doglash Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 In an FDR podcast I listened to some time ago Stefan outlined a brief argument against the state, the logic of which really appealed to me since it was simple and quite easy to grasp and yet still quite a strong argument, I thought. I can't remember the argument in full, just some of the main points. I paraphrase: "If society is 100% full of corrupt individuals then a government isn't the answer, since it will be populated by these same corrupt individuals who will use the power to their own advantage." "If society is 100% full of good, virtuous and moral individuals then a government is not needed, since everyone is already good and moral and there's no need to force them into this position." What I can't recall are his arguments as to why a government isn't the solution to a situation to where: 1. Society is composed of a majority of moral virtuous and moral individuals with a minority of the corrupt, and 2. The reverse situation, where society is a majority of corrupt individuals with a minority of moral, virtuous people. If anyone on the board knows these arguments off the top of their head and can save me a search through hours of Giant Chatty Forehead's wise words to find what I'm looking for, I would greatly appreciate it.
_LiveFree_ Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 The argument rests on the person you are talking to and their perception of human beings. "If you believe that most people in the world are evil and need to be controlled, then you can't have a state, which is a monopoly on the initiation of force, because evil people will be drawn to it and inevitably control it. If you believe that a small minority of people in the world are evil and need to be controlled, then you can't have a state because evil people will be drawn to it and inevitably control it. If you believe that all people are good, then you simply don't need a state. If there are evil people in the world, the last thing you want to do is create an apparatus for them to control armies. Name any genocidal dictator in the world. Now take away his ability to command an army. Can he still commit genocide? Does being "evil" naturally give you the power to murder millions, or do you need an organization that people support in order carry out genocide? Put 10 people in a room. Give them all a pistol. Now add Hitler into the room. Give him a pistol. Will he be the only one left standing simply because he's Hitler? Or will the other 10 people survive because their power was equal with a psychopath?" I elaborated in the last paragraph, but that's basically the gist of it. *Edit: You can add... "Psychopaths and sociopaths have no empathy for people. Psychopaths actually enjoy inflicting pain on others. These types of people learn early in life how to pretend to be like everybody else and fit into society without being spotted for what they are. Why in the world would you create a mechanism that rests on the manipulation of public opinion in order to control the most deadliest force? "Oh, you're a murdering psychopath? Well here's a nuke! God bless!""
LibFedDemRepCon Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 This argument seems to suggest that people are broken up into two categories 1. Morally Virtuous people - Good people 2. Corrupt, evil people - Bad people People are not absolutely good or evil. No one does absolutely everything good or everything absolutely bad. Everyone has flaws and everyone has done both morally wrong and morally right things. Think about yourself. Have you ever done anything morally wrong? (perhaps cheated on a test, lied, hurt someone intentionally) the answers probably "Yes" if you're being completely honest with yourself But have you also done something morally right? And I certainly would hope the answer to this would be yes as well. So which are you a completely evil person or a completely moral person? Neither, you're both a combination of good and bad choices and thus to construct this dichotomy of Good and Bad is a false dichotonomy/dilemma and is a logical fallacy. Think of someone who you would think must be 100% evil perhaps the Head Guard at a Concentration Camp in Nazi Germany. Has he done morally corrupt things? Most certainly. But there are reports where his wife says that he's a loving husband. If he treats his wife with love then that is a morally correct action and thus even he is a combination of good and bad.
_LiveFree_ Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 This argument seems to suggest that people are broken up into two categories 1. Morally Virtuous people - Good people 2. Corrupt, evil people - Bad people People are not absolutely good or evil. No one does absolutely everything good or everything absolutely bad. Everyone has flaws and everyone has done both morally wrong and morally right things. Think about yourself. Have you ever done anything morally wrong? (perhaps cheated on a test, lied, hurt someone intentionally) the answers probably "Yes" if you're being completely honest with yourself But have you also done something morally right? And I certainly would hope the answer to this would be yes as well. So which are you a completely evil person or a completely moral person? Neither, you're both a combination of good and bad choices and thus to construct this dichotomy of Good and Bad is a false dichotonomy/dilemma and is a logical fallacy. Think of someone who you would think must be 100% evil perhaps the Head Guard at a Concentration Camp in Nazi Germany. Has he done morally corrupt things? Most certainly. But there are reports where his wife says that he's a loving husband. If he treats his wife with love then that is a morally correct action and thus even he is a combination of good and bad. Well if EVERYBODY is capable of evil, then you still can't create a monopoly on the initiation of force, because EVERYONE who uses it will at some point use it for evil purposes. But it is not a false dichotomy since 4% of the population of America are sociopaths (about 12 million people). Hitler loved his dogs and was married. Oh, and he really loved children, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xarv7Pl4YXs "No one is 100% good or evil." Yes, technically that is true. Though, there is a line that is crossed which can't be undone. I deFoo'd from my father because he was constantly verbally abusive and controlling. I'll never see him again because of the evil he chose to enact upon me. But I have a cousin who said that my dad helped him completely turn his life around and swears up and down that my dad is a really good man. If you hand my dad power over millions of people via the murder machine called the army, with which side of him do you think that is going to resonate? In a totally free society, "the bad" will shrivel and die. It will be unproductive and unable to sustain itself, because people only want what is good. They will search out what is good and leave the bad behind. A totally free society is like an aggressive boot camp detox diet for the world's colon.
LibFedDemRepCon Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Well if EVERYBODY is capable of evil, then you still can't create a monopoly on the initiation of force, because EVERYONE who uses it will at some point use it for evil purposes. I would say that everybody is capable of acting immorally and practically if not everyone has acted immorally at some stage, would you agree with that? If you agree with that then doesn't it follow that the Government doesn't have a monopoly on the initiation of force as everyone else is able to initiate force and act immorally? Not to the same degree but to say that the government is the only one who can initiate force is false. But it is not a false dichotomy since 4% of the population of America are sociopaths (about 12 million people). Hitler loved his dogs and was married. Oh, and he really loved children, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xarv7Pl4YXs My point is that people don't act 100% good or bad. A sociopath can act morally so it's silly to make the dictonomy "No one is 100% good or evil." Yes, technically that is true. Though, there is a line that is crossed which can't be undone. I deFoo'd from my father because he was constantly verbally abusive and controlling. I'll never see him again because of the evil he chose to enact upon me. But I have a cousin who said that my dad helped him completely turn his life around and swears up and down that my dad is a really good man. If you hand my dad power over millions of people via the murder machine called the army, with which side of him do you think that is going to resonate? In a totally free society, "the bad" will shrivel and die. It will be unproductive and unable to sustain itself, because people only want what is good. They will search out what is good and leave the bad behind. I underlined a line of yours that I think is important. If as you say in that line "People only want what is good. They will search out what is good and leave the bad behind" and if as you say "No one is 100% good or evil" . So your statements are 1. People only want what is good. They will search out good and leave the bad behind 2. No one is 100% good or evil So if we assume that no one is 100% good or evil then it follows that sometimes people will search out bad and want bad things to happen. Therefore your first statement is incorrect as people search out Good AND Bad things. What if we assume the 1st statement is true. Then because people only want what is good and only search out good then it follows that people are 100% good. Which directly contradicts the 2nd statement. I would say I agree with the second statement and that people want what is good AND what is bad. A totally free society is like an aggressive boot camp detox diet for the world's colon. What if you believe that "No one is entirely good or bad and that people will act both morally correct and incorrectly throughout their lives." How does that fit into Stefan's argument?
doglash Posted November 12, 2013 Author Posted November 12, 2013 Thanks for the replies. This argument seems to suggest that people are broken up into two categories 1. Morally Virtuous people - Good people 2. Corrupt, evil people - Bad people I think the point of the argument is more to show the flaws in using a monopoly of force as a way to solve problems that arise from violence. It is definitely a generalisation of society though, so in that regard it is not a debate-ending argument, more a good starting point to work from with someone new to the topic. Well if EVERYBODY is capable of evil, then you still can't create a monopoly on the initiation of force, because EVERYONE who uses it will at some point use it for evil purposes. I would say that everybody is capable of acting immorally and practically if not everyone has acted immorally at some stage, would you agree with that? If you agree with that then doesn't it follow that the Government doesn't have a monopoly on the initiation of force as everyone else is able to initiate force and act immorally? Not to the same degree but to say that the government is the only one who can initiate force is false. Definitely everyone is capable of using violence. The state doesn't have an actual physical monopoly on violence, though when it is the nukes and armies and flying death machines of the state vs. at best rifles and handguns, sometimes bottles and stones of the civilian population, well they come pretty close. What they do claim is the moral right to monopolise the violence business. This moral stance is where they claim their legitimacy for using force comes from, and why they claim no one else can do the same.
Recommended Posts