if there is no alternative to using the product.

[Sarkhaan]

The topic was made to prove that there are contradictions in government. I was not intending to prove an alternative. Like I said, if he wants to just admit that the government is flawed, yet anarchism is even more flawed, he can take that position. But we must change the topic. Because right now we are both in agreeance on the topic, making there no real debate to have.

Your initial question made no sense. So I will restate it and maybe you can correct it so you can get on with a debate.

"What does the U.S. Governments Jurisdiction derived from?"

What doesn't make sense here is the use of the word "Jurisdiction". What Neo Art (and most of us) have assumed is that you meant "From what does the government of the United States of America derive its legitimacy". Is that a fair assumption? If not, why?

[Bendira]

The topic was made to prove that there are contradictions in government. I was not intending to prove an alternative. Like I said, if he wants to just admit that the government is flawed, yet anarchism is even more flawed, he can take that position. But we must change the topic. Because right now we are both in agreeance on the topic, making there no real debate to have.

Your initial question made no sense. So I will restate it and maybe you can correct it so you can get on with a debate.

"What does the U.S. Governments Jurisdiction derived from?"

What doesn't make sense here is the use of the word "Jurisdiction". What Neo Art (and most of us) have assumed is that you meant "From what does the government of the United States of America derive its legitimacy". Is that a fair assumption? If not, why?

Yes that is a fair assumption. But jurisdiction is an extension of legitimacy.

[Linux and the X]

Your not disproving the illegitimacy of the government, your just saying we have to accept it.

To this observer, that does prove the legitimacy of government. I myself consider anarchism ideal. Very few people, I imagine, disagree. However, it is not practical. If you would like to argue that necessity does not imply legitimacy, I'd listen.

[Bendira]

Your not disproving the illegitimacy of the government, your just saying we have to accept it.

To this observer, that does prove the legitimacy of government. I myself consider anarchism ideal. Very few people, I imagine, disagree. However, it is not practical. If you would like to argue that necessity does not imply legitimacy, I'd listen.

If you have a broken object, it dosn't make it any less broken if you have no alternative to it.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Have you yet to assert a debatable position?

[Bendira]

Have you yet to assert a debatable position?

Believe it or not, there are people that believe the government ACTUALLY derives its authority from consent of the governed. So even though to you and me my position would seem to be just plain fact/truth, there are people out there that actually would debate me on it.

[Hydesland]

Talk of legitimacy only makes sense if there is actually a describable phenomenon in this context that can differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate, unless you differentiate legitimate power from illegitimate power, describing it as such becomes meaningless. You may as well describe the government's power as 'cold', or 'yellow'.

[Bendira]

Talk of legitimacy only makes sense if there is actually a describable phenomenon in this context that can differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate, unless you differentiate legitimate power from illegitimate power, describing it as such becomes meaningless. You may as well describe the government's power as 'cold', or 'yellow'.

Its illegitimate because its self contradictory and self-defeating.

[Hydesland]

So even though to you and me my position would seem to be just plain fact/truth

Why do you keep assuming everyone is agreeing with you? I'm not seeing this at all.