Try and beat these arguments against anarchism

[Omegahero09]

Statist friends brought these arguments to the table, and I'm still hashing them out in my brain. a) All state force and coercion are voluntary because we are free to leave the country. Because we are free to leave and find a new place to live all violence is acceptable. If you choose to live in the United States you are choosing to live in the violence and coercion- therefore freedom. b) Morality within war and disputes between parties are irrelevant because the moralities and belief systems are just in their own views. 

 

c) Violence for the sake of self-defense is self defeating because suspecting that you are in danger doesn't always include objective truth/reality therefore self-defense doesn't work. d) Government owns the land. Therefore they can initiate force even if you don't agree to their property rules- vehicle tags, prohibition, taxation etc. This is the same for getting trespassers off your property, and workers working for you, operating your equipment under your rules and wages. They actually state that statism is a necessary evil and is the most efficient way to deal with several issues. They agree with most of my moralities but give exceptions to the government for the above reasons. 

[Nerburg]

A: if the entire world is a cage and as you point out in D, governments own the land, then you are not free to leave.

 

B: if any person or group of people can make up their own ethics, then there is no such thing as ethics. The options are objective morality or nihilism. By debating with you they are implicitly saying that there is objective truth and it is preferable to falsehood, therefore cultural relativism is false and they don't agree with nihilism.

 

C: I don't really understand, I think it needs to be phrased differently because right now it seems incomprehensible.

 

D: governments can't own land by any rational standard because governments are concepts, not people.

[cynicist]

I'm not sure I agree with your comment on morality. It doesn't seem to me like they think government is evil at all. They are claiming that: 

 

a) coercion is voluntary, which is a contradiction

b) morality is subjective

c) no one has the right to defend themselves 

d) theft is a legitimate form of ownership.

 

All of these are pretty morally reprehensible. Below I've addressed them in more depth.

 

 

a) Free to leave, and go where? Anarchists aren't against particular rules the government imposes, we're against having rules imposed on us at all. There are no societies where this does not occur except primitive tribes or places that are mostly uninhabitable. Their argument (that if we don't like having violence imposed on us we can leave) is equivalent to saying that if women don't like being raped they shouldn't be out in public. Except it's worse because violence against a woman isn't guaranteed and is strongly discouraged in society, whereas statist violence is guaranteed and mostly approved of.

 

b) In other words they're saying morality is subjective. This one is just boring because it's so easily countered. Ask them whether rape is immoral or not when the person committing the act views it as acceptable behavior. They deserve to squirm a little for making such a destructive statement.

 

c) ??? I may not be understanding their argument here. Are they suggesting that because you may be incorrect about how you perceive a particular situation, that all self-defense is invalid? Doesn't this ability to get things wrong also apply to police? So by their own argument shouldn't they be stripped of all weapons or other violent powers?

 

d) Kudos to them for at least not pretending as though society owns the land. On the other hand, what makes the government's ownership legitimate? A person who owns a piece of property had to negotiate with someone else to acquire ownership, through purchasing the land or inheriting it or whatever. The government uses force in order to take things. Do they consider a thief who robs them at gunpoint as the legitimate owner of the property that he steals? 

 

 

 

[Mogwai]

a) if somebody gives you the option of either being robbed/shot if you resist, or leaving the area, it's hard to make the case that the interaction is voluntary. this is easy to see if it's a guy on the street or a guy barging into your house making this proposition. I don't see how the situation is altered if the guy also claims to be a representative of the "goverment' other than revealing that in addition to being a criminal, he's also a lunatic. saying that by choosing to remain that you volunteer for this abuse is just away of obscuring the moral issue and blaming the victim. it's the distorted logic of abusers who want their aggression to be above question or reproach, but have your response to that abuse, regardless of what it is (be it leaving or staying), be a tacit approval of their behavior.

[dsayers]

They actually state that statism is a necessary evil and is the most efficient way to deal with several issues. They agree with most of my moralities but give exceptions to the government for the above reasons. 

 

It's funny how everybody would choose a sandwich over a sandwich and a punch in the face. Yet so many of those same people think that if sandwiches come with a punch in the face today, we couldn't have sandwiches without face punching.

 

a) My ability to stay out of arm's reach of you has no bearing on you punching me being assault and therefor immoral. Tell your friend his house belongs to you and if he doesn't like it, he can move. I am certain he will reject your claim and rightfully so.

 

b) You own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from each other. From this, we can universalize self-ownership to everybody. From this, we can determine that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. Therefore anybody that exercises ownership over their own body is bound by morality. Note that this is objective and universal.

 

c) Violence is the initiation of force. It doesn't describe defensive force. Any discussion on the use of defensive force must include an initiation of force, not just a suspicion of danger. Also, proportion is relevant. For example, it would be unjustified to shoot somebody for strolling onto your lawn.

 

d) Begging the question. "Government owns the land" is asserting a conclusion with no rigor. It's also anthropomorphizing a concept. Since taxation was mentioned, ask your friends if they would support you being thrown in a rape room for not letting a mugger steal from you.

 

I would also remind them that while they are free to give away anything they own to whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose, they cannot make this choice for you or anybody else.

[Ruben Zandstra]

c) Violence for the sake of self-defense is self defeating because suspecting that you are in danger doesn't always include objective truth/reality therefore self-defense doesn't work. 

 

Being surrounded with offensive people will make you less aware of imminent danger.

It will dull and harm your instincts, because at some level you are preparing for fight/flight all the time.

Especially if you have been traumatised as a child, your danger-instincts are probably damaged and unreliable by default.

 

Statement c) is probably more true to the degree that you stay in touch with people who are firmly dedicated to these kind of convictions.

[zippert]

a) All state force and coercion are voluntary because we are free to leave the country. Because we are free to leave and find a new place to live all violence is acceptable. If you choose to live in the United States you are choosing to live in the violence and coercion- therefore freedom.

Coercision = your actions influenced by a threat of violating the NAP/property rightsTherfore you leaving a country is coerced, e.g. by taxes.

b) Morality within war and disputes between parties are irrelevant because the moralities and belief systems are just in their own views.

In most disputes both parties think they are right. But with a written codex like NAP you can find out, who is.

c) Violence for the sake of self-defense is self defeating because suspecting that you are in danger doesn't always include objective truth/reality therefore self-defense doesn't work.

It is not "suspecting". If I use the scientific method and I detect an action against my property (=an unwanted change of it) and use violence to protect it, it is called self defense, otherwise not.

d) Government owns the land. Therefore they can initiate force even if you don't agree to their property rules- vehicle tags, prohibition, taxation etc. This is the same for getting trespassers off your property, and workers working for you, operating your equipment under your rules and wages.

The government has not homesteaded his land nor bought it with own money. Therefore by libertarian property rights theory it is not their land. Therefore they are violating NAP by their actions.

[Omegahero09]

These are all awesome...I also just realized that what the government says according to them and real life is this:"I own the land you are standing on. Obey my will, leave, or die."  

Ownership of land does not give you just reason to take immoral actions. 

Clarification on C

 

The example they used specifically was this: "An evil man walks into your 'utopia dreamland anarchist state,' or whatever, and according to your definitions of self-ownership and self defense, knows that he will be attacked on sight and therefore- decides to attack those he sees on sight- therefore both the evil man and the "not evil" civilized people are in the right according to the NAP. So I don't see how your system is just- or works. You need law to determine who has the rights to self defense and who doesn't."So basically because DRO's are after the massmurderer, the DRO's violate the NAP against the massmurderer and so you have conflicts between evil people and DRO's constantly. 

[cynicist]

Clarification on C

 

The example they used specifically was this: "An evil man walks into your 'utopia dreamland anarchist state,' or whatever, and according to your definitions of self-ownership and self defense, knows that he will be attacked on sight and therefore- decides to attack those he sees on sight- therefore both the evil man and the "not evil" civilized people are in the right according to the NAP. So I don't see how your system is just- or works. You need law to determine who has the rights to self defense and who doesn't."So basically because DRO's are after the massmurderer, the DRO's violate the NAP against the massmurderer and so you have conflicts between evil people and DRO's constantly. 

 

This example is confusing. I take it from your last sentence that the DRO's are after him because he is a mass murderer. Since this guy has initiated force it doesn't violate the NAP to go after him, that falls under self-defense. 

[dsayers]

Actually, a government claims to own all of the land in their "country" and all the people within it. Not just the land.

 

"An evil man walks into your 'utopia dreamland anarchist state,' or whatever, and according to your definitions of self-ownership and self defense, knows that he will be attacked on sight and therefore- decides to attack those he sees on sight- therefore both the evil man and the "not evil" civilized people are in the right according to the NAP. 

 

There is a chain of events though. The "evil man" exercises ownership over that which is owned by somebody else, making him actionable. The action taken, if logical, reasonable, and necessary (not shooting somebody just for strolling onto your lawn), is justified and not a violation of the NAP. The is why the INITIATION of the use of force is key.

 

Also, the use of the word utopia is a sophist trick. Statism is the utopia because it pretends that giving a small group a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force (something people don't have, and therefor cannot give) will solve all problems despite there being no logic, reason, or evidence to support this conclusion.

 

This example is confusing. I take it from your last sentence that the DRO's are after him because he is a mass murderer. Since this guy has initiated force it doesn't violate the NAP to go after him, that falls under self-defense. 

 

Being a mass murderer is reason to not do business with somebody. If they are not a threat in the moment, it IS an initiation of the use of force to "go after him." His profound history of immoral acts does not fundamentally change that he owns himself. I don't know what a DRO's role would be in this case. Do they have a vested interest because their customers were violated? Keeping track of him, informing all the people around him, etc would be a way to act based on his immoral acts without committing immoral acts themselves.

[cynicist]

Being a mass murderer is reason to not do business with somebody. If they are not a threat in the moment, it IS an initiation of the use of force to "go after him." 

 

The murderer initiated force to begin with, the DROs that respond by trying to apprehend him are acting in self-defense on behalf of their clients. I know this whole situation is a ridiculous hypothetical, but for a mass murderer to not already be isolated from society would mean that he was fleeing retribution for his crime from a statist society. If a DRO allowed such a criminal to walk freely I would consider it reckless endangerment. Not doing business with someone works with lesser violations like theft or rudeness, but if someone has demonstrated complete disregard for human life I don't think ostracism is an appropriate response. I would put rape in the same category as a violation of the body, though obviously lower than murder. 

 

 

His profound history of immoral acts does not fundamentally change that he owns himself.

 

He violates the self-ownership of others, it wouldn't make sense to respect his. If a thief steals my property, am I immoral for stealing it back? It's worse if I'm dead, so I can't imagine why he wouldn't be isolated if he was a known killer.

[dsayers]

I agree that it is a ridiculous hypothetical. If we live amid people who could think to the point of understanding government is false, assault, rape, and murder would only be carried out by psychopaths and the brain-damaged; those without a moral self.

 

Outside of that subset, we lack the capability of fundamentally altering somebody's self-ownership. You cannot claim self-defense in the absence of harm or threat of harm to self. Theft is different because if you take my car, I can take it back. Were you to try to prevent me from doing so, YOU would be the initiation of the use of force in the moment. I get that. But if somebody assaults, rapes, or murders you, there is no taking back (restitution).

 

What is the solution? I don't know. I'm pretty certain it needs to be voluntary or else we'd be no more moral than the person who we're addressing. Plus, I think the moment you accept violating self-ownership based on past behavior (no threat in the moment), you have formed the basis for a state. This is a tricky area and I'm certainly open to ideas to the contrary. I just don't view self-defense in the absence of threat to self, or violating self-ownership without a threat of immorality in the moment as valid or moral.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Ask for proof. When you don't get it, just start asserting the opposite of these claims. The eventual response will be some form of "fuck you, we outnumber you and we got the guns". This demonstrates they don't believe what they're saying and are just throwing out apologetics. 

[Omegahero09]

Ask for proof. When you don't get it, just start asserting the opposite of these claims. The eventual response will be some form of "fuck you, we outnumber you and we got the guns". This demonstrates they don't believe what they're saying and are just throwing out apologetics. 

 

 

This was their attitude from the get-go. They reacted very violently to my statements, though I was being as open and as friendly as I knew how to be. They were absolutely fixed on the idea that evil people will rise to some sort of power always and that in order to keep that from happening the solution is to lay down the law. When I pointed out that all that evil they are talking about exists already both in and out of the government they squirmed and became progressively more passionate and irate. 

[dsayers]

Not that it will be helpful to those who seek confirmation bias, but there's two things you can point out in regards to the "rise up" argument.

 

The first obviously is that if the worst scenario that can think of without a state is that there could become a state, they're actually arguing for you. There are a LOT statists say that actually apply to statism and not anarchism.

 

The second being that the last 30 years has yielded tons of understanding of how the brain works. The origins of psychopathy, epigenetics, nuero-elasticity, even innate empathy. To imagine that people being able to think en masse to the point of accepting that government is false would be plagued by crime is akin to thinking that people being vaccinated against polio will be plagued by polio. It's a fear tactic with no understanding of the topic they're discussing. Ye olde "we've always had slavery, so it must be necessary."

 

Besides, if they really believe people are going to try and subjugate one another, then step one would obviously be to not build nukes, assemble armies, and call such subjugation moral, just, and noble.

[cynicist]

I just don't view self-defense in the absence of threat to self, or violating self-ownership without a threat of immorality in the moment as valid or moral.

 

I think we view things differently. To me, a psychopathic mass murderer walking around freely is like allowing a wild lion to roam among humans (in that morality is not a consideration for them when it comes to violence). Since there is no internal restraint for their behavior, the threat is omnipresent. I imagine you wouldn't agree, but at least I do agree with you that it would be a non-issue by the time a free society is possible. I'm just a little sad I won't be there lol.

 

 

When I pointed out that all that evil they are talking about exists already both in and out of the government they squirmed and became progressively more passionate and irate. 

 

It's ironic how they are arguing against the state as much as you are without realizing it. As dsayers points out, if they are so afraid of evil people then having a place where they can get together and raise armies to do colossal amounts of damage is the absolute last thing you want. You may be able to make headway one on one, but it sounds like their responses are too emotional for a group discussion to be productive.

[dsayers]

The omnipresence point is a good one. I agree with that. So as a thought experiment, how do we determine that psychopathy is the root of their (habitual) immorality? If it's that murder, rape, and more extreme cases of assault would cross the line based on the extent of the damage, how much do we take into consideration intent? While the damage is dramatically different, stealing somebody's pencil, raping somebody, and nuking a city are morally identical. How then can we consistently or effectively draw a line by extent of damage alone?

 

I think most people would feel pretty similarly on this subject, but I would like to try and figure out an objective measure with a sound case behind it. It's a hard one to consider because we live in such a pro-violence society and that large amounts of the desire for retribution stem from this shield of "free evil."

[Andrew79]

I'll just add a couple of points I don't think anyone else has brought up yet:

 

"a) All state force and coercion are voluntary because we are free to leave the country. Because we are free to leave and find a new place to live all violence is acceptable. If you choose to live in the United States you are choosing to live in the violence and coercion- therefore freedom."

 

This is a fallacy known as circular reasoning, that is it assumes what it's trying to prove.

 

He's saying you consent to government because you're on its land, but this is assuming government's legitimate in the first place.

 

 

"d) Government owns the land. Therefore they can initiate force even if you don't agree to their property rules- vehicle tags, prohibition, taxation etc. This is the same for getting trespassers off your property, and workers working for you, operating your equipment under your rules and wages. "

 

This contradicts itself. It's either your property or the government's, it can't be both.

[Omegahero09]

The omnipresence point is a good one. I agree with that. So as a thought experiment, how do we determine that psychopathy is the root of their (habitual) immorality? If it's that murder, rape, and more extreme cases of assault would cross the line based on the extent of the damage, how much do we take into consideration intent? While the damage is dramatically different, stealing somebody's pencil, raping somebody, and nuking a city are morally identical. How then can we consistently or effectively draw a line by extent of damage alone?

 

I think most people would feel pretty similarly on this subject, but I would like to try and figure out an objective measure with a sound case behind it. It's a hard one to consider because we live in such a pro-violence society and that large amounts of the desire for retribution stem from this shield of "free evil."

Actually this is where I think the brilliance of DRO's and dispute insurance agencies comes into play. You can pick for yourself the monetary values of evil. 

[cynicist]

The omnipresence point is a good one. I agree with that. So as a thought experiment, how do we determine that psychopathy is the root of their (habitual) immorality? If it's that murder, rape, and more extreme cases of assault would cross the line based on the extent of the damage, how much do we take into consideration intent? While the damage is dramatically different, stealing somebody's pencil, raping somebody, and nuking a city are morally identical. How then can we consistently or effectively draw a line by extent of damage alone?

 

I think most people would feel pretty similarly on this subject, but I would like to try and figure out an objective measure with a sound case behind it. It's a hard one to consider because we live in such a pro-violence society and that large amounts of the desire for retribution stem from this shield of "free evil."

 

Well habitual murder would be self-evident, but I could imagine a brain scan and tests being done if someone commits a crime like murder or rape to determine the likelihood of a repeat offense. You can only objectively determine intent from actions and context, but clearly it would be an important factor. (Simple example: Attempts were made to hide the body or otherwise obscure evidence vs what appears to be an emotionally driven decision, can't determine the latter but could detect the former) I don't agree with your example, precisely because the degree matters; I don't know how to calculate the difference but we know logically that the more damage you do to a person's property the higher the restitution must be to compensate, so they can't be morally identical. 

 

However, it's one of those problems that seems moot. I don't exactly worry about murderers when I'm going out despite how violent society currently is, so by the time we're free I imagine this will be mostly an academic exercise. (I mean getting a precise measure)

[dsayers]

I could imagine a brain scan and tests being done if someone commits a crime like murder or rape to determine the likelihood of a repeat offense. You can only objectively determine intent from actions and context, but clearly it would be an important factor. (Simple example: Attempts were made to hide the body or otherwise obscure evidence vs what appears to be an emotionally driven decision, can't determine the latter but could detect the former)

 

I agree with all of this. Would this mean that arresting somebody's freedom of movement for the purpose of inflicting a brain scan would be morally acceptable? What if it is somebody who has only been accused of murder? If we accept any of this and it is mishandled, are we then morally responsible for the act of immorality? An example would be a present day consideration in the case against capital punishment. If murderers are to be put to death and "we" kill somebody who is innocent, we are all murderers and the human race would be extinct.

 

Is not immorality the exercising of ownership over that which is owned by somebody else? Are not stealing somebody's pencil, raping somebody, and dropping a nuke on a populated city all examples of exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else? This is my case for the claim that they are morally identical. I am open to the case for extent of damage assigning a gradient to morality. However I must caution that I'm skeptical since it would be predicated on value, which is subjective.

 

I agree with your remark about academic exercise. I ask that you indulge me as I get asked this all the time by people who do not understand that they're asking how we're going to deal with polio after people are vaccinated against it. I am relatively new to thinking for myself and seek to hone my technique. Thank you.

[PatrickC]

I'll just add a couple of points I don't think anyone else has brought up yet:

 

"a) All state force and coercion are voluntary because we are free to leave the country. Because we are free to leave and find a new place to live all violence is acceptable. If you choose to live in the United States you are choosing to live in the violence and coercion- therefore freedom."

 

This is a fallacy known as circular reasoning, that is it assumes what it's trying to prove.

 

He's saying you consent to government because you're on its land, but this is assuming government's legitimate in the first place.

 

 

"d) Government owns the land. Therefore they can initiate force even if you don't agree to their property rules- vehicle tags, prohibition, taxation etc. This is the same for getting trespassers off your property, and workers working for you, operating your equipment under your rules and wages. "

 

This contradicts itself. It's either your property or the government's, it can't be both.

 

Yes, that's a good point Andrew. But I think I would deepen the rabbit hole further for them. Compared to the Soviet Union which imposed strict restrictions on travel for its citizens, otherwise known as the 'Iron Curtain'. We now have a system of passports, visa's and immigration restrictions on where we can live and work. We need permission everywhere we go and effectively we still need permission from our existing state to leave (passports). Hence the Snowden dilemma  He required official sanction from Putin himself in order to stay in Russia. But even Putin kept to the official rules and legal channels to achieve it. I call it a 'glass curtain' myself. Insofar as we can imagine leaving, but in all likelihood we will either (be) return(ed) or gain permission from a similar state.

 

For the most part though, I tend to agree that these retorts to anarchism are emotionally led. They know they are unproductive and normally outbursts from those not willing to think the unthinkable. These rebuttals they will mostly ignore and scoff at. But, for the few that might be genuinly interested, I can see some productive value in them.

[cynicist]

I agree with your remark about academic exercise. I ask that you indulge me as I get asked this all the time by people who do not understand that they're asking how we're going to deal with polio after people are vaccinated against it. I am relatively new to thinking for myself and seek to hone my technique. Thank you.

 

Absolutely, I enjoy it because it helps me to see flaws in my reasoning too. Even though I have been listening to FDR for a while, there is always room for improvement. The fact that you are new and yet understand the nature of improving society through peaceful parenting and what effect that would have on future criminality is amazing to me. Reminds me that Stefan's material draws a lot of really intelligent thinkers.

 

I agree with all of this. Would this mean that arresting somebody's freedom of movement for the purpose of inflicting a brain scan would be morally acceptable? What if it is somebody who has only been accused of murder? If we accept any of this and it is mishandled, are we then morally responsible for the act of immorality? An example would be a present day consideration in the case against capital punishment. If murderers are to be put to death and "we" kill somebody who is innocent, we are all murderers and the human race would be extinct.

 

In my example I said after someone has already been established as a murderer intentionally (they are already in violation of the self-ownership of others). The goal is not thought-crime type perpetual monitoring but a basic check to see if the person is a psychopath or if they have a conscience and are able to exist in society without having to be constantly watched as a possible danger to others. Someone who murders in a highly volatile situation is still dangerous but a lot less dangerous than someone who has the ability to habitually kill people and not feel bad about it. I'm not for capital punishment btw, I view a psychopath as in the same category as any other dangerous animal: Avoid if possible, kill if necessary in self-defense, otherwise use precaution and isolate in order to protect people. Unfortunately since human beings are so much more intelligent than other animals we can't just relocate people as a solution (like we might do for say, a polar bear) so some type of confinement seems like the only compassionate and safe way to deal with the problem. 

 

 

Is not immorality the exercising of ownership over that which is owned by somebody else? Are not stealing somebody's pencil, raping somebody, and dropping a nuke on a populated city all examples of exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else? This is my case for the claim that they are morally identical. I am open to the case for extent of damage assigning a gradient to morality. However I must caution that I'm skeptical since it would be predicated on value, which is subjective.

 

Value is indeed subjective (like how much compensation should be given for damaging a car) but extent of damage is not. If you put two cars in front of people where one is scratched and the other is totaled you might get different responses as to how much the owner is owed in either case but the fact that one car is in a worse state than the other is objective (if you are looking it in the context of the function of a vehicle, obviously they are both just a pile of shaped metal otherwise). No one is going to think that a scratch is worse than your car not being able to function.

 

Similarly, I may not be able to quantify in something like monetary terms how much worse murder is than rape, but we can both agree that losing your life and all ability to think/function is worse than the physical and emotional pain associated with rape, as horrible as it is. (if you look at the human body in terms of property which you own, destroying is worse than damaging, since damage can be repaired to some degree) And since the body is the source of all external ownership it takes precedence over all material possessions, which is why crimes against the body are considered worse than crimes against lesser property like pencils. 

 

The nuke part is simpler. If murder is immoral, then just mathematically you know that murdering more people is worse than murdering less. It's not a matter of subjective value, but of logic. If I start with the premise that sitting on a couch is an act of laziness, then clearly what follows is that someone who sits on a couch for eight hours a day is lazier than someone who sits on a couch for four hours a day. I hope that helps, let me know if something is not clear or if I'm wrong somewhere.

[Omegahero09]

Does anyone know of a thread here, or a video where Stef talks about property and determining ownership?While we know that the government's "ownership" of the land is invalid morally, how would we go about splitting it up peacefully? Who defines property and how can we define it beyond our bodies and the labor of our bodies?

[dsayers]

If murder is immoral, then just mathematically you know that murdering more people is worse than murdering less.

 

Yes murdering two people is worse than murdering one. They are morally identical though as they both require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

 

I think where the communication breakdown lies is that I don't think morality is analog. Any given behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral. Stealing a pencil is immoral. Rape is immoral. Genocide is immoral. Of course the extent of damage of those compared to one another aren't even in the same ballpark. Yet I maintain they are morally identical in that they are each immoral as opposed to moral or amoral.

 

Going back to the capital punishment paradox, the paradox exists even in lesser terms. If "we" imprison people that murder and we imprison an innocent, then we are all guilty of assault. If somebody is suspected of murder, "we" seize them, subject them to a brain scan, and realize they're not damaged, we are guilty of assault. What if somebody is accused of murder and it turns out they were abused and have a swollen amygdala, but were innocent of murder? What if they've gone through therapy and worked through the abuse of their past that has left a physiological scar?

 

I think the moment you say it's okay to assault somebody, even for very good reasons as arresting the freedom of movement of a murderer, you open up the door for abuses, up to and including the imposition of a state. For this reason, I think it's important that we re-examine our propagandized notion that a person fundamentally doesn't own themselves the moment they violate the self-ownership of another. We have to be able to address this objectively and consistently, lest we become the aggressors.

 

I'm really sorry if I haven't vocalized my dissatisfaction with the responses thus far in a way that is helpful. I know it can be frustrating. Thank you for your patience.

[cynicist]

Does anyone know of a thread here, or a video where Stef talks about property and determining ownership?While we know that the government's "ownership" of the land is invalid morally, how would we go about splitting it up peacefully? Who defines property and how can we define it beyond our bodies and the labor of our bodies?

 

Stefan doesn't have an answer to how to divide land that is claimed to be owned by government, though he has mentioned it in the past (sorry can't remember the specific show/podcast). It would be really hard to determine how to do that. As far as property in general he has tons of material on it, but a good place to start would be the video below. 

 

 

 

Yes murdering two people is worse than murdering one. They are morally identical though as they both require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

 

I think where the communication breakdown lies is that I don't think morality is analog. Any given behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral. Stealing a pencil is immoral. Rape is immoral. Genocide is immoral. Of course the extent of damage of those compared to one another aren't even in the same ballpark. Yet I maintain they are morally identical in that they are each immoral as opposed to moral or amoral.

 

I see what you are saying, but it's an oversimplification. To continue with the car analogy, I can argue that a vehicle is either pristine or damaged, and that any level of damage is worse than no damage (which is certainly true, just as what you are saying is true) but that doesn't mean that there is not a meaningful difference between a car that is totaled and one that is scratched. They both fall under the category of 'damaged', but to say that they are in an identical state would be recognized as an insufficient level of detail. This is as important when determining restitution for an owner in a traffic accident as it is when determining restitution or punishment for a crime like murder. So yes, they are identical in whether they are moral or immoral (the basic categorization) but that is not the only consideration that matters. (when considering justice) You are combining two separate questions (Is it immoral? / How immoral is it?) as if there is only one that is valid. Both are valid and objective.

 

 

I think the moment you say it's okay to assault somebody, even for very good reasons as arresting the freedom of movement of a murderer, you open up the door for abuses, up to and including the imposition of a state. For this reason, I think it's important that we re-examine our propagandized notion that a person fundamentally doesn't own themselves the moment they violate the self-ownership of another. We have to be able to address this objectively and consistently, lest we become the aggressors.

 

Ah now I clearly see where the issue lies. I think you are mistaken in your view of morality. For example, I could take your argument here and apply it to self-defense just as easily, as in:

 

 I think the moment you say it's okay to assault somebody, even for very good reasons like protecting yourself, you open up the door for abuses, up to and including killing another human being.

 

If Bob is attacked and the struggle that ensues escalates to the killing of the attacker, would you say that what Bob did should be treated as a murder? Personally I would say it is complicated and the judgment depends a lot on the circumstances, but as he did not initiate the violence it clearly would not be treated the same as murder.

 

As soon as someone commits murder they are saying through their actions that they do not respect an individual's right to own their own bodies, which means they can't expect the rule to apply to them either, since they are violating it. That doesn't mean it's fine to murder them, but it does mean that their moral status and how we interact with them is going to be very different than that of an innocent person. A commonly used example would be whether or not lying to a Nazi who comes to your house in search of a Jew is immoral. With the knowledge that they are coming to do harm to the Jew, and that you would be assisting them if you were to reveal their presence, you could actually be considered immoral for being honest. (this is a bit vague, since you are also under threat of force, but certainly you would not be condemned as a dishonest person for lying in that particular circumstance)

 

Saying that denying someone their self-ownership after they denied someone else's self-ownership (like isolating a murderer) is ethically questionable is equivalent to saying that paying someone to recover your property from a thief who claims ownership over it is ethically questionable. 

 

I don't think it is propaganda, it's just the universal nature of morality. We recognize that when a liar criticizes someone for being dishonest, this is hypocrisy, because they are expecting an exemption from the rules that they think apply to everyone else. I think that recognition is objective and consistent. (if you break the rules then they are less applicable to you than they are to someone who doesn't)

 

 

Going back to the capital punishment paradox, the paradox exists even in lesser terms. If "we" imprison people that murder and we imprison an innocent, then we are all guilty of assault. If somebody is suspected of murder, "we" seize them, subject them to a brain scan, and realize they're not damaged, we are guilty of assault. What if somebody is accused of murder and it turns out they were abused and have a swollen amygdala, but were innocent of murder? What if they've gone through therapy and worked through the abuse of their past that has left a physiological scar?

 

Just to address this point, obviously we would have very high standards for a conviction for exactly this reason, and in the event that a mistake occurs there would need to be compensation. However, the alternative to the risk of harming an innocent through a false conviction is to risk an innocent being harmed through a lack of action. (If we were to choose not to isolate a murderer and he continued to kill others) Personally I think the odds of a murderer with the freedom to move unhindered killing again are far higher than the odds of innocent people being imprisoned in a free society with high standards, but there is a more objective reason that I will outline below.

 

Consider this, if a murderer starts killing and we react by not wanting to trade with him, what happens when he just kills people for the resources that he needs? To me expecting people to only react in defense if he attacks them personally is just a type of pacifism that invites further immoral behavior, since it indicates to an attacker that he will always be free to do what he wants as long as he picks targets weaker than him. Allowing a known murderer to walk freely implies that he is an exception to the rule, since he is allowed to violate the self ownership of others while preserving his own self ownership. (So I think this justifies having a trial, even if that includes the risk of a false conviction)

 

I know that was long but I wanted to be thorough. Let me know if anything was unclear.

[dsayers]

No need to apologize for the length. I for one don't mind. In fact, I read over the thread again and something stuck out as a possible source of confusion. That is that there are absolutes alongside matters of discussion. For example, I pointed out being morally identical while acknowledging that there is a gradient of damage. To which you say moral status isn't the only consideration that matters. And that's fine as I never claimed it was. The other example of an absolute alongside a matter of discussion IS important though. A person owns themselves. To this, you've said

 

"He violates the self-ownership of others, it wouldn't make sense to respect his." &

 

"Allowing a known murderer to walk freely implies that he is an exception to the rule, since he is allowed to violate the self ownership of others while preserving his own self ownership."

 

These things don't address that whether we like it or not, they own themselves. This means that how we treat people who have engaged in an immoral action is important. Earlier, I agreed that a serial killer/rapist is fair game for treating as if a wild animal on the loose. However, upon reconsideration, I cannot logically get there from self-ownership. Even though it might feel like retracing steps at this point, can you make that case step by step?

 

Additionally, there is the matter of people who are not serial offenders and therefor do not readily convey that they are void of personhood. I am still unclear as to how we go from self-ownership to being able to arrest somebody's freedom of motion for the purpose of inflicting a brain scan upon them. Just to help clarify where I am, I accept defensive force as justified. In fact, I argue that this is inherent in the statement that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. I wanted to point this out since your modified quote made a logical error:

 

"I think the moment you say it's okay to assault somebody, even for very good reasons like protecting yourself"

 

If somebody attacks you and you fight back, your actions cannot be described as assault. The terms theft, assault, rape, and murder denote the initiation of the use of force. Which does not accurately describe defensive force. The main point of contention between our inputs seems to be that I do not view somebody who has murdered/raped before (again, outside the serial category) as posing an immediate threat and therefor cannot be acted against from a defensive position, while you do. Though to reiterate, I would agree that those in the serial category do pose an immediate threat, though I cannot make a logical case for this conclusion.

 

Thank you so much once again for your patience. I do realize this is such a marginal consideration. However, it is the question I get asked the most. And while I realize they're doing it out of confirmation bias or in preparation of moving the goalposts, it's important to me that I have a firm grasp of it. Especially since if you can make the case for treating people who are not threats in the moment as if they're morally eligible for the initiation of the use of force against them, I feel this is an argument against anarchy, which makes me very uncomfortable.

[PatrickC]

Additionally, there is the matter of people who are not serial offenders and therefor do not readily convey that they are void of personhood. I am still unclear as to how we go from self-ownership to being able to arrest somebody's freedom of motion for the purpose of inflicting a brain scan upon them. Just to help clarify where I am, I accept defensive force as justified. In fact, I argue that this is inherent in the statement that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. I wanted to point this out since your modified quote made a logical error:

 

That's a great point. But like any kind of salesman will tell you, 'find an itch and offer to scratch it'. I think you need to just offer incentives that encourages people to have these scans voluntarily.

[cynicist]

For example, I pointed out being morally identical while acknowledging that there is a gradient of damage. To which you say moral status isn't the only consideration that matters. And that's fine as I never claimed it was.

 

Actually you did and continue to do so by implication when you say they are morally identical. That is absolutely not true, because the extent of the damage is part of the moral status. That is the argument I am making. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

These things don't address that whether we like it or not, they own themselves. This means that how we treat people who have engaged in an immoral action is important. Earlier, I agreed that a serial killer/rapist is fair game for treating as if a wild animal on the loose. However, upon reconsideration, I cannot logically get there from self-ownership. Even though it might feel like retracing steps at this point, can you make that case step by step?

 

I completely disagree with your statement. I think it does address it and I'm not sure exactly where the confusion is.

 

To be fair about the animal example, serial killers are obviously not exactly animals since their intelligence prevents them from being morally neutral, my point was more that they kill without conscience like other dangerous animals and therefore are at least as much of a threat, though I would argue they are more for obvious reasons. As far as tracing it logically I can try.

 

Self-ownership is a fundamental source of morality and without it morality is not possible.

From that, it follows that violations of self-ownership are the most immoral actions possible.

A murderer is not just denying/violating the self-ownership of others, but outright removing it from existence, making it the highest order of violation possible

 

By denying others self-ownership entirely, he cannot logically claim that others should not deny his as that would be a violation of UPB (universal principles)

Therefore, denying him self-ownership is not a violation of UPB (as he has already rejected the principle)

 

 

Just to help clarify where I am, I accept defensive force as justified. In fact, I argue that this is inherent in the statement that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. I wanted to point this out since your modified quote made a logical error:

 

"I think the moment you say it's okay to assault somebody, even for very good reasons like protecting yourself"

 

If somebody attacks you and you fight back, your actions cannot be described as assault. The terms theft, assault, rape, and murder denote the initiation of the use of force. Which does not accurately describe defensive force.

 

Actually every dictionary I have seen defines assault as violent physical attack, with no mention of initiation, so I don't see that as a logical error. In any case, that was my intended meaning.

 

The main point of contention between our inputs seems to be that I do not view somebody who has murdered/raped before (again, outside the serial category) as posing an immediate threat and therefor cannot be acted against from a defensive position, while you do. 

 

You seem to be misunderstanding my position. I'm saying that someone who has violated the self-ownership of another individual so egregiously is logically saying through their actions that they reject the principle, so isolating them is not a violation of it. If someone lies to you they are rejecting the principle called honesty, and the effect of that is that there is no obligation for you to be honest with them. Morality is a two way thing, if someone else is violating it with you then you are under no obligation to uphold it with them. That's how self-defense is justified, so if you accept that as a concept then you already agree with my position.

 

Thank you so much once again for your patience. I do realize this is such a marginal consideration. However, it is the question I get asked the most. And while I realize they're doing it out of confirmation bias or in preparation of moving the goalposts, it's important to me that I have a firm grasp of it. Especially since if you can make the case for treating people who are not threats in the moment as if they're morally eligible for the initiation of the use of force against them, I feel this is an argument against anarchy, which makes me very uncomfortable.

 

Someone who murders is obviously the initiator of force and the most extreme violator of the principle of self-ownership, so your position that their self-ownership must be respected while they are clearly not respecting that principle in regards to others is confusing and honestly makes me feel quite uncomfortable. How someone who has demonstrated the lack of empathy/respect for principle/capacity for self-restraint required to murder another human being could not be considered a threat when they are in your presence is one of the most puzzling ideas I've heard in a long time. A wild grizzly is lacking in the same qualities and is quite capable of killing which is why if you met one in the wild you would consider it a threat. Do you exempt humans because of intelligence? If anything I think that makes humans more of a threat than wild animals. 

 

Additionally, there is the matter of people who are not serial offenders and therefor do not readily convey that they are void of personhood. I am still unclear as to how we go from self-ownership to being able to arrest somebody's freedom of motion for the purpose of inflicting a brain scan upon them. 

 

This is just bizarre to me. You are concerned about the morality of 'inflicting' a non-invasive brain scan to determine the likelihood that someone might murder again. If a person is convicted of murder in a DRO trial or whatever you might call it, and they are allowed to reenter society without a thorough evaluation of the future risk they pose to others and they murder yet another human being, I would hold the DRO just as responsible for it as the human being who performed the act, since they recklessly endangered the lives of others by letting a predator loose. Maybe it would be better if you explained what you think is valid from a moral standpoint in regards to dealing with murderers, because from everything I have read so far it appears that you think taking any action outside of immediate self-defense if they are attacking you is immoral. Am I understanding that correctly?

[dsayers]

Actually you did and continue to do so by implication

 

I've been consistent in my acknowledgement that moral identity is not the same as scale of damage, so I'm not sure which implication you're referring to. Unfortunately, there's confusion, miscommunication, or communication disconnect here, which means I don't agree that we have the luxury of disregarding the other's words in favor of perceived implication. It's as if you're arguing against somebody else that maybe made a similar point as I have and did make such an implication. Sadly, I think you're right in the serial category and it would make things a lot easier if you were right outside the serial category. However if we cannot logically explain it, we're just indulging confirmation bias of that which "feels right."

 

I mean, I pointed out that one's self-ownership is fundamental, yet you continue to regard it as optional, as a concept applied after the fact, etc. We're not talking about the same thing. So I've gone ahead and created a separate thread to help flesh out where the misunderstanding is coming from. Hopefully a healthy discussion will arise that will help me understand what's going wrong here. I thank you for your time and might get back to you here if the other thread aides in my understanding of the subject matter.

[Xtort]

Statist friends brought these arguments to the table, and I'm still hashing them out in my brain. a) All state force and coercion are voluntary because we are free to leave the country. Because we are free to leave and find a new place to live all violence is acceptable. If you choose to live in the United States you are choosing to live in the violence and coercion- therefore freedom. b) Morality within war and disputes between parties are irrelevant because the moralities and belief systems are just in their own views. 

 

c) Violence for the sake of self-defense is self defeating because suspecting that you are in danger doesn't always include objective truth/reality therefore self-defense doesn't work. d) Government owns the land. Therefore they can initiate force even if you don't agree to their property rules- vehicle tags, prohibition, taxation etc. This is the same for getting trespassers off your property, and workers working for you, operating your equipment under your rules and wages. They actually state that statism is a necessary evil and is the most efficient way to deal with several issues. They agree with most of my moralities but give exceptions to the government for the above reasons. 

 

A)  Doesn't make sense unless you feel that the federal government owns at the very least all land within the united states.  At that point you get into a discussion about property rights and the 'might makes right' argument that the state requires is self defeating.  If my property is mine then the state's claim that I have to take their rule or leave doesn't make any more sense than me telling my neighbor if he doesn't move out then he agrees to let me take his car (or whatever else I want).

[Pepin]

a) All state force and coercion are voluntary because we are free to leave the country. Because we are free to leave and find a new place to live all violence is acceptable. If you choose to live in the United States you are choosing to live in the violence and coercion- therefore freedom. 

 

If it is force and coercion, it cannot be voluntary due to logic. This argument is utterly idiotic in that it fails to focus on the victim and puts all weight on the victim. Don't like the laws in Saudi Arabia? Afraid of being murdered for stating an opinion? Well, by continuing to live there you are agreeing to this, and of course you can leave at any time.

 

 b) Morality within war and disputes between parties are irrelevant because the moralities and belief systems are just in their own views. 

 

Then you can't claim that anarchism is good or bad, because your morality and belief system is just in your own view. Do you believe in a state? Well it is just your opinion, and it holds just as much value as all other opinions, including the one that claims that state is immoral by definition.

 

c) Violence for the sake of self-defense is self defeating because suspecting that you are in danger doesn't always include objective truth/reality therefore self-defense doesn't work

 

If someone ever starts running at you with a knife, please stick to your argument and don't use self defense, just stand there.

 

d) Government owns the land. Therefore they can initiate force even if you don't agree to their property rules- vehicle tags, prohibition, taxation etc. This is the same for getting trespassers off your property, and workers working for you, operating your equipment under your rules and wages. 

 

Good, so we are born into slavery, and our master is benevolent enough to grant us various privileges if we conform to their whim.