Prologue: Here is the first draft of an argument I'm going to be using in an upcoming debate.
Please comment, criticize, or add your own syllogisms!
Government is immoral, unnecessary and doesn't work
Free market anarchism: -Society with no legal possibility for coercive
aggression against the person or property of an individual.
-Society where all human relationships are voluntary.
-Social system based on nonaggression and private property.
State: institution possessing the following properties: it acquires its income
by physical coercion (taxation) and has a coerced territorial monopoly of the
provision of defense services (police and courts).
Right: Legitimately enforceable claim
Crime: A violent invasion of justly owned property
Self-ownership: The right to control your person; thus, the right to exclude others from controlling your person
Market: The totality of voluntary individual interactions
Initiation of violence: to begin the use of physical force
Morality
Molyneux
A. 1-Morality is a standard of conduct
2- Man is universally a rational animal; his nature is reason
3- Morality must apply universally; there are no objective differences within
humans to justify different standards of conduct
B. 1- A preference for logic, truth, and rational discourse is a standard of
conduct
2- By arguing against the existence of morality, you are demonstrating a
preference for the above conduct
3- Morality exists; denying it through argumentation is a performative
contradiction
C. 1- Advocating the initiation of violence (IV) as a universal ethic
2- The aggressor is violating property rights of the victim but expects his
property rights to be protected
3- Thus, IV as an ethic promotes property rights and their negation, which is
logically inconsistent.
4- Murder as a universal ethic entails killing everyone, including oneself
5- IV cannot be a universal ethic, because there would be no humans to apply
the ethic to.
6- Thus, IV cannot be a universal ethic
D. 1- Advocating nonaggression principle (NAP) as a universal ethic
2- Everyone can be nonaggressors; property rights are enforced; humanity isn't
killed off
3- NAP is the most consistent and thus the most valid ethic
Rand
1- Reason is man's nature; it is his sole means of maintaining his existence
and providing a livelihood.
2- IV obstructs man from following his reason
3- IV is an anti-human ethic
Rothbard
1- Self-ownership
i- two possibilities: Class A owns Class B; this is not universal.
ii- Communalism - everyone owns a share of everyone; In this case, acting would
be impossible, because you would have to seek permission to act, yet you need
permission to even ask permission, etc. Thus, humanity would instantly perish.
iii- Thus, only self-ownership is possible
2- Self-ownership entails the right to control your person and property
3- IV is a violation of that right e.g. murder, theft
4- NAP respects private property rights- it is consistent with self-ownership;
IV is not consistent.
Parasite
1- IV is an ethic of parasitism
2- Stealing, murder, kidnapping, etc. require two classes of people: parasites
and hosts/ aggressors and victims
3- IV cannot be a universal ethic
Taxation is no different than the schoolyard bully who
steals lunch money from the weak and nerdy. In both cases, someone must give up
their private property at the threat of physical pain or imprisonment. Just as
the bully says, “Give me your lunch money, or else…”, so too the government
says, “Give us half of your income, or face these consequences.” Both are cases
of involuntary exchanges; one party is initiating violence against the other.
1- Government is funded by taxation
i-You do not consent to taxation, yet you are forced to pay at penalty of jail,
fines, etc.
ii- You cannot abstain from paying without said penalties
iii- Taxation is IV; more precisely, it is extortion
2- Government claims jurisdiction over private property
i- It uses IV against individuals on their own property - government laws,
zoning regulations, eminent domain, etc.
ii- Government initiates violence against those who don't comply with these
"rules"
3- Government is founded on IV; it's relationship with the individual is
involuntary
4- The IV is immoral
5- Thus, government is immoral
----------
Government is unnecessary
1- Any function that a government performs can be provided by the market
2- If a customer desires something, and a producer can earn a profit by
supplying it, then by human nature (acting to better their situation) the
exchange will occur
1- Under democracy, the majority must want something for the government to
supply it
2- Government programs like welfare, courts, police, roads are supplied in
democratic countries, indicating a majority desires them
3- Thus, a majority of people would want these same services in a stateless
society as well.
1- Government programs like the minimum wage do not even
accomplish their goal
i- A minimum wage aims at helping the poor.
ii- Yet, it causes compulsory unemployment; as a barrier to
employment, it hurts the poor, unskilled workers most
2- These programs can be totally abolished and never implemented
again.
-----------
Government doesn't work
1- Voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial ex ante; If it wasn't there would
be no voluntary exchange
2- Government is involuntary exchange; It cannot be universally beneficial
1- Government monopolies are not subject to competition
2- They receive income from taxation as opposed to from customers
3- Thus, government agencies have no incentive to satisfy customers; The price
will rise and the quality will fall. Inefficient businesses have no incentive
to satisfy customers by bettering service because they have no risk of losing
customers
4- In a free society with competition, businesses must work
to benefit customers, or else they will patronize a different business.
Businesses that waste resources and do not adapt are weeded out and go
bankrupt.
1- Government is spending someone else's money (through taxation)
2- Only the individual can best satisfy their wants (think of gift-giving)
3- Government cannot satisfy wants as well as the individual
1- Government programs ignore the laws of economics
2- For example, price controls above or below the equilibrium price necessarily
cause surpluses and shortages, respectively
1- Government rewards failure and punishes success
2- Government programs that succeed have their budget cut; failing programs
have their budget increased
3- In a free market, success is rewarded with profits;
failure is punished with bankruptcy
1- Government abolishes private property and the price system
2- Without prices, economic calculation is impossible
1- Government can only exist by living parasitically off of the productive
class
2- Government solutions inevitably cause more problems, necessitating more
solutions; this creates a vicious circle
3- Government must expand or contract; the tendency is to grow
4- Eventually, the host (the taxpayers) will die, killing the parasite
(government) as well
1- Democratic rulers are temporary caretakers, not owners of
the country; they have no self-interest in the long-term value of what they
control, or in what happens after they are out of power.
2- They only have incentive to look at short term gains
3- They will tend to loot the country; “make hay while the
sun shines”
1- Government monopolies with access to tax revenues have no incentive to cut
costs
2- Private individuals and organizations, spending their own
money, do have incentives
3- Government services cost far more than they would in a
free society i.e. the private alternative
------------
Objections
Q.1- Humans are evil
2- Therefore we need a government to control them
A. 1- Governments are run by humans
2- Governments are power centers
3- Allowing evil people to control a power center is even
more absurd
Q. 1-Without a government, courts would have no final
arbiter and appeals could go on ad infinitum
A. 1- With or without a government, there is no absolute final
arbiter.
2- I can change the laws, get new judges, and overthrow the
government
3- However, government does provide a reasonable amount of
finality
4- There is no reason to suppose anarchy couldn’t as well
Q. 1- Once the government is abolished, one will spring up
again
A. 1- Governments exist primarily because of public opinion
and legitimacy, not force
2- The individuals comprising a government are a vast
minority
3- Once the idea of governments has been delegitimized in
the public eye, no one will willingly accept an unjust, nonfunctional,
irrational enslavement any more than they would allow the mafia or a biker gang
to become a government today
4- Once governments are abolished, there are no power
centers for wannabe governments to take over
5- In a free society, the populace will be heavily armed for
self defense against prospective governments and criminals, because the government
no longer exists to prohibit gun ownership
6- Thus, it is extremely unlikely that once people accept a
free society they will return to an anachronistic, medieval, backwards form of
societal organization.
Q. 1- Free market capitalism is irrational because it
requires production for its own sake
A. 1- Under freedom, individuals only exchange if they
perceive benefit.
2- Production will tend to only occur to the extent that
consumers desire it
3- Statism, on the other hand, requires production for it to
leech off of
i- The government must be funded by taxation
ii- Taxation requires production
iii- Thus, government requires production for its own sake
4- It is statism that irrationally requires production for
its own sake.
Q. What if I want to live in a socialist world?
A. A market anarchist society allows any activity that is
voluntary. This means capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. can all exist
provided they are voluntary.