Think Free

Well, when you use the phrase, "modern world" to mean "after states" and "pre-civilization" to mean "before states" you can understand how I might be confused into thinking you were talking nonsense. I agree that if we had good information on the rates of famine in Mesopotamia in the 100 years before the invention of the state and the 100 years after, that would be interesting and probably even relevant. However, I doubt we have that information. You seem to be missing the point. My claim was that the modern famines (defined as scenarios where significant numbers of people starve to death) used as examples of structural violence are all due to state violence and therefore inadmissible as examples of "structural" violence. I haven't provided any "anecdotes" at all. Since studies of comparable pre- and post-state scenarios would be practically impossible, if I were to argue that states overall have relatively increased famine (which I believe) I would do it on logical (eg. challenge the claim that states prevent famines) and historical (ie. I would look at cases of famine and show how states caused the famine--you might call this anecdotal) grounds. But that is not what I am doing here. "Structural violence" is only relevant because that is the topic of this thread, and it was the concept I was challenging when you challenged my assessment. I don't see why you were unable to deduce my point, given those facts, and instead seemed to think I was making another claim, but consideration of your misunderstanding makes your posts make a little more sense. I still disagree with your claim that I said I disagree with. Your point about colonialism was a point acknowledged by my initial caveat, "without direct violent meddling." Your larger point does not follow from your smaller point unless "influences" is acknowledged to simply mean "colonization." In which case it it just your smaller point, again, which I had already made prior to you making it. In any case, looking at one country in isolation does pretty much tell the whole story of famine if the government is so heavily taxing farmers that they barely produce more than they can eat. Sure, there can be other mitigating or encouraging factors, but the government crushing agriculture (and the economy more broadly) is the most important thing you need to know about the cause of the famine.

Why does this question matter? Of course we can't guarantee anything for all time. To do that would be to somehow eliminate the power and free will of ensuing generations. Our responsibility is to do the best we can with what we have in our time. This is why the libertarian argument is fundamentally a moral rather than a consequentialist or utilitarian argument. Libertarians eschew questions of outcome when humans are involved because humans don't have the power to predict human behavior.

My critique of the ontological argument is as follows: How to prove anything 1. Construct a proof-by-contradiction in which you assume the non-existence of a self-contradictory entity (or assume the falsity of a self-contradicting statement). 2. Use the ensuing breakdown in logic to shift the contradiction outside of the entity (or statement) in question. 3. Use the contradiction to prove that the the assumed non-existent entity actually exists (or the assumed false statement is actually true). The ontological argument is a proof by contradiction, and since it is not at all not-controversial that "God" is a coherent concept, it is possible that it is just a form of the above fallacy. Thus the most it can prove is that either God is a necessary being, or God is an impossible being. But that claim has been widely accepted for centuries (perhaps because of the ontological argument). Thus the ontological argument is, at best, an argument for the relatively non-controversial claim that God must be necessary if he is not impossible.

I think I agree with your conclusion, if not your argument. And this is one area in which I disagree with Stef. He seems to believe that we have to have anarchy over "minarchy" because minarchy inevitably leads to immoral government. It seems to me that the move to immoral government is a real historically possible contingency under anarchy or minarchy, and that therefore only eternal vigilance will prevent it in any case. I also believe that possibility of maintaining minarchy or possibly anarchy indefinitely are also real historically contingent possibilities.

My beef is with this claim you made right here below. My contention is that what you're suggesting is a useless comparison. Colonialism is a perfect example of countries conducting direct violent meddling in other countries. I don't at all mean to imply that it doesn't happen, by any means. But we're talking about structural violence here, which is only novel if it doesn't rely on normal violence. As for whether colonization directly caused famine or not, I don't know because I haven't researched it, but I think we could all at least agree that it's a bad thing whether it caused famine or not. Certainly it did nothing to prevent the rise of the modern oppressive dictatorships that cause famine.

"Do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good." Why should spanking be effective on basically evil children, but not effective on basically good children? 4 possibilities exist: humans are basically evil, and spanking them is correct; humans are basically evil, and spanking them is not correct; humans are basically good, and spanking them is correct; or humans are basically good, and spanking them is not correct. This is, of course, if the whole question of "basically evil" or "basically good" even makes sense. It is not a priori clear that spanking is the right thing to do to basically evil children. It's not like evil is substance that can be knocked out of the child.

"Emerged directly from them as part of the very same movement," "emerged as part of the same forces, the same movements," and "developed out of" (besides being vague and squirrely) are just ways of saying, "not necessary for and not a necessary and unavoidable result of" while making the connection sound as necessary as you can. You know how I know this? Because you claim that you are not conflating the state with the anti-famine measures. But as I've already stated, unless you're positing a logical necessity, it's irrelevant. As for your analogy: Sure, let's take it. We're still left with two glaring flaws in your reasoning: a) the fact that your anaology doesn't include the state, but only "what the state [(presumably)] developed out of." Trying to draw conclusions from this would be like trying to draw conclusions about civil-war era United States by looking at the original 13 colonies. b) the guards, etc., don't contribute directly toward preventing famine--it's possible to take other measures to protect the grain by, for example, living in front of the grain store. So, while having guards is one possible development from the practice of agriculture and grain storage, it's only one possibility, and therefore doesn't result necessarily from the situation. Now, note that this second point isn't critical--it just shows that the state is at least two non-necessary steps away from famine avoidance, when only one is necessary to disarm your reasoning. My point is that if you realize most people here are anarchists or libertarians, you should know that we believe the state is an unnecessary parasite on civilization, not some sort of enabler of civilization. If the first states were minarchist states, then I suppose they could have contributed in a small way toward reducing famine, but that the major reductions (if they indeed occurred) would almost certainly have resulted from the technology of agriculture and the storing of grain. Because food is such a fundamental necessity, it would be almost impossible, without direct violent meddling, for a country, or even a set of countries, to force famine onto a another country unless that country were a place like Singapore where they (I presume) don't have enough farmland to support their population, or, the country's own government uses force to impoverish the country, loot the resources, and remove all motive for producing anything but the barest subsistence crop yields. And if you think African famines are not almost entirely the result of their own governments, you need to read Why Nations Fail.

All your arguments are based on the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The fact that the development of some technologies was funded by the government doesn't mean that those technologies would not have been developed otherwise. There's plenty of evidence that when the government takes over funding something, it suppresses free-market investment in those sectors. Darwin didn't practice modern science? He lived over 100 years ago. That's your explanation right there. The fact that this even has to be stated is ridiculous. Where was the government when Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the Wright Brothers were working? Their work was cutting edge at the time. How do you expect companies to fund massive science projects when the government is heavily taxing them to pay for science? As Stefan reported, studies have found that the majority of published scientific papers are supporting false conclusions. That's not a hobby; that's worse than a hobby. They're passing off lies as scientific truth. The much lauded "peer review" system which is used to vehemently suppress minority views in just about every field of science turns out to be useless. The fact that some truth and useful invention comes through in all of this waste of tax money does not validate the system. When you keep pointing to alarmist claims to exaggerate the importance of the results, you just undermine your point.

Unless your position is that either states are necessary for the famine-preventing measures to exist, or that states are a necessary and unavoidable result of those famine prevention measures, it doesn't matter. And since neither of those claims are rationally defensible, as far as I can tell, let alone anything a libertarian would accept, I don't see why you keep pressing this line of reasoning. I do believe that the development of the state is, at best, tangentially related to the development of agriculture and storage. Again another analogy: Would it make sense to compare the availability to books before and after the invention of the printing press and then claim that, because copyright was invented to protect printed book production that it would make sense to attribute the difference in books to copyright law? No. It would make no sense because the difference in books is clearly the result of the printing press, not the result of copyright law. And since there is no logically necessary connection between the existence of the printing press and the existence of copyright law, it would make no sense to conflate them like that. Likewise, even though (maybe) the state arose in response to agriculture and food storage, there is no logically necessary connection between the existence of one and the other. Since it would clearly be agriculture that was making the difference (if any) in famines, thinking that would tell us anything about the state would be simply irrational. I am somewhat astounded that you're here on a libertarian forum and you don't realize what I am suggesting. I am not "arguing that states have made famine worse overall than it was before civilization." That would be a strange position to take--although it is conceivably the case. I am arguing that states have made famine worse overall than they would have been in the absence of the state today, and that almost all modern famines are caused by powerful states and absent in the freest economies. I had assumed that you were a libertarian, but your tendency to conflate the state and civilization makes me wonder if you're a statist, as that is a common statist fallacy.

Thanks. I believe that staying calm is very important. It seems to me that, unfortunately, most people can't tell the difference between someone who loses their cool in an argument and the loser of an argument. That's one of the strengths of the statist agenda, as they send armies of infuriatingly smug and naive people out into the world--it's hard to maintain your cool when you hear reasoning based on the unstated assumption of, "If it's worth doing, the government should do it," for the 10,000th time.

Did Friedman put Pinochet in power? Did he design the Chile government according to his theories? Or did he merely influence the economists that drafted some reforms? In which case there is no contradiction. That makes no sense. You just stated that it wasn't the states that prevented the famine. It would be as if someone was claiming that governments suppress literacy and you respond by saying, "Well, modern governments rely on writing, so, to have a fair assessment the question would be whether more or less of the population is literate now or prior to the invention of writing." That would be the opposite of a fair assessment--that would be as biased and irrational an assessment as you could come up with.

Yes, I have heard of it. As ProfessionalTeabager has pointed out, it was only a move toward liberalization undertaken under political corruption and dictatorship. It is hardly an example of unfettered free market. The hunger and bankruptcy are certainly as much to be blamed on centuries of oppression which proceeded the modest reforms. Free economies can undergo change without causing people to go hungry, and bankruptcy, in that situation, was probably mostly creative destruction anyways. Abrupt changes from statism to free market tend to be capitalized on by the unscrupulous and politically powerful to enrich themselves. It takes time for the free market to undue those usurpations. Today, Chile is tied with Argentina for greatest per-capita GDP in mainland South America, and is the economically freest country in South America. You seem to misunderstand what basic human rights are. Rights are not things that are guaranteed to be paid you from the sweat of another man's brow. Rights are the things that belong to you that should not be taken away by force: life, liberty, property. The things you list above are all things that people would have if they had freedom. You need to read Why Nations Fail.

http://youtu.be/g8S3geFZSpM (Sorry, don't know how to embed.) Original Article: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/... I didn't think Stef did the best job on this one. Mostly because he seemed to get pretty distracted criticizing the author. So, here's my shot at it: Yes, at least in the sense that is relevant to libertarianism. A person falling from an airplane obviously isn't free to not fall, but they are free to do whatever they can in that situation. Government doesn't have any magical power to controvert the facts of reality, it only has the power to use violence against people, just like all humans do. Libertarians claim people should be free from violence, not free from the laws of nature. Yes. As Stef has pointed out, to make the above scenario even remotely plausible you have to add so many additional caveats and limiting factors to explain why she can't possibly provide anything of value other than her sexual services and/or organs, and can't possibly receive any charity that what you're left with a scenario suitable only for a farce. The fact of the matter is that humans almost always have a near unlimited number of options at any point in time, and here's the thing: the worse and more desperate your situation, the more likely any given option will improve your situation. So, if you're Bill Gates, going door to door and asking for food or a job is a huge waste of time. But for a woman who magically in such a strange situation without friends or family or any job opportunities whatsoever (yet still somehow in a free-market) that it almost seems like "God" made it up to prove a point, going door to door would be a great option. The fact of the matter is that women who prostitute themselves usually either are violently forced to do so, or pick it over a list of other options that other women have chosen over prostitution. The bottom line is that problems that are not caused by violence cannot reasonably or reliably be solved by violence. So even in this woman's situation, if your only tool is a gun, your only possible way of helping her without hurting someone else is to find the violence that is putting her in that situation and stop it. Hint: It's probably something the government is doing, like minimum wage laws. Of course not. If you believe that "ought to be legal" equals "is morally permissible" you've completely lost sight of what morality is. It's not moral to mock the disabled, but it shouldn't be illegal. Libertarians (mostly) don't claim that it's moral to ignore the plight of the starving, but we do claim that it should be legal. The libertarian claim is that the only immorality that justifies violence being used to stop it is violent immorality. Libertarians claim that it is okay for you to believe that homosexual acts are immoral and not use violence to stop people from committing those acts. Libertarians vary on this, but I believe that some immoral acts are worthy of ridicule and censure, but not violence. For example, I believe that the pickup artist lifestyle is worthy of censure, but not violence. Again, another ridiculous example. Obviously it's not moral for the land owner to try and make his neighbor do all the work for a tiny fraction of the profit, but it should be legal. However, let's examine the situation a little more: If one man is able to earn $50,000 a year simply by tending a piece of land, then there should be a plethora of well-to-do landowners and tenders for which the poor man in this example could provide other services. Let's tighten the scenario by supposing that ALL the land was concentrated in the hands of a few lazy land owners that all got together and agreed that they would only pay $1 a day. And let's assume that for some magical reason, the laborers couldn't unionize, and can't find any other jobs. The first evil baron that abandoned this scheme and competed for labor could easily corner the market on wheat and make a killing. For example, at the normal "market" value of $50,000 suggested by the scenario, the smart evil baron could afford to pay 2 workers $2 a day to work his field and another 130 workers $1 a day to just not work for the other evil barons and he would still make a profit. If the pool of potential laborers wasn't significantly larger than 130, he would, by doing this, drive up the price of wheat (or whatever they're growing) significantly and be able to pocket the extra. If he owned more fields, his ability to screw over the other barons and make an obscene profit would increase proportionally. Of course, this scenario would never happen because enough barons are too smart to deliberately screw themselves over by being "evil". Anti-free-market people never seem to understand that employers compete for employees just as employees compete for jobs, so that in a true free market, there is a pressure to normalize wages. If "deserve" means "should not by violence be dispossessed of," then people deserve all that they are able to get through free exchange as well as all that they are able to get by any other non-coercive means. The problem here is that while the ability to earn (and especially to earn big) is somewhat based on luck, no human or group of humans is able to tell someone else how much of their wealth is the result of luck versus hard work, wisdom, patience, or any other virtue. One gambler may believe that he won the jackpot because of careful cultivation of his sixth sense. How can you be so sure that he's wrong that you are morally justified in holding him up with a gun and taking his money? Second, the idea that the free market tends to concentrate money in the hands of the few is just ridiculous. Free trade is not a zero-sum game. When two people trade freely, they are each acquiring wealth. The people who get the richest usually get the richest by making many other people slightly wealthier. And, as Stefan mentioned, the children of the highly rich and successful often just spend the money their parents earned, and when they do that, the money tends to flow from them who have an excess of money and riches to the people who have a deficiency and are willing to work for it. People with an excess of wealth have less incentive to save money and more incentive to look for the best. This is why high-end goods tend to have the highest profit margins. None of them were forced by the free market to die broke. None of them were mothers forced into prostitution, like your example. They all were capable of making other economic decisions and taking other paths in life. It's libertarians that tell them that they can take whatever path in life they choose. It's you who think you have the right to make others decisions for them. Of course not, but everyone is responsible to determine for themselves what obligations they're under. This is known as "freedom of conscience" and it the basis for "freedom of religion" and most of our other freedoms. Everyone has moral obligations beyond what they want, one of those moral obligations is the moral obligation not to use violence to force somebody else to do what you think they ought to do. It's not that complicated. By now you should know that libertarians would mostly agree that you do have an obligation to save the man, but that's a red herring. You statists are constantly committing the straw-man and equivocation fallacies in this way. The debate between libertarians and statists is not whether you have an obligation to save the man, but whether you are morally justified in forcing another person at gunpoint to save the man, or shooting him after the fact if he chooses not to save the drowning man. The clear answers is, no, you don't have that right and nor does anyone else.

Trying to convince people one way or the other about human nature is what's ineffective, since it's almost impossible to prove and libertarians win the argument either way. If people are basically good, they don't need rulers. If people are basically evil, it makes a strong state absolutely dangerous. Remember citizens are far more likely to be killed by their own government than by a foreign government or terrorist. If people are basically evil, that still doesn't justify preemptive war--you might as well say, people are basically evil, therefore I should kill myself before I hurt someone. I personally find that people's view of human nature tends to flip-flop depending on what point they're trying to defend. If they're defending socialism, people are basically good. If they're defending regulation, people (at least, business owners) are basically bad. If they're defending regulators, the power of politicians, or majority rule, people suddenly become basically good again. Statists that claim that humans are basically good just mean that the rulers and the people who benefit from the government are basically good and the people who are hurt are basically evil. Statists that claim that humans are basically evil just mean that the people the government attacks and controls are basically evil, and the rulers are basically good.

Hi, STers. My original claim was that recent famines are caused by states. However, I can also address the idea that states were set up to avoid famine. But first I'd like to mention that I think it was the book Why Nations Fail that makes the argument that the earliest settlements were NOT set up to avoid famine, but were set up to allow people to extract taxes from other people. I believe that claim was based on someone else's work, though. I highly recommend Why Nations Fail, in any case, as it speaks to the issue of how modern states cause modern famine. Anyhow, back to the question: There's nothing inherent to agriculture, villages, settlement, food storage, or famine avoidance that requires a state. Sure, states can take advantage of that stability to take control and tax people, etc., but that's an independent issue. It is the agriculture and storing of food, if anything, that prevents famine, not state taxation of that food.

FriendlyHacker, most, maybe all famines are because of state intervention. There is not a single country in Africa (where those pictures of famine come from) that has even close to the freedom of the United States, let alone true freedom. They have been mired in statist slavery for at least 100 years--in many cases since the dawn of history. Foreign farm subsidies prevent developing countries from being able to build robust agriculture. Why grow any excess food that others could buy when your local dictator is just going to take it away at gun point (and probably sell it overseas anyway)? "Famines have not been caused by a lack of food." This is true. But food in California is no use to people starving in Africa. Who's going to move it to Africa? And how are they going to feed their families while they're doing that for free? And who's going to stop the dictators from seizing the food and reselling it? It's easy to provide solutions when you can magically teleport everything from where it is to where it's needed.

Well, there's a lot that can be said here, but as a theist who's parents were also both overseas missionaries, three thoughts stand out to me. First, it may be as NeoEclectic said and it simply wasn't working out for her, but from the situation as you've described it, another possibility is that she was beginning to feel a pressure and/or temptation to have extramarital sex (fornicate) with you and, that being a sin, decided she had to break it off. In her mind, that issue would be directly related to you being an atheist. (If you've already been having sex, then ignore this theory.) Second, I am not sure that it was your approach that was the problem, but here's a tip from me. If you're trying to dissuade someone from a perspective, you want to appear open-minded, and you want the person to feel that their position is well understood by you. Telling someone what they believe, eg. saying, "Religion reaches objective conclusions based on subjective analysis," usually undermines both these goals, unless you hit on something that is both true and consciously understood by them. How would you feel if I told you that, "Atheists just don't want to believe in God because they want to sin without consequences?" A semi-socratic approach where you question her about her beliefs might be more effective. Please understand that I am not suggesting that you go back to the issue at this point--I am just giving you tips for future reference. If she's as smart and sensible as she seems to be, she probably understands that letting someone you're attracted to persuade you of something is not the best way to make a dispassionate rational decision (especially if there's an added temptation of possible sex), and since hellfire is on the line in her mind, she would be wise not to pursue the issue with you at this point. Third, once things have cooled down a little bit, you might consider going to her Bible study a few times. There are a few reasons why you might want to do this: If she is intelligent and similar-minded, you might find other intelligent and similar-minded people there, and if NeoEclectic's theory is correct, you need a wider social circle; if she felt the force of your arguments, there might be others (perhaps single women) there that would feel them even stronger; if you are upfront about being an atheist and make it clear that you don't want to be "evangelized" but are open to civilized rational discussion, if you are patient, polite, humble, and socratic (as described above) they may greatly benefit from your involvement, and you from theirs. Even if you can't convert them to atheism, you may be able to convert them to libertarianism and non-aggression. I would only do this if 1) she's comfortable with it, and 2) you're clear in your mind that you're not attending for her. The possible benefits of visiting are many, but probably the worst thing that could happen is a few uncomfortable hours.

Thanks for the idea. That's a good resource. In the end I just used "The Story of Your Enslavement".

Different worldviews will tend to have different objections to libertarianism. That's all.

Could you give some commentary? Do you think this is a good video to use just because it's called "Libertarianism: An Introduction" or do you have more reasons? It's been a while since I listened to it, so I don't remember it very well, but I do remember being a little disappointed.

So I have a number of acquaintances that are, I believe, fairly rational atheists, but, having been intrenched in academia, have never had anyone make a strong case to them for libertarianism. They probably have accepted a lot of the statist positions on things. Does anyone have any suggestions for Freedomain Radio videos that make an especially good introduction to Stef's work? Especially something that would especially convincing to atheists.

Would I bet the life of every human being on the planet on their freedom and own desire to survive? Yes. EDIT: More fundamentally, does it matter what I would bet?

You keep making these statements as if they mean were in a state of imminent asteroid impact emergency. But they don't. They're just facts without context. Maybe someday a large asteroid will be on a collision course with us. How does that justify coercive funding of astronomy right now?

And somewhere in the universe, an asteroid is happening to hit a planet.

Is that Michael Moore's documentary?