Re: Argument against statism

Andrew — Sun, 11 May 2008 02:14:15 GMT

National security and safety from other States?

1- Market could provide it, ex 17th century privateers, all of our military equipment is made from private corporations

2- Why would a State want to conquer a free society, which would be a boon for trade of their economic health. Profit makes peace

3- Only the people that run the foreign states cause war. Why should any one person want to kill me if I am peaceful. Wal-Mart shoppers do not hate Target shoppers. Wal-Mart power hungry CEO's hate Target CEO's, killing both stores' customers in the process.( Socialists will like the CEO reference)

4- No states would form, or others would collapse into free places

Re: Argument against statism

Sage — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:03:33 GMT

Another objection:

Q. What about the poor?

A. In a free society, the poor will be better off

1-The minimum wage hurts the poor

i- The minimum wage is a price control above the equilibrium price of labor

ii- At the new controlled price, the supply of labor is higher than the demand

iii- The minimum wage causes unemployment of low wage workers

2- Rent control hurts the poor

i- Rent control is a price control below the equilibrium price of housing

ii- At the new controlled price, the supply of housing is lower than the demand

iii- Rent control causes a shortage of housing

3- Inflation hurts the poor

i- The government inflates the money supply from S1 to S2 and gives it to state-allied business

ii- They spend it with the purchasing power of S1

iii- The market reacts to the new money supply and the purchasing power declines. In other words, prices go up.

iv- Wages are often the last prices to adjust to inflation

v- The poor must pay higher prices with the same wages, until their wages are adjusted

vi- Inflation benefits big business at the expense of the poor

4- Private charity is better than government welfare

i- Under democracy, a majority has shown they will donate to charity (welfare). So, a majority will donate to charities in a free society.

ii- Without government red tape, bureaucracy, licensing, etc charities can get a higher percentage of donations to the recipients

iii- People will have more money to give to charity, due to a freer and thus richer economy

iv- For the same reasons, there will be less poor to need charity

Argument against statism

Sage — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:43:13 GMT

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.

Political Theory

Re: Argument against statism

Re: Argument against statism

Argument against statism