Is there anything I could have done differently?

[Threshold of Forest]

Greetings FDR Friends,

 

This is my first official venture into the forums after spending a year absorbing this philosophy (really, philosophy in general) and reconciling it with my own life. It's a challenging journey as you all know, and I have a lot of growing I still need to do.

 

I think it's important to improve my communication and debate skills so when people express interest in the NAP, UPB, FDR, or various other three letter acronyms, I can engage them critically and fairly.

 

With that said, I'd like to show you guys a dialogue and just ask your opinion: what, if anything, could I have done differently in this discussion? I'm sorry if this may seem trivial, but I think an exchange like this could be a good opportunity for learning.

 

Background: I posted a link to Dogecoin (http://dogecoin.com/) on Facebook, semi-jokingly recommending friends to pick some up after last night's crash in the dollar value of Bitcoin.  An acquaintance responded and the discussion moved to anarchism. I'll call him "Acquaintance" and I'll call myself "Todd" because that's my name.

 

Todd: While Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies suffer from China's regulatory environment, Dogecoin continues to appreciate!

 

Acquaintance: "...there can be no de-politicised currency capable of ‘powering’ an advanced, industrial society."-Yanis Varoufakis

 

T: I posted this in jest although I do have a (currently much smaller) stake in Bitcoin. Being an anarcho-capitalist, I've gotta put my money where my mouth is. Currencies evolve over time for a few select qualities that I do think Bitcoin embodies, although it certainly has fundamental flaws. I'll support exploration of any alternative to fiat, central-authority backed money.

 

A: 'Anarcho-capitalism' doesn't even work on paper. It's really a right wing, pro-business propaganda word and has nothing to do with anarchism.

 

T: I appreciate your perspective. I am pro-business, Alex. I also acknowledge self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, and property rights. If that makes me right-wing, then I'm willing to accept that as a consequence. I have yet to find a more rational and universally consistent moral framework although I'm always open to new ideas. It does seem that there are two main schools of anarchism, and it's interesting that they could not be further apart ideologically. However, I don't think the socialist school of anarchism has exclusive privilege to the term.

 

A: Just don't pretend you are an anarchist by adhering to a far right wing pro business ideology. Capitalism has zero to do with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a propaganda word cooked up by right wing pro business think tanks to bamboozle people who might otherwise seek to organize the economy along sane principles. (my emphasis)

 

T: Thanks for the discussion. If you have a rational argument or any essays that show the non-aggression principle to be morally inconsistent, I'll be happy to examine it and correct myself if I'm wrong. But I can't draw any conclusions whatsoever against your previous statement, which appears to be ad-hominem and false equivocation.

 

A: Thanks for your sarcasm, which was not invited. You can hitch your wagon to any star you like.

 

"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They -- the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism -- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." [Democracy: the God that Failed, p. 218]

 

"Chomsky argued that right-wing "libertarianism" has "no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny." In fact it (like other contemporary ideologies) "reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 235 and p. 181] 

As such, it is hard not to conclude that "anarcho"-capitalism is little more than a play with words. It is not anarchism but a cleverly designed and worded surrogate for elitist, autocratic conservatism. Nor is too difficult to conclude that genuine anarchists and libertarians (of all types) would not be tolerated in this so-called "libertarian social order.""

 

So yeah, I'm attacking you, ad homimen if you like, because you are glibly advocating a dangerous and tyrannical economic order that would have anarchists expelled from society or worse.

 

T: I'll read through the resource you provided and see what conclusions I can draw. I'm not sure where you found sarcasm in anything I wrote and there was none intended. I also don't intend to engage in a discussion where I am admittedly being attacked rather than approached with reason, so thank you for you time and thoughts.

 

At this point, I pressed the dreaded "unfriend" button, which he responded to with a private message:

 

A: See how it works? You have already excluded me. Anarcho capitalists are in the removal business. Are you the worst sort of hypocrite? Looks to be the case.

 

T: I'm not going to engage in a futile conversation where I am called names. Sorry.

 

A: You're a fool and that's a fact. When you crow in a public place that you're an anarcho capitalist you are doing worse than call people names. Get over yourself and grow up. Learn a damn thing about these ideologies before shitcanning people who might try and point to alternatives. Summarily executed symbolically on facebook. That's what an anarchocapitalist regime would do to real anarchists. Expell, correct, execute. Ugh.

 

The End

 

I feel myself getting emotional as I read through this. It's a mix of anger and sadness and I think it's making it more challenging for me to view the exchange objectively.

 

If you've made it this far, congratulations and thank you! I'd love any thoughts in terms of the debate itself, his arguments, what I did right and wrong, and what I could do in the future.

 

Cheers!

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

Can I just take a minute to express my shock that anybody thinks An-Caps would exclude commies, environmentalists, hedonists, etc.?

 

This is ridiculous. They exclude themselves. If a statist wanted to live in my anarcho-communist society, he would be free to. If he wanted to create an army to defend himself, he would be free to. If he wanted to enforce statist laws and regulations with said army, he would be forcibly ejected in self-defense according to the just principles of the NAP. So as long as he does not try to initiate force (without explicit contract - I could get into this further if you want), he can believe whatever he wants and indeed, anybody that he convinces to agree with him would be free to do so. He would not be expelled just because he believes something different.

 

The more likely case is that the statist would leave voluntarily, off to start his own country somewhere or live under the regime of an existing one. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as he does so voluntarily. I have extreme doubts that capital-minded business owners would refuse to trade with him if he has not done anything to harm somebody. Whoever wrote Democracy: the God that Failed clearly did not think it through. Or, even worse, the author does not believe that adherents to the NAP would actually practice what they preach, which I think is an expression of an extraordinarily depressing amount of pessimism.

 

Edit: Also, you're not a hypocrite for refusing to engage him further in debate. That's pretty narrow thinking on his part - in actuality, your refusal to continue is a showcase of your beliefs, not a denial of them.

 

Edit #2 (Because I want to address your questions): You should have asked him to define "sane principles" and how exactly he plans to organize the economy according to his definition. Really, anarcho-capitalist philosophy has nothing to do with business and everything to do with ethics. A strong economy is icing on the peaceful, mass-appealing cake.

[ribuck]

In my experience, a discussion never leads to edification after one person has accused the other person of using an ad hominem. The best approach is to ignore the ad hominem completely, and focus relentlessly on the substance.

 

Nowadays, I might sometimes point out an ad hominem to an audience (to illustrate the weakness of my opponent's debate), but I never mention it to the perpetrator.

[Threshold of Forest]

Can I just take a minute to express my shock that anybody thinks An-Caps would exclude commies, environmentalists, hedonists, etc.?

 

This is ridiculous. They exclude themselves. If a statist wanted to live in my anarcho-communist society, he would be free to. If he wanted to create an army to defend himself, he would be free to. If he wanted to enforce statist laws and regulations with said army, he would be forcibly ejected in self-defense according to the just principles of the NAP. So as long as he does not try to initiate force (without explicit contract - I could get into this further if you want), he can believe whatever he wants and indeed, anybody that he convinces to agree with him would be free to do so. He would not be expelled just because he believes something different.

 

The more likely case is that the statist would leave voluntarily, off to start his own country somewhere or live under the regime of an existing one. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as he does so voluntarily. I have extreme doubts that capital-minded business owners would refuse to trade with him if he has not done anything to harm somebody. Whoever wrote Democracy: the God that Failed clearly did not think it through. Or, even worse, the author does not believe that adherents to the NAP would actually practice what they preach, which I think is an expression of an extraordinarily depressing amount of pessimism.

 

Edit: Also, you're not a hypocrite for refusing to engage him further in debate. That's pretty narrow thinking on his part - in actuality, your refusal to continue is a showcase of your beliefs, not a denial of them.

 

Edit #2 (Because I want to address your questions): You should have asked him to define "sane principles" and how exactly he plans to organize the economy according to his definition. Really, anarcho-capitalist philosophy has nothing to do with business and everything to do with ethics. A strong economy is icing on the peaceful, mass-appealing cake.

I agree. His focus on exclusion seems to be very deep rooted. I'm not sure he even understood the NAP and perhaps I should have presented a clear definition. Thank you for mentioning that I should have asked what his sane principles are and I think you're absolutely right. But I also had a strong feeling that anything I said would be met with more aggression and insults.

In my experience, a discussion never leads to edification after one person has accused the other person of using an ad hominem. The best approach is to ignore the ad hominem completely, and focus relentlessly on the substance.

 

Nowadays, I might sometimes point out an ad hominem to an audience (to illustrate the weakness of my opponent's debate), but I never mention it to the perpetrator.

I appreciate that, and I think this was a great example of calling the ad hominem fallacy to no benefit of the argument. Part of why I mentioned it was just so my other friends could be aware, but I could have done that afterwards instead of the middle of the discussion. Thanks!

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

I agree. His focus on exclusion seems to be very deep rooted. I'm not sure he even understood the NAP and perhaps I should have presented a clear definition. Thank you for mentioning that I should have asked what his sane principles are and I think you're absolutely right. But I also had a strong feeling that anything I said would be met with more aggression and insults.

 

I know from experience that that is/was unfortunately likely. Don't lose hope though - we must be vigilant in creating the conversations that lead people to thinking.

[Holo Cene]

Having these types of conversations can be futile at times, or feel that way anyways. He obviously has no real arguments and doesn't even care that he doesn't. I have had a few discussions where people get really emotional and start to throw ad homs like grenades trying to diffuse the argument through attack. Stefan talks about this phenomena where your fellow slave attacks your for voicing truth. People can only see the truth when they desire to, because if they admit the truth then they know they will have to undergo a profound alienation from their society and relationships. People will not willingly pay that cost.

 

Though that does bring up another point. Why do we choose truth over the lies? 

[_LiveFree_]

If you have 1 person out of 100 able to engage you and have a rational conversation, you're doing far better than anyone I know! Remember, when you debate in places where people have your similar rational views, debating things is easier. But go out into the world and you can go your whole life without finding an audience, even of one.

 

You were respectful and didn't do anything wrong in this particular case. Even before you brought up the ad hom, I could tell he wasn't going to be able to hang in the convo. As mentioned before, you don't need to point out someone's aggressiveness in order to counter it effectively. Pointing out every attack is like stopping every punch thrown at you by catching his fist. Eventually your hands will hurt and you'll miss one punch showing him exactly where to focus his attack.

 

Best defense to a punch is to not be there when it comes your way. See it coming and move before you're hit.

 

Best defense against verbal attacks is to know who your dealing with before you engage in a debate. The internet is like a bunch of 2nd week Karate students who are going full contact sparring.

 

Ouch.

 

Build up a rapport with people before you challenge them, otherwise you just look like an instigator. Anarchy is not about politics, it's about relationships. When you challenge people on it, deep down they know this. You're confronting them with what they perceive to be eternal exclusion and lonliness.

[fractional slacker]

Mr. A. was arguing by adjective and accusation. He employed no reasoning or methodology as for how and why his claim(s) were true . He did not/would not provide any definitions. There is no debate without agreement on what words mean. IMO, that is how relativism is so popular. One can just make it up ex post facto, move the goal posts and exist as a cloud of fog.

[Carl Green]

uhhh,

 

 

T: I appreciate your perspective. I am pro-business, Alex....