The Burden of Proof is on the Anarchists

gigaplex:

My point of starting this thread was not to handle every detail in this one thread. The purpose was to make the point that the "burden of proof is on the statists" cop out is a denial of reality.

As for specific details, I have been building a list as a starting point and I will finish preparing it and post it in a new thread here in the next few days. But yes, your second sentence is the type of thing I'm talking about although I don't feel that these things are handled in as great of detail as required. As someone said earlier on in this thread, they were putting together a business plan and were having trouble with this type of thing. So there is obviously work to be done in this area.

And again, the point is not to plan out exactly what will happen but instead to be able to at least give examples of how to handle different situations. For instance, what is an example of how the market might handle a massive flood? Interesting you ask that by the way, since I am in Iowa. We didn't need any FEMA here!

How would the state handle these things?  So far they haven't done a good job.  I can think of a thousand ways anarchy could do a much better job handling any situtation that arises.

 

Et tu? Where did any anarchist say it is the final argument against statism? No, rather, what is maintained, is that as a matter of logic, the statist is the one responsible for proving both why they think others should not be free to associate as they please and must accept their coercion, and that only the state can provide X good (otherwise, why outlaw it?) So far, what I have seen are a lot of veiled ad hominem attacks, red herrings and strawmen. So the anarchist is not obliged to justify his (or her) denial of the State to the statist - to convince others to join him (her), of course, providing schemes is best for rhetorical purposes, which is why anarchists offer their own detailed proposals; not because they think they have any duty to the statist. See how different that is to what you claimed it is? No cop outs are involved, no "denials" of "reality" or any rubbish to that effect.

-Jon

Nitroadict:

Maxliberty:

Nitroadict:

Since when is being cautious & having a different opinion being an intellectual elitist?  You are feigning heroics against the so-called "intellecual elitists" (Not sure who you are referring to; I'm suppose most of them don't agree with you though, so I guess they are "elitists" by default )  in a forum where the response to you and your Liberty Colony has been that of variety, not unviersal censorship and/or elitist rejection.

Feigning heroics, is that what taking action means? The intellectual elitists are those that continue to deny the reality of the state. The intellectual elitist thinks that just by discussing the matter the state will just wither away. Even the so called action of the intellectual elitists are just intellectual cover for doing nothing.

"Feigning heroics" was a referrence to your snobby demeanor, not a referrence to you "taking action"; despite my disagreements with some details of the LC, I still wish the best of luck & hope to see progress in it, as well as any other projects by others, that seek to translate discussion & debate into tangible results. 

Yet, you pretend as if you are being marginlized because you assume that those who participate on this forum largley do not do anything constructive, or "take action", outside of discussion & debate, and therefore, seek to activley "sabotage" those who take action. 

This is based on the fautly assumption & perception that this forum represents the end all be all of various activites of it's members, whom do nothing but talk, and hence must be State apologetics by default, because you cannot see what they are actually doing.  Would you want surrvell- I mean, transparency, to remedy that situation for you?

"The so called intellectual elitists are just intellectual cover for doing nothing."

How is the LC coming along, anyway?  Got more than 2 people dedicated to putting their lives into your hands?  A definite location of where the LC will be?  Pictures?  A Budjet?  You are in the same situation of "doing nothing" until I see evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

You are a pompous ass, regardless of what you believe.

The problem that many elitists like yourself have is that you are perfect willing to shout at the top of your lungs about the evil of the state but refuse to offer any solution or course of action. Don't kid yourself that most the people on this forum are out doing something about freedom and they just don't talk about it. Most people are not doing anything and in fact they are routinely discouraged from doing so by many of the arguements of the intellectual elitists. Arguements like agorism, and waiting for the state to collapse, and that the burden is on the state to give up it's behavior. All of which to the newly introduced person to freedom is ultimately very discouraging.

You don't have to agree with the Liberty Colony or any other proposed action, but if you propose no solution to the problem then you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

Says the person who spends his time on a forum, "calling out" anarchists. Do you even know what agorism is?

-Jon

The problem and many elitists like yourself have is that you are perfect willing to shout at the top of your lungs about the evil of the state but refuse to offer any solution or course of action.

Again, this is just an assertion on your own part. You don't even know the people you're critisizing and what they advocate. Plenty of people here advocate various types of action. It's not our fault that you automatically assume that we don't have any proposed solutions. You've merely assumed ahead of time that we don't have any and attack a straw man.

that the burden is on the state to give up it's behavior

Clearly you don't understand what is meant by the burden of proof then, because that's not what is meant. It's in the context of arguementation. The burden of proof, in an arguement about political philosophy or politics, is on the person who is making positive assertions such as the necessity of the state, the legitimacy of the state, the exclusive ability of the state to provide certain services. That's simply a matter of basic logic. Someone who claims that the state can legitimacy tax people, for example, faces a burden of proof for this claim. They can't just assume their own premises as a pretext to the discussion or argument.

You don't have to agree with the Liberty Colony or any other proposed action, but if you propose no solution to the problem then you are being intellectually dishonest.

It is you who is being intellectually dishonest by refusing to aknowledge that anyone here proposes solutions, or when they actually do propose solutions (like agorism) it is in fact YOU who shoots it down. It is you who is discouraging people. Your entire tirade here is intellectually dishonest.

Brainpolice:

Again, this is just an assertion on your own part. You don't even know the people you're critisizing and what they advocate.

That has never stopped you.

Brainpolice:

Plenty of people here advocate various types of action. It's not our fault that you automatically assume that we don't have any proposed solutions. You've merely assumed ahead of time that we don't have any and attack a straw man.

Why don't people mention these courses of action then?  I've been here for a few months, it's mostly "politics is a waste of time", "the state will eventually collapse", "theoretically agorism is the only way to defeat the state", etc. etc.  Did I miss these statements and plans of action?

Brainpolice:

It is you who is being intellectually dishonest by refusing to aknowledge that anyone here proposes solutions, or when they actually do propose solutions (like agorism) it is in fact YOU who shoots it down. It is you who is discouraging people. Your entire tirade here is intellectually dishonest.

Agorism cannot withstand the same scrutiny his liberty colony idea has taken?

It's nearly impossible to get a discussion on agorism the so-called agorists tuck and run when it is brought up.  If you are serious about agorism, then I'm challenging you to a debate on it.  Will you accept?

Jon Irenicus:

So the anarchist is not obliged to justify his (or her) denial of the State to the statist - to convince others to join him (her), of course, providing schemes is best for rhetorical purposes, which is why anarchists offer their own detailed proposals; not because they think they have any duty to the statist. See how different that is to what you claimed it is? No cop outs are involved, no "denials" of "reality" or any rubbish to that effect.

But that's the thing. The anarchist IS obliged to justify his (or her) denial of the State to the statist IF they have the goal of having a market anarchy some day. If an anarchist did not have the goal of having a market anarchy then you are correct, they would not have any obligation to justify but it wouldn't really matter in that case anyway.

 

That has never stopped you.

Stopped me from what? I don't recall ever blatantly strawmanning anyone. I do recall strongly disagreeing with people about their openly stated positions on matters such as immigration, voting and the political spectrum.

Why don't people mention these courses of action then?  I've been here for a few months, it's mostly "politics is a waste of time", "the state will eventually collapse", "theoretically agorism is the only way to defeat the state", etc. etc.  Did I miss these statements and plans of action?

I think what you are is (1) willfully ignorant and (2) a bit of a newb to this. The latter I can't blame you for, the former I can.

It's nearly impossible to get a discussion on agorism the so-called agorists tuck and run when it is brought up.  If you are serious about agorism, then I'm challenging you to a debate on it.  Will you accept?

We've already been through this and I can predict the outcome to a tee. You will continue to speak as if there is a total vacuum in the absence of the political process and mischaracterize apolitical libertarians as "do-nothings", and I'll continue to challenge your underlying assumptions.

Okay, then you agree that as a matter of strategy the anarchist should have his alternative plan prepared, but that as a matter of logic, the anarchist has no duty to prove to the statist why he should be free from the statist's coercion, and that here the burden of proof is the reverse, and that moreover, the statist must prove, if they wish to argue it, that the state is the only way to provide given services (if they do not argue this, they should be questioned why they want to outlaw consentual, free activities.) This isn't trivial, as it hinders statists from escaping the burden of proving these two arguments, and forces them to adopt weaker ones if they cannot. Agreed?

-Jon

Brainpolice:

Stopped me from what? I don't recall ever blatantly strawmanning anyone. I do recall strongly disagreeing with people about their openly stated positions on matters such as immigration, voting and the political spectrum.

Brainpolice:

I think what you are is (1) willfully ignorant and (2) a bit of a newb to this. The latter I can't blame you for, the former I can.

Continuing the art of the dodge.  I asked for statements and plans of action you referenced.  Your personal critique of me notwithstanding, I'd like more information on what you posted.

Brainpolice:

We've already been through this and I can predict the outcome to a tee. You will continue to speak as if there is a total vacuum in the absence of the political process and mischaracterize apolitical libertarians as "do-nothings", and I'll continue to challenge your underlying assumptions.

Right, but you don't blatantly strawman, correct?

I have challenged you to a debate on agorism.  Do you accept or decline?

 

 

 

Maxliberty:

...waiting for the state to collapse, and that the burden is on the state to give up it's behavior. All of which to the newly introduced person to freedom is ultimately very discouraging.

In both of the above strategies, the anarchist would get to say that the burden of proof is on the statist - how very convenient. Perhaps this is the division right there. Some anarchists are in apathy and so have no burden of proof but those that are actually seeking change can't use the apathetic cop outs that the other anarchists use.

Maxliberty:

Nitroadict:

Maxliberty:

Nitroadict:

Since when is being cautious & having a different opinion being an intellectual elitist?  You are feigning heroics against the so-called "intellecual elitists" (Not sure who you are referring to; I'm suppose most of them don't agree with you though, so I guess they are "elitists" by default )  in a forum where the response to you and your Liberty Colony has been that of variety, not unviersal censorship and/or elitist rejection.

Feigning heroics, is that what taking action means? The intellectual elitists are those that continue to deny the reality of the state. The intellectual elitist thinks that just by discussing the matter the state will just wither away. Even the so called action of the intellectual elitists are just intellectual cover for doing nothing.

"Feigning heroics" was a referrence to your snobby demeanor, not a referrence to you "taking action"; despite my disagreements with some details of the LC, I still wish the best of luck & hope to see progress in it, as well as any other projects by others, that seek to translate discussion & debate into tangible results. 

Yet, you pretend as if you are being marginlized because you assume that those who participate on this forum largley do not do anything constructive, or "take action", outside of discussion & debate, and therefore, seek to activley "sabotage" those who take action. 

This is based on the fautly assumption & perception that this forum represents the end all be all of various activites of it's members, whom do nothing but talk, and hence must be State apologetics by default, because you cannot see what they are actually doing.  Would you want surrvell- I mean, transparency, to remedy that situation for you?

"The so called intellectual elitists are just intellectual cover for doing nothing."

How is the LC coming along, anyway?  Got more than 2 people dedicated to putting their lives into your hands?  A definite location of where the LC will be?  Pictures?  A Budjet?  You are in the same situation of "doing nothing" until I see evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

You are a pompous ass, regardless of what you believe.

The problem that many elitists like yourself have is that you are perfect willing to shout at the top of your lungs about the evil of the state but refuse to offer any solution or course of action. Don't kid yourself that most the people on this forum are out doing something about freedom and they just don't talk about it. Most people are not doing anything and in fact they are routinely discouraged from doing so by many of the arguements of the intellectual elitists. Arguements like agorism, and waiting for the state to collapse, and that the burden is on the state to give up it's behavior. All of which to the newly introduced person to freedom is ultimately very discouraging.

You don't have to agree with the Liberty Colony or any other proposed action, but if you propose no solution to the problem then you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

Lovley; why don't you spend time getting my information, get offline, hop on over here, and tell me about being an elitist who spends too much time on a message board?  No? You're just going to sit there and post on the same message board, telling me I'm spending too much time on a message board?  Well gee, why aren't you taking action then? That seems to be a bit hypocritical, honestly...

You are wasting precious time here; you have a Liberty Colony to attend to, remember?  You don't seem to be doing much here other than vulgar marketing via dishonest debates about how other people conduct their lives.  It's too bad we don't have someone to look out for us, to tell us how to run our lives; it would all be so much simpler then, don't you agree?

Maxliberty:

The problem that many elitists like yourself...

Hypocriticial; what prevents you from being an elitist?  How are you exempt from being an elitist yourself? 

Maxliberty:

"...have is that you are perfect willing to shout at the top of your lungs about the evil of the state but refuse to offer any solution or course of action."

You are ignoring refutations to this, out of stupidity, dishonesty, or stubborness.  Every individual's situation is absolutley different; you are taking this forum too literally as a representation of the efforts of people, when this forum itself is greatly limited to the medium of communication (debate, discussion, argumentation, etc.).  I'm done telling this to you, because it has been said time & time again, but you don't like that answer, it seems.  It seems not everyone has the money, time, & energy to start their own Liberty Colony, and prefer to utilize other various methods:

(this is a general and not complete list, so you will probably use the power of generalization, and try to "make an example" of me as being the absolute limit of what everyone else on this forum does...)

- Agorism
- counter-economics
 - communication of basic ideas
  - philisophical discussion
   - "stirring the pot" of common discourse (I'm sorry, you did not acheieve this, and more or less turned out to be a marketing troll for your own pet project.  Hopefully it is actually successful, because if this idea was started by someone less pompous, arrogant, and intolerant than you, I would probably endorse it.)
- doing what little one can given their situation (goes without saying if you are capable of thinking beyond your own ego)
- economic discussion


Notice the trend of discussion here?  That might be what a *forum* is for.  Maybe you should try craigslist, newspaper ads, offline meetups, etc. if you are looking for more than just "discussion". 

Maxliberty:

"Don't kid yourself that most the people on this forum are out doing something about freedom and they just don't talk about it."

Redundant, and evidence is abound on the forum of various members mentioning their offline activites sometimes.  If you did more than simply market your own idealology & projects, without regard to other's people ideas (or perhaps asked nicley), you would probably figure this out.

 

Maxliberty:

 Most people are not doing anything and in fact they are routinely discouraged from doing so by many of the arguements of the intellectual elitists.

This is comical; this is assuming the so-called "intellectual elitists", which, I guess means anyone who posts on this forum (maybe including you?), have any power over those that don't post on here, or who simply observe & read the forum without posting. 

I'm also guessing anyone who doesn't agree with you, doesn't agree with your methods, doesn't see the "intellectual elitists" on this forum, dosesn't join your Liberty Colony are also on your "intellectual elitist" sh*t list. 

Elitism:
1. "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.

    b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.


Let me ask you this: how are you exempt from the above definitions?  how is your Liberty Colony exempt from the above definition?  Is there a difference between elitism of "intellectual elitists", and various individuals who disagree with you on the same forum whom continually have issue with some of what you have to say? 

You are not being censored, you are not being banned of access to this forum, you are not being shut-out based on emotional whims of a favored "intellectual elite"; at least, as far as I can tell.

Maxliberty:

Arguements like agorism, and waiting for the state to collapse, and that the burden is on the state to give up it's behavior. All of which to the newly introduced person to freedom is ultimately very discouraging.

What's wrong?  You don't like certain strategies?  You don't like that your ideas are not being considered over others? That doesn't seem very freedom-ish of you.  I thought freedom was about letting other's be?  Or is that just the vitrol of an intellectual elite bearing down upon you speaking?

From what I understand, various strategies & philospohies are considered.  You are acting as if those who choose Agorism would not choose or consider any other strategy, despite many probably arriving at Agorism as a possible solution from differing straytegies & approaches before hand.  You sound like a child whining about certain people not wanting to play with you and your action figures.  From what I also understand, there are a few forum members who genuinley like your idea.  Are any of them Agorists?  Maybe you should check that out?

Maxliberty:

You don't have to agree with the Liberty Colony or any other proposed action, but if you propose no solution to the problem then you are being intellectually dishonest.

What I propose is learning, for now, because *I* am still learning.  I don't currently know what the best strategy is, because I was only a Statist a year or so ago.  You are the dishonest one generalizing one person's progress onto others.

Even though I'm still learning, I still consider what can I do to make a difference each day.  What did I do recently, that might fall under "taking action", in your view?  I witheld the stupid "rebate" check the ggovernment doled out; you might have heard of this strategy as the "reverse money bomb", concepted by RP community. 

I recently began to make a list of basic food items to stock up on to prepare myself for the on coming depression that might be useable via barter (coffee, rice, etc.).  I recently started making plans about possibly re-locating to a more favorable area where I could find probably quit my current job & maybe make more money via cash & not rely on a banking account. I had a messy but productive argument with my best friend that greatly eased my fears of friendship being threatened by differences in political opinion.  I recently made plans to try and visit the D.C. Really Really ReallyFree Market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Really_Really_Free_Market). 

Yea it's not much, but I'm doing the best I can in my current situation.  Sorry to ruin your pedestal with an account of someone of this forum actually trying things, because as we all well know, according to you, not one person here offline does anything remotley productive to back up their discussions on this forum.