minarchism versus anarchism

[Phillip Brix]

hey stef. hope you're doing well. i have upped my subscription from 10$ a month to 20$ a month in reply to the rash of cancellations.

i have no idea how i'm going to afford this, but in truth i really do not care. i would gladly give you my life savings to keep you on the air for one more day.

i would like to do a debate with you of the merits and pitfalls of minarchism.

i know you've done this debate several times, so i hope i have something new to add to the conversation.

i image the debate will take a good hour, so if you perfer a time other than your sunday show, i have no problem with that. you get to name the time.

i've never dealt with skype before, so i would perfer to call in via cell phone if that's okay.

 

[Libertus]

Minarchism - the belief that the free market is best protected by a coercive, socialist monopoly. Really, what could go wrong?

[Phillip Brix]

arachism - the belief that vigilante justice is the best means of organizing society.

if no one is in charge, setting the rules, that means everyones out for themselves.

 

[Wesley]

 

arachism - the belief that vigilante justice is the best means of organizing society.

if no one is in charge, setting the rules, that means everyones out for themselves.

 

 

Before you do this debate, you may need to do a lot of research into what positions of various anarchists actually are (namely Stef, whom you are debating). If this is the position you think you are debating against, then you will not add anything to the conversation. Adding to the conversation would be to justly understand the argument and coming up with a logical fallacy or practical problem in it. Straw manning the position was exactly what happened in the debate with Jan Helfeld (and others, but thats the one I can think of) and really is just annoying to listen to.

[Phillip Brix]

no, this is not the position i think i am debating against.

but libertus straw-manned my argument before he even heard it.

[Wesley]

 

 

but libertus straw-manned my argument before he even heard it.

 

May I ask what your argument is?

[Phillip Brix]

okay so i think thare are lots of ways of organizing society. i think the "best" way to organize society is to have a small group of citizens; say 10% of the population; willing to defend other citizens from violence. to do so they need to be armed. i think that when society in general gives up its right to self defence against such defenders of the peace, you create a much more peaceful much more prosperous society. if i was the leader of a minarchist society; i would have only 1 law on the books. any law you're willling to apply to other citizens gets applied first and formost to yourself. here's how it would work.

let's say i'm an advocate of public schools.

in order to achieve this; i have to be willing to do the following.

1) pay for the imprisonment of any citizen who doesn't want to pay for public schools.

2) pay for the court trial to sentence him; if he doesn't support public schools.

3) aditionally pay for public schools.

if i'm willing to do all 3 as well as convice many others to do the same, then this would become the law.

 

[Wesley]

okay so i think thare are lots of ways of organizing society. i think the "best" way to organize society is to have a small group of citizens; say 10% of the population; willing to defend other citizens from violence. to do so they need to be armed. i think that when society in general gives up its right to self defence against such defenders of the peace, you create a much more peaceful much more prosperous society.

Many anarchists would agree with this, though it doesn't matter. This isn't really a debated point.

i would have only 1 law on the books. any law you're willling to apply to other citizens gets applied first and formost to yourself. here's how it would work.

Interesting, so lets look at this.

 

let's say i'm an advocate of public schools.

in order to achieve this; i have to be willing to do the following.

1) pay for the imprisonment of any citizen who doesn't want to pay for public schools.

2) pay for the court trial to sentence him; if he doesn't support public schools.

3) aditionally pay for public schools.

if i'm willing to do all 3 as well as convice many others to do the same, then this would become the law.

 

let's say i'm an advocate of killing Jews.

in order to achieve this; i have to be willing to do the following.

1) pay for the imprisonment of any citizen who doesn't want to pay for killing Jews.

2) pay for the court trial to sentence him; if he doesn't support killing Jews.

3) aditionally pay for killing Jews.

if i'm willing to do all 3 as well as convice many others to do the same, then this would become the law.

---------------------------------------

let's say i'm an advocate of raping women.

in order to achieve this; i have to be willing to do the following.

1) pay for the imprisonment of any citizen who doesn't want to pay for raping women.

2) pay for the court trial to sentence him; if he doesn't support raping women.

3) aditionally pay for raping women.

if i'm willing to do all 3 as well as convice many others to do the same, then this would become the law.

---------------------------------------------------

What, fundamentally is the difference between these circumstances (or any other) and public schools? Why do a group of people have the right to do these things? Just because I pay to kill Jews, rape women, or indoctrinate kids doesn't mean that I justly have the right to inflict this on others.

[Phillip Brix]

let's say i adovocate the right to kill jews, am willing to pay for thier death, and willing to persecute them for being jewish.

then i can be persucted for my religious beliefs as well. anyone who is a jew can pay to have me executed. mutually assured destrcuction

further more i would have to convice more than a mojority of society that killing jews is a good idea.

back to the public schools. anyone who doesnt want to pay for public schools can evoke laws on me as well.

for example, they can make a law requiring me to send my kid to privite school. if they really belive that private school is better.

however if i disgree that private school is better, then they have to pay for my childs private schooling, as well as my imprisonment, for refusal to comply.

 

[Wesley]

 

let's say i adovocate the right to kill jews, am willing to pay for thier death, and willing to persecute them for being jewish.

then i can be persucted for my religious beliefs as well. anyone who is a jew can pay to have me executed. mutually assured destrcuction

 

No, for you have a majority clause. Therefore, if a majority think it is ok to kill Jews (more likely Muslims or Atheists in America today) then there is very little chance that Christians would also be killed by a majority of the same population.

further more i would have to convice more than a mojority of society that killing jews is a good idea.

Just have violent childhoods, economic crisis, and the need for a scapegoat. It would not be surprising at all if death or concentration camps for muslims is the eventual state of America if we go through a major upheaval. The majority rule by definition screws the minority out of their rights.

back to the public schools. anyone who doesnt want to pay for public schools can evoke laws on me as well.

Except you said majority ruled and could throw me in jail for this... If I defend myself against being kidnapped, then I can be shot.

 

for example, they can make a law requiring me to send my kid to privite school. if they really belive that private school is better.

however if i disgree that private school is better, then they have to pay for my childs private schooling, as well as my imprisonment, for refusal to comply.

 

You still do not answer why you think this right is available for a majority. If a majority claims they can indoctrinate your kids, why do you let them? If a majority claimed they can kill Jews or rape women, that does not make it right or moral. Why do you feel that the majority has the right to enforce their will on the minority?

 

[Phillip Brix]

i do not feel the majority has the right to eforce it's will on the minority.

any one can evoke any law on anyone else, if they are wiling to pay for it.

for example here would be the laws i would evoke.

 basic human rights. you have the right to religious beliefs, right to trial by jury, write whatever you want, say whatever you want, as long as its not hateful or violent, right to own a weapon and defend yourself. right to decide whether to help your community pay for public school, or pay for private school your self, right to help your community pay for medicine or pay for medicine yourself, etc.

i would be willing to pay to give as many people these rights as possible, and i think alot of other people would as well.

i understand, society can become violent and destructive. if more than a majority disargee with the above, then there's little that can be done.

based on my understanding of history, any system can become broken.

 

[Wesley]

i do not feel the majority has the right to eforce it's will on the minority.

You brought in the majority support for a law thing

any one can evoke any law on anyone else, if they are wiling to pay for it.

So If I make a law that I can shoot you, then I can as long as I buy a gun and a bullet?

 basic human rights. you have the right to religious beliefs, right to trial by jury, write whatever you want, say whatever you want, as long as its not hateful or violent, right to own a weapon and defend yourself. right to decide whether to help your community pay for public school, or pay for private school your self, right to help your community pay for medicine or pay for medicine yourself, etc.

Who decides on these rights or are these majority decided? Or if not, can I just make a law and then pay for you to not have the right to life?

i would be willing to pay to give as many people these rights as possible, and i think alot of other people would as well.

What if people disagree on some of these rights who wins? The majority? What if the majority is wrong? (see earlier posts)

i understand, society can become violent and destructive. if more than a majority disargee with the above, then there's little that can be done.

Especially when you found society on the idea of enforcement by anyone, or by the majority, which I still do not understand what you are advocating in that respect.

based on my understanding of history, any system can become broken.

Usually, they are ones that are logically broken upon conception. The goal is to use logic to prevent this from happening again.

[Phillip Brix]

So If I make a law that I can shoot you, then I can as long as I buy a gun and a bullet?

sure, but i have a law that says if you shoot me you get executed by the police that i pay for.

 

Who decides on these rights or are these majority decided? Or if not, can I just make a law and then pay for you to not have the right to life?

everyone decides what the rights are for themselves and pays to enfore them.

if you pay for me not to have the right to life, that is end it, then i can do the same.

what if people disagree on some of these rights who wins? The majority? What if the majority is wrong?

who wins always? the majority in any system. even in anarchy, the majority wins.

what if the majority is wrong, well that's what the right to self defence is there for.

 

 

[Wesley]

who wins always? the majority in any system. even in anarchy, the majority wins.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism. Anarcchism does not allow imposition of will. It only allows win-win outcomes. If it is win-lose, then it is not anarchy.

well that's what the right to self defence is there for.

Unless the majority doesn't think you have the right to self defense.

 

You really need to check your propositions for internal consistency. Why would you allow everyone to create whatever law they want? This also is not minarchism at all.

This is tyrranny by everyone, not even the majority. You attempt to justify the use of force and violence by anyone who wants it and is willing to pay for it. This is immoral and ridiculous.

What do you define as ethically good or ethically wrong?

[Phillip Brix]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism. Anarcchism does not
allow imposition of will. It only allows win-win outcomes. If it is
win-lose, then it is not anarchy.

 

an·ar·chy

[an-er-kee] Show IPA

noun

1.

a state of society without government or law.

2.

political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

3.

anarchism (  def 1 ) .

4.

lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.

5.

confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

 

anarchy means no rulers. i propose that the people with the guns are the rulers in society. i propose anyone can buy a gun and use it. i propose anyone can enforce any law on anyone else by paying for that enforcement.

i don't see how much more minimalistic system of government you can get.

anarchy does not mean win win negotiations. win win negotaions only occur when guns aren't involved at all.

and since guns exist in society and people are willing to use them, you have to submit to the laws made by those people.

the only way to achieve a non-violent society is to completely elimate the gun. but if you try that, then only the crimals will have guns.

explain to me how else society could work?

[Wesley]

anarchy means no rulers.

Ok... a bit more than that. Ruler is someone who can impose their will on another by force.

i propose that the people with the guns are the rulers in society.

No, see above.

i propose anyone can buy a gun and use it.

Can, yes. This doesn't answer should or justly or anything.

i propose anyone can enforce any law on anyone else by paying for that enforcement.

No. Involuntary enforcement is immoral and abhorent. Enforcement should be abolished, thus no rulers.

 

i don't see how much more minimalistic system of government you can get.

Anarchy? Even minarchism is less tyranny than this tyranny of all.

anarchy does not mean win win negotiations. win win negotaions only occur when guns aren't involved at all.

Not guns, involuntary enforcement.

and since guns exist in society and people are willing to use them, you have to submit to the laws made by those people.

Slippery slope fallacy

the only way to achieve a non-violent society is to completely elimate the gun. but if you try that, then only the crimals will have guns.

No. Eliminate force, not guns.

 

[Libertus]

Phillip, is it a fair characterization to say you're a moral relativist? Meaning, 'there is no universal right or wrong', or 'your rights are whatever you can enforce'? Something similar to that?

[Phillip Brix]

 

your rights are whatever you can enforce'? Something similar to that?

 

i would tend to agree with this statement.

your rights are whatever you can enforce.

if you can't enforce a right then it's not much of a right.

 

the only way i know of to enforce rights is ultamitely with a weapon of some kind. and whoever has that weapon is the ruler.

i can pay for body gaurds if i disagree with the laws of society. i can gather up together like minded indiviuals and form an army if im angry enough about it.

i can't think of anything i can't do simply because society has a gun; as long as i'm able to buy a gun for myself and enforce the rules i see fit.

i want win win nogotations; believe me i think win lose is not jsut worse, its morally repugnant. but there are people out there who are willing to use win lose nogitations, and the only defence against them that i know of thats truly effective is violence.

 

let me ask you this; would DRO agents be armed? can i use violence against an armed DRO agent if he doesn't enforce my contract, or unfairly tries to enforce a contract against me?

[Wesley]

Now I'm even more confused. You seem to claim moral relativism and moral absolutism in the same post. You also claim the solution to enforced violence (an evil to be avoided) is enforced violence (a good to be encouraged). These are two positions that are contradictory and cannot exist as both true simultaneously.

[Phillip Brix]

now you know how i feel about the world! i am utterly confused too.

let me show you how confused i am.

what system of government do we currently have?

i would argue we have anarchism. becuase government is the ultamate anarchy. the rules are always changing, there are so many laws on the books no one can keep up, everyone is effectively a criminal, and so on.

i would also agrue we have communism.

becuase government has a monoply on the supply of money. when govenrment has a monoply on the supply of money nothing is privitely owned.

i would also agrue we have a dictatorship.

the president of the united states throught history has pretty much done whatever he wanted with little fight or fuss from anyone.

i would also agrue we have a democracy.

if everyone has the right to vote, and the government officals are elected by that vote, we have democracy.

i would also ague i'm a free man.

i have the right to buy pretty much whatever i want, marry who i want, work wherever i want, in fact i'm so free slavery is illeagal where i live.

i would also agrue i'm a slave.

because if i don't do exactly what the government orders every day, i get sent to the prison rape room.

i'm a 50% slave 50% free man.

 

its maddening.

[Pepin]

The form of anarchism described in so far as lawlessness is compatible with a communist dictatorship where the dictator is elected. It is not needed to use a single word to describe a political system, especially granted the schizophrenic nature of politics.

The argument that you are free is not compatible with the argument that you are enslaved, as they are opposite characteristics. The ability to act in accordance to your preference only when it is an act your master allows/encourages is not an equivalent to freedom, as there is a master. You cannot consider yourself free if you have a master.

A decent analog is free range farming of cows. These cows aren't given more freedom, rather their environment is less abusive than the previous. If the state stops initiating force in certain areas, this does not make more free, rather this lessens the force of the gun against your temple.

[Phillip Brix]

okay. you undertand what anarchy means right? it means no rulers.

agian it does not mean win win negotiations.

i argue again, that whoever has the guns makes the rules. don't belive me? here, i'm pointing a gun at you right now. can i order you to do whatever i want?

 

when a majority of citizens in an anarchy, that is no rulers, agree that basic human rights do not apply; the minority have two choices, either they can illegally buy weapons and take up arms against such government, or they can submit passively to the orders.

when someone is willing to initiate the use of force, you have two choices passively submit, or violently oppose.

i've heard stefan molyneux argue on several occasions that government is the ultamate anarchy.

i would argue no, government is not the ultamate anarchy, the minarchist system i've descirbed thus far is the ultamate anarchy, war of all versus all.

a place where vigilate justice rules, where anyone can buy a weapon and use it, where the majority of citizens can overthrow the rights of the minority.

and agian, how else can you organize society in an anarchist system? cause whoever you give the weapon to can use it however he or she sees fit.

 

don't believe me? try it.

[Andrew79]

 

okay. you undertand what anarchy means right?

 

How rude, why be so arrogant to assume that people advocating a position don't understand it?

Anarchism is a huge leap from the status quo, supporters seldom jump on board on a whim.

i argue again, that whoever has the guns makes the rules. don't belive me? here, i'm pointing a gun at you right now. can i order you to do whatever i want?

It's a common argument.

I'd suggest you read Michael Huemer's excellent book "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey". He starts with the simple assumption that the majority of people believe theft and violence to be wrong and builds the case for anarchy from it. On the way, he takes on, and demolishes, every objection I've come across - including yours.

[Phillip Brix]

i apologize for being rude.

i know you feel you understand what your advocating, but to me anarchy means something else.

to me anarchy means vigilante justice.

 

i'm willing to pay people to defend me against thiefs and murders. i think that in order to achieve to most peace in society, you need a group of armed citizens paid for by everyone in order to defend the public. for that reason i have no real problem paying taxes. i feel i should have more say in where my tax money goes; for example, i don't like the wars the USA commits, nor do i agree with the war on drugs, but i have no idea how to change the system.

 

[Andrew79]

i know you feel you understand what your advocating, but to me anarchy means something else.

Well, I know you feel you understand what you're talking about, but to me, you don't.

If you're going to criticize something you need to understand what you're criticizing.

Not just turn up on a forum, all arrogant and partronizing, and repeat the most basic objections to anarchy like you're the first person to have thought them up.

Anarchists aren't morons, people don't switch from the status quo to believing the best government is no government on a whim.

Just because you couldn't think of how it would work doesn't mean that no one else has.

If you want to "debunk" anarchy, read up on it (I gave you an excellent recommendation) and then bring your counter-argument.

Good luck.

[TDB]

 

I'd suggest you read Michael Huemer's excellent book "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey". He starts with the simple assumption that the majority of people believe theft and violence to be wrong and builds the case for anarchy from it. On the way, he takes on, and demolishes, every objection I've come across - including yours.

 

I have the book on order. Heumer has an excellent

and a nice article on the web "Why People Are Irrational about Politics".