Archive for the ‘Arguments’ Category

Market Anarchy #2

Hello folks! Welcome to the second edition of Market Anarchy, the only blog carnival for anarcho-capitalists and lovers of freedom. We have an awesome issue today packed with fantastic articles, so without further ado lets get started.

Since we do not normally have a set theme for the carnivals just about any topic related to MA is up for grabs. This issue we have a variety of topics covered and I present them in no particular order.

– We start off with Sholom over at Anarcho-Judaism, who writes this interesting piece comparing Moses to Marxism.

– Greg Gauthier from Doing Philosophy writes a foundational article entitled Anarchy: The New Middle Way. “Our goal, as anarchists, therefore, is to reestablish the primacy of the individual over the ideal, as the only effective means for ending war, terror, and oppression. To do this effectively, we must ground our individualism not in the relativistic nihilism of the liberal left, or the fanatical crusaderism of the absolutist right, but to ground it in the rational, material, empirically real world, that already exists right at the center of our very lives.”

– Greg Swann over at Zillow.com reminds us that working for free is not a crime, but some socialists out there want to make it a crime. “The human mind cannot be outlawed. But the less-gutless champions of Socialism have demonstrated repeatedly that you sure can pile up a whole lot of corpses trying to outlaw the human mind.”

– Francois Tremblay at Check Your Premises unmuddles the mess that is the “rights” issue and especially as it pertains to animals. “Statists often confuse rights with moral obligation. Rights do provide moral obligation, but they are not, by far, the only kind of moral obligation we recognize as valid. I do not recognize the right of any non-human animal to be treated ‘compassionately,’ but that does not mean I go around maiming and goring them. The fact that I do not recognize rights for, say, a dog does not mean that I do not value the dog’s well-being in any way. I have other reasons to value this. A baby has no rights, but this does not mean that babies should be left to starve and die. We have numerous moral reasons to value babies which have nothing to do with rights.”

– Alex Ramos writing from The Freedom To Say 2 + 2 is 4  writes about the hero worship of jack-booted thugs who fight for the State. “By upholding soldiers as virtuous defenders of our rights and freedom, regardless of the actual actions they commit or their absolute subservience to the State, we perpetuate the State’s primary means of keeping us as sheep. If we are not allowed to question whether supporting soldiers is a good thing or not, then we’re going to see more and more immorality coming from the military, command AND grunts.”

– Rick Sincere on Rick Sincere News & Thoughts explains why the current pope, Joseph Ratzinger doesn’t understand basic economics. And why should he? He does have the baby Jesus on his side 😀

– Also on the topic of relgion is Francois Tremblay representing Goosing the Antithesis with his article on how religions struggle against one another and our freedom. “In enforcing a singular value system on the whole of society, the democratic State makes it so there must be victors and losers, and it makes itself the referee. The result of a world where religions are dominated by other religions, as decided by the ruling class, in the name of fear of reprisal and fear of violence is not freedom, or even egalitarianism, but just plain fear. And in these kinds of games, based on coercion and not truth, science and reason have everything to lose.”

– In our first ever tongue-in-cheek article, Robert Bruce  on Escape From Pianosa reminds us that in order to have more equality in this world, we need to have more leisure time. “Finally, I call upon the Congress to establish not one but two oversight committees, so as to ensure that none of this new agency’s actions are ever motivated by politics and a diversity czar to ensure that all people have equal free time, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference, or class.” Is it really satire or does he have a good point? Read the article and find out for yourself.

– Our good friend Aaron Kinney over at The Radical Libertarian discusses his battle with involuntary servitude and how he won.

Finally, we have somebody taking on last issue’s Carnival Freak.

– David Z. at No Third Solution offers a rubtal to why the flat tax is not any better than the other types of extortion.

Now this month we did not recieve any Carnival Freaks but I did get some interesting comments on a mini-blog I maintain on the Bureaucrash.

1.

I’m not quit so sure if anarchism should be the goal here. Minarchism is a more practical realistic solution for as proven previously through out history, anarchism as always failed. Without government to act as a detourent so to speak, men will be engaged into a constant war of all against all. Ayn Rand has also critisised anarcho-capitalism as a disgrace to the libertarian title. “Another leftist discard adopted by the right” is how she put it, and I totally agree. We need a minimal state limited to nothing more than the mear function of protecting our natural rights through the rule of law. For any form of government or social organization that rules through de facto authority is inevitably bound to lead to coruption and tyranny. It is only through de jure authority were the government is limited to the point of only protection and nothing else can a just heirarchy be acheived. The only things government needs to fund are police, courts, and national DEFENSE, not to be confused with offense. Another thing about anarcho-capitalism is wether you agree with it or not, anarcho-capitalism is a form of direct democracy. If a private police department doesn’t at least have a majority to fund it then it will go out of buisness. So if a community composed of mostly mean people don’t want to fund any police departments, then the minority of nice people will be oppressed by the majority. Any form of a social structure that makes laws through will and not nessecity is a tyranny, and thats exactly how anarcho-capitalism works. In a constitutional republic, people are garanteed to be protected by miranda rights or search warrents. Thats the reason our founding fathers gave us a republic and not a democracy, because they wanted the rights of the minority protected from the de facto authority of the majority. In a direct democracy, the minority can have his/her property voted away from them wether they like it or not. Republics protect every body from ever being stuck in a situation like that in the first place so nobody is tyranized. There is honestly nothing wrong with a minimal state and it is alot more desirable of a system to strive for than an anarchy. It scares me that some people actually think that all they have to do is abolish government and all their worries are over. Let me tell you, if it were that easy don’t you think some country or grouping of people somewhere on this planet would have started a market anarchism already? they haven’t becaue they always failed. There were anonymous examples like Somalia and Icelandic common wealth, however both systems failed because they plumited into a state of chaos and wound up having some new form of government being imposed upon them insted of being made for them. Abolishing government is not the answer, limiting it is.

2.

Agreed, MWYN.

I told a friend of mine that I was a libertarian.

He started berating me on my political choice. I asked him, “Why are you so uncomfortable?” He told me “I don’t believe in a world without speed limits! Anarchist!”

 Anarchy is a dirty word…and most often linked to Libertarians like myself. I’m sick of hearing about it. Why doesn’t the word “capitalism” leap into the mind when one is thinking about extremist freedom groups? Capitalism is an economic state. Anarchy is a political state. Carl Marx made the dangerous mistake of crossing the two, and look where he left us. Anarchy is just the flip-side of his socialist coin.

Don’t get me wrong though – the FCC can go. Right now. No more communication legislation!

And there are some other comments on there as well if you’d like to take a look. If anybody would like to offer a rebuttle to any of the comments above you may do so at any of the upcoming carnival issues.

That will be all for this month. I would like to thank all the above writers for contributing to this carnival. Remember, carnival issues come out every month on the 29th and you can submit an article at any time.

We are gradually growing as more writers are signing up for this wonderful carnival. This is the best place to showcase your contributions to freedom. Issue #3 will be over at Hellbound Alleee on May 29th, so keep an eye out on that blog for further info.

Three Disproofs Of Authority

Three Disproofs of Authority

When discussing politics with non-anarchists, the subject of authority often comes up as an objection to accepting any ideas of liberty. Indeed, authority is that pesky stumbling block that we must overcome if ideas of liberty and freedom are to be successfully communicated and understood. Consider the following statements that often come up when discussing authority:

    We need to have authority otherwise there’d be chaos; thus we need a group that has authority.
    Authority is limited to those things the people allow through their consent.
    It allows people in government to set moral rules for society; otherwise there would be chaos!!!Whenever people vote they give authority to politicians to make certain decisions that we can’t do.

    And so on…

    Continue reading

Why I Detest Donkeys & Elephants

Howdy folks. I decided to display more tallented writings from my friend Ken here. Anytime I post somebody’s article it is from either a message board, personal correspondance, website article, or other. Today we are going to talk about the groups informally known as elephants and donkeys and formally as the two gangs comprised of lawyers, con-artists, and thugs competing with one another to operate a protection racket, as well as other wannabe rulers *cough* minarchists *cough*.  Enjoy and leave a comment.

Continue reading

How to Argue With a Libertarian – The Ultimate Guide

This is a very interesting piece from a great blog.

2. Arguments are like taxicabs. Take them as far as you actually plan to go and pay no mind to wherever else they might lead.

Example: “When you drive on government roads, you enter into a social contract with the government and that contract obligates you to pay any tax that the government demands.” Don’t worry about the implications of this argument when an IRS agent drives on a privately paved road or pulls up in a privately paved driveway.

4. Criticize capitalism by its worst cases. But do not (ever!) compare these to the worst cases of statism.

Example: “The Enron scandal was the product of unfettered profit seeking under capitalism.” If a libertarian replies that Stalin’s brutality was the product of a statist program, change the subject or claim that your brand of statism precludes such abuses. Better still, try to argue that Stalinism was actually a kind of capitalism.

11. The complexity of the world is always and everywhere an argument in favor of government intervention.

Example: A libertarian might argue that price ceilings will lead to shortages. Do not waste time discusing the interplay of supply and demand. Istead, try an argument like “Society is too complex for simplistic supply and demand arguments to be taken seriously. So the government should implement price ceilings.” Characterizing libertarian arguments as simplistic is helpful too, as it makes statists seem to be the more sophisticated group.

14. Disregard the possibility that libertarians make tradeoffs in their own lives.

Example: “You claim to oppose taxation but you live in a place with taxes.” The libertarian in question will argue that he opposes taxation but remains in his present place of residence to avoid other things that are worse than taxes, such as even higher taxes or the costs of leaving the country. Disregard any such protest. Call the libertarian a hypocrite.

15. Use logic, but do so with discretion.

Example: If a libertarian points out that there is an inconsistency in some statist argument, argue that, “Libertarians are too axiomatic. That’s fine for mathematics but not for real world issues that don’t fit precisely into neat logical categories.” Needless to say, the same kind of thinking need not apply if a libertarian even appears to be guilty of some inconsistency.

Found it here.