The Burden of Proof is on the Anarchists

banned:

That's a false analogy.

As it has been repeated ad nauseam (I believe I posted this exact critique before), the claim that anarchists wan't to change or enforce a social structure is simply fallacious, a straw man, etc.

Let me rewrite your debate.

Anarchist: "I do not have to jutify anything, the burden of proof is on you."

Statist: "But you are the one wanting to change things."

Anarchist: "No, I am the one wanting you to leave me alone."

(and this is what you're saying should happen next)

Statist: "You need to justify your claim that I should leave you alone, or I'll keep robing from you and will kidnap/beat/kill you if you disobey my rules."

Anarchist: "WTF!?"

It is the statist who is making the positive claim of action.

That was not an analogy.

If you remove a government, ancap does not magically appear. A new system has to be built. This new system is comprised of corporations that carry out the various activities needed by society. You ARE changing the system or at least advocating the change of the system. I'm afraid you have contradicted yourself when you say you do not want to change anything. If nothing changed, you'd still be robbed on a regular basis.

Now, In order to make this change, investors must be convinced to start up the companies required to do this. The investors are not obligated to do this. You do not have the right to force them to do this. Even if you had the resources to do it yourself, you'd still have to convince enough people to participate in the system for it to be viable and you cannot force those people to participate. Because you have no right forcing people to do any of these things, the burden of proof is on the anarchists. The only way we can have an ancap society is to convince the right people that it is a good idea. Statists know this and so find the whole "burden of proof is on you" argument to be utterly ridiculous, cowardly, pedantic, removed from reality and it is seen as a cop out. It makes the anarchist look pathetic. It needs to stop. An anarchist should have the balls to confront whatever intellectual challenges statists bring forth and should also have the balls to admit when they don't know the answer to something. Cutting off communication does not help anything.

Once again, Gigaplex, you don't seem to understand the position you're attacking. Anarchism is not a proposed singular system. Trying to argue against it as if it is a proposed singular system is fallacious. It is nonsensical to apply statist standards to non-statist things. Anarchists are not proposing a central plan, as that would defeat the entire purpose.

gigaplex:

If you remove a government, ancap does not magically appear.

'Never said it would.

gigaplex:

A new system has to be built.

Okay? It's still not my role to say how society OUGHT to run. I think people can figure it out on their own.

gigaplex:

his new system is comprised of corporations that carry out the various activities needed by society. You ARE changing the system or at least advocating the change of the system. I'm afraid you have contradicted yourself when you say you do not want to change anything.

I really don't think you understand anarchism. I don't advocate a change in system per se. I don't care if the government falls or not. I just want them to leave me alone and stop assuming me as their property.

gigaplex:

If nothing changed, you'd still be robbed on a regular basis.

Precisely my point. The statist assumes the right to rob. I'm telling them they need to prove the right to do so. I don't have to prove that them not robbing me leads to better consequences, just that the act of theft is wrong (which I think they concede when they argue that the state ought to protect against theft).

gigaplex:

Now, In order to make this change, investors must be convinced to start up the companies required to do this. The investors are not obligated to do this. You do not have the right to force them to do this. Even if you had the resources to do it yourself, you'd still have to convince enough people to participate in the system for it to be viable and you cannot force those people to participate. Because you have no right forcing people to do any of these things, the burden of proof is on the anarchists.

Wow, was I ever right about you not understanding anarchism.

gigaplex:

Statists know this and so find the whole "burden of proof is on you" argument to be utterly ridiculous, cowardly, pedantic, removed from reality and it is seen as a cop out.

So you're saying that using logic is a cop out?

gigaplex:

It makes the anarchist look pathetic.

Says you, the one who concedes to illogical fallacious argumentation.

gigaplex:

An anarchist should have the balls to confront whatever intellectual challenges statists bring forth and should also have the balls to admit when they don't know the answer to something.

A statist should have the balls to prove his positive social statement and to awknowledge logical debate.

gigaplex:

Cutting off communication does not help anything.

No one's cutting off the debate but the statist who wants the anarchist to accept his premise and argue their point from it.

As I have repeated ad nauseam, nobody here, including me thinks that it is a central plan or singular system. How many times are you going to use that strawman?

If you want to call a free market that has no enforced monopoly on force something other than a system, go right ahead. Replace every place where it said "system" with "modus operandi". Do you want me to go grab the thesaurus and come up with a few more words? Let's not make this a semantic battle. My last point stands unscathed.

Blah. This is going in circles. You don't seem to get the point.

So essentially what you are saying is you want a proof that people strive for what they believe is best for them and the market provides this?

Praxeology.

Or are you saying that anarchists ought to come up with an artificial business plan?

DROs

Again, I reject the underlying consequentialist assumption.

banned:

gigaplex:

A new system has to be built.

Okay? It's still not my role to say how society OUGHT to run.

Never said it was your place to say how society ought to run. If anyone was, it would not be ancap. But the fact remains that companies have to be started to take up the roles of protection, etc.

banned:

gigaplex:

his new system is comprised of corporations that carry out the various activities needed by society. You ARE changing the system or at least advocating the change of the system. I'm afraid you have contradicted yourself when you say you do not want to change anything.

I really don't think you understand anarchism. I don't advocate a change in system per se. I don't care if the government falls or not. I just want them to leave me alone and stop assuming me as their property.

Okay, so you are apathetic about the existence of the government. Then, you can use the "burden of proof is on you" argument. The only anarchists that can't are those that want to live in a society that adheres to the modus operandi of market anarchy. If a person DID NOT WANT a government then they could not use the "burden of proof is on you" argument.

banned:

gigaplex:

If nothing changed, you'd still be robbed on a regular basis.

Precisely my point. The statist assumes the right to rob. I'm telling them they need to prove the right to do so. I don't have to prove that them not robbing me leads to better consequences, just that the act of theft is wrong (which I think they concede when they argue that the state ought to protect against theft).

Yes, the statist certainly has some explaining to do. But that doesn't exempt the anarchists from explaining themselves. If you wanted to be totally accurate, nobody HAS to prove anything. Either side could walk away from the debate.

banned:

gigaplex:

Now, In order to make this change, investors must be convinced to start up the companies required to do this. The investors are not obligated to do this. You do not have the right to force them to do this. Even if you had the resources to do it yourself, you'd still have to convince enough people to participate in the system for it to be viable and you cannot force those people to participate. Because you have no right forcing people to do any of these things, the burden of proof is on the anarchists.

Wow, was I ever right about you not understanding anarchism.

What? No way to counter that?

banned:

gigaplex:

An anarchist should have the balls to confront whatever intellectual challenges statists bring forth and should also have the balls to admit when they don't know the answer to something.

A statist should have the balls to prove his positive social statement and to awknowledge logical debate.

Yeah, he should prove his positive social statement. Both are lacking balls.

banned:

gigaplex:

Cutting off communication does not help anything.

No one's cutting off the debate but the statist who wants the anarchist to accept his premise and argue their point from it.

That is in effect, cutting off the debate. You know just as well as I do that the statist will never be able to explain to you in logical terms how their system is good and proper. The problem is that people do not give up a core belief like this no matter how incorrect or illogical it is, unless they have something to replace it with. If no one ever tells them how market anarchy is better than their system, then they are unlikely to ever replace the belief with something more logical.

If you were about to say that you don't care whether they replace their flawed belief or not, let me remind you that market anarchy is not a one man show. If you are the only person that lives by the modus operandi of market anarchy, then you really are not living in a market anarchy. What would you do? - have your own protection company to protect yourself and that company is comprised of one employee which is yourself. You'd be living in the same statist system but you would just be denying reality.

Brainpolice:

Blah. This is going in circles. You don't seem to get the point.

This is going in circles because you refuse to accept reality.

I remember in the beginning, I read Rothbard's For A New Liberty and I wanted to be an anarchist. I couldn't make the jump at first. I had too many questions about how various situations could be handled. I was not looking for the one true way that it would be done. I was just wanting to know that there was A way that it COULD be done. Unfortunately, whenever I asked anarchists about how such and such might be done in a market anarchy, I got no answers. All I got were snide comments about how I needed to justify the current system. So I said screw it and just stayed a minarchist. I eventually made it past this but it would have been a lot easier if someone would have just gave a few examples of how it would work. Not everyone is as persistant as I am. Anarchists turn people away from their modus operandi. So perhaps you can understand why I am so adamant about this issue. I don't wish to see market anarchy self-destruct before it even got started.

gigaplex:

I remember in the beginning, I read Rothbard's For A New Liberty and I wanted to be an anarchist. I couldn't make the jump at first. I had too many questions about how various situations could be handled. I was not looking for the one true way that it would be done. I was just wanting to know that there was A way that it COULD be done. Unfortunately, whenever I asked anarchists about how such and such might be done in a market anarchy, I got no answers. All I got were snide comments about how I needed to justify the current system. So I said screw it and just stayed a minarchist. I eventually made it past this but it would have been a lot easier if someone would have just gave a few examples of how it would work. Not everyone is as persistant as I am. Anarchists turn people away from their modus operandi. So perhaps you can understand why I am so adamant about this issue. I don't wish to see market anarchy self-destruct before it even got started.

Fantastic post.  I just got this in my inbox, and I had to reply.  Thank you.  That's exactly what I have gone through to get to market anarchy.

gigaplex:

But the fact remains that companies have to be started to take up the roles of protection, etc.

That's not relevant.

Suppose a banana farmer has a monopoly on banana growing and he hires a group of monkey bandits to prevent other banana farmers from setting up shop.

It's not logical to say that anyone opposed to the monopoly banana farmer needs to prove how people will get bananas in the absense of him. It will most probably happen. On a macro scale, unhindered markets tend towards equilibrium of supply and demand.

gigaplex:

But that doesn't exempt the anarchists from explaining themselves.

The anarchist has nothing he needs to explain. Are you saying people need to prove a right to act for themselves?

gigaplex:

If you wanted to be totally accurate, nobody HAS to prove anything. Either side could walk away from the debate.

The statist is still proforming positive actions which they need to justify.

gigaplex:

Yeah, he should prove his positive social statement. Both are lacking balls.

People who use logic have no balls, and people who don't use logic have no balls. Good to know.

gigaplex:

The problem is that people do not give up a core belief like this no matter how incorrect or illogical it is, unless they have something to replace it with.

Not my problem. And Athiests would tend to disagree with you there.

gigaplex:

If you were about to say that you don't care whether they replace their flawed belief or not, let me remind you that market anarchy is not a one man show. If you are the only person that lives by the modus operandi of market anarchy, then you really are not living in a market anarchy.

If there is demand for the government, so be it. That's a market. If everyone chooses government, I may have to out of nessessity. So what? People face trade offs in a market. No one gets exactly what they want. I just don't think people will choose the government if it's voluntary, and certainly enough wouldn't that It would be worthwhile not to join it. Perhapse you're not a voluntarist, in which case yes, you have a positive claim that needs proving.

gigaplex:

You'd be living in the same statist system but you would just be denying reality.

If I was living under the same system as I am now, voluntarily, I'd have no problem. But it's not voluntary.

gigaplex:

I remember in the beginning, I read Rothbard's For A New Liberty and I wanted to be an anarchist. I couldn't make the jump at first. I had too many questions about how various situations could be handled. I was not looking for the one true way that it would be done. I was just wanting to know that there was A way that it COULD be done. Unfortunately, whenever I asked anarchists about how such and such might be done in a market anarchy, I got no answers. All I got were snide comments about how I needed to justify the current system.

So what you're saying is that you had no imagination whatsoever. It is no one's fault but your own that you were unable to conceive of how things might be.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

gigaplex:

I remember in the beginning, I read Rothbard's For A New Liberty and I wanted to be an anarchist. I couldn't make the jump at first. I had too many questions about how various situations could be handled. I was not looking for the one true way that it would be done. I was just wanting to know that there was A way that it COULD be done. Unfortunately, whenever I asked anarchists about how such and such might be done in a market anarchy, I got no answers. All I got were snide comments about how I needed to justify the current system.

So what you're saying is that you had no imagination whatsoever. It is no one's fault but your own that you were unable to conceive of how things might be.

 

Yea, he won't take that wrong way at all

There's only one way to take it: as written.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

There's only one way to take it: as written.

There's many ways other's can interpret a statement due to subjectivity, but I see what you mean.

This is going in circles because you refuse to accept reality.

No. I don't refuse to accept reality. The problem is that you're castrated and moderate in your approach. You undermine your own alleged goals and appear to be too afraid to take a strong stance. You basically want to concede to your opponents and yield the highground to them. That's what what you're talking about amounts to. What your arguement amounts to is that anarchists should stop being radicals and simply concede to the status quo. Your attitude about this matter is simply weak.