just a thought I had while talking to a statist

[JSDev]

If there's a "we" when talking about the system we live in, then you're the one with the gun. I'm unarmed so whatever you say I have to go along with it. If you want to steal from me under threat of kidnapping me and putting me in a cage, or stealing from the future productivity of those not even born yet through national debt, to keep this system going, to maintain what you call civilization, for the greater good, I will have to comply. But please, do not insult my intelligence, it is neither civilized nor virtuous.

[TheAuger]

I think voluntarists need to call statists on the use of "we" and "our".  Most every statist you talk to isnt part of the power structure -- wasn't a member of the enforcement class (a cop or soldier) or a policymaker (parasitical politician scum), and he believes in "our" national interests, and "our military".  I assure you, they are not part of the club!

 

This kind of "our / we" relationship to power is a kind of childish "reflected glory" that excuses abusers.  I believe this reflected glory is seeded in a kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome that worships the power of the state, and has more to do with their childhood relationships and experiences with their parents exercise of power that it does with the actions of the state, which you correctly identify as uncivilized and without virtue.

[MFK]

For sure, the need for a government agency is the only part of Objectivism that is criticizable ; but, in counterpart, - we have to understand why it was proposed to us as an "objective need" in the first place. The new positivists and other scientists are claiming that the role of the government was one of regulation, of moderation - ironically, in order to limit an organize the necessary uncontrollable drift of the market, which means: to objectify the economy and the human agency. Let's be serious: this point of view isn't completely flawed, since there will always be "loose cannon", sociopaths, eccentrics and narcissistic assholes that will prevent a marker to be autonomous and fluid. The fact is that that very same "blackguard", since they are humans and citizens - are also part of any government, any law's agency. The flaw in the Objectivist's view was this pure velleity to create an agency free of any misinterpretation, free of a decadent will, clinically originated from the exercice of power (Lord Acton) - to resume, free of humans, free of individuals who cannot legitimately be controlled, only debated.

 

This invoked "objectivity" in terms of global management of an intricated system of existents can only be accomplished through a methodology, not by a domineering organization of any kind, overdetermining the free will of each individual. This objective methodology should be made absolutely available, in any time, any place - entirely disposable to any willful individual interested to improve is own conduct. We have to stop reasoning in term  of old-school commonplaces, huge institutions who act concretely like dinosaurs: there's no "thaumaturge king", no "good shepherd", no "class" whose objective role would be to protect its people, like the carcinogenic clergy, or the so-called "revolutionary proletariat" - only individuals behaving in an adapted or incoherent manner. If an individual fails, it's no big deal ; if the URSS bankrupt, it's quite another thing.

 

But, in order to resume - my argument is that we need to instaure a social system in which it would be possible to "think globally", to rather "act locally". The "stolen premise" of the government is that it pretend to have a large, clear vision of what's going on (which might be true formerly when people were all uneducated peasants) - to be the only instance capable to give a "truly" "objective" feedback on reality. Conversely, one of the systematic flaw of the market is to generate a narrow worldview, a methodology limited to the discretion of the individual. The earth must move towards an open-source environment. No government, no "private" individual.

 

But, imagine: humans aren't enough evolved to cope psychosocially with the scarcity attached to every manifestation of "private property" - and now we ask them to renounce to their delusional, megalomaniac comfort, in order, over the long run, - to incommensurably improve their well-being ?

[JSDev]

Whenever I get into these discussions with people, it always comes down to a moral question they must answer. Forget Mises theory, Rothbard, end the Fed, forget all of that. Most will not listen anyway, and will just lump you in as a radical and move on their merry way. Yet when you insist they answer the fundemental moral question, the contradiction hits them right in the jugular. Suddenly the tables have turned. This is a frightening place to be for most people. At this point the conversation usually ends. They'll say things like, well it's the system we have, there isn't much you or I can do about it we just have to make the best of it. Or they'll say things like they just don't see how things can be achieved nonviolently.

 

At this point I think it is vital for the statist to understand that the most important thing they can do to make a change is to first admit we have a problem. At this point DO NOT engage with them on DROs, who will build the roads, military, etc, etc. You will be just giving them ammo to find a way out of the moral dilemma. If they can just admit that what we have is NOT virtuous, then that is really all that is necessary. Pay your taxes, and be good citizens, but just know you're only doing it to stay alive not because you think you're doing anything virtuous. If more people would just admit we have a problem, if nothing else, it's possible we could see real freedom within our lifetimes.

[MFK]

Define "virtuous", please. 

[JSDev]

Seriously? I'll Google that for you

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Avirtuous

[MFK]

Can you discriminate what matters the most to you in these 3,5 millions results ? Or perhaps should we infer than when you use that term, "virtuous" - you're simultaneously meaning everything that have been stated about that concept, at every epoch, in every milieu ?

 

Example of discrimination: I, personally - don't like women who "keep their virtue": they're very boring in bed !

[JSDev]

I'm not interested in splitting hairs. Sorry.

[MFK]

I think it's a bit offending of your part to be so blunt - you should at least have refer me to somebody who is !

 

Like we says in America: "Nobody is splitting hairs in his own country". Are you Russian ?

[Infinite Limit]

I think voluntarists need to call statists on the use of "we" and "our".  Most every statist you talk to isnt part of the power structure -- wasn't a member of the enforcement class (a cop or soldier) or a policymaker (parasitical politician scum), and he believes in "our" national interests, and "our military".  I assure you, they are not part of the club! This kind of "our / we" relationship to power is a kind of childish "reflected glory" that excuses abusers.  I believe this reflected glory is seeded in a kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome that worships the power of the state, and has more to do with their childhood relationships and experiences with their parents exercise of power that it does with the actions of the state, which you correctly identify as uncivilized and without virtue.

Ah yes, bullshit buzzwords: the fallacy with the inclusiveness of the mafia, the empathy of Joseph Stalin, and the emotional maturity of Honey Booboo!Jokes aside, I've actually tried this with mixed results and continue to do so. Most of the time, when I point out their fallacious and deceptive use of buzzwords like "we", "our society", and other collective classics, the people I'm "conversing" with get defensive, interrupt me, and claim I'm getting too worked up with "lexical definitions" rather than addressing their "argument", which usually involves them attacking a straw man and appealing to relativism before I get a chance to explain that they are associating themselves and I with sadistic psychopaths. The few people that actually listen to the explanation are those that are slowly reasoning their way to the conclusions of libertarianism. Of course, while this probably speaks more to the people I surround myself with, it is definitely useful in understanding what emotional level people are at. But be prepared for defensiveness.

[J. D. Stembal]

Define "virtuous", please. 

 

I don't want to put words into JSDev's post that aren't intended, but I am almost certain he was alluding to the Non-Agression Principle. If that's not the case, I apologize.

 

If you enter into a serious discussion with someone about the state being morally invalid, you can point out that they are endorsing the initiation of force against you by arguing for the existence of the state. That's when you get the final comeback, "Well, sorry, that's just the facts about the world we live in, but that doesn't mean I want you imprisioned, murdered, raped, victimized, etc." What they are arguing, at that point, is a contradiction. This is the statist waving the white flag while simultaneously ignoring that violation of the non-aggression principle is a problem with which we should all be concerning ourselves. It's ignorance heaped upon cowardice, resulting in the malignant cancer of the state under which we all suffer.

 

You don't have to continue wasting your breath on statists when they endorse the use of force against you. It's as if you entered into an arm wrestling contest, and then, just when you are about to beat the statist through well-exercised logic, a masked ninja assassin (the state) jumps out and lops your arm off at the shoulder with a razor-sharp katana. It's not a fair fight, just as talking with a statist is not a serious discussion.

[MFK]

Yes, a kind of "natural fallacy" - when someone refer to the comical, meaningless "human nature" to reify the "necessity" of an actually unsustainable situation. I once had a great discussion about this phenomenon: one should remark that when this anti-concept arises in a conversation - it always comes from the side of the self-perceived "loser", and the term is systematically intended to legitimate something bad, pessimistic. It seems to me to be the ultimate manifestation of the psychological determinism, self-centred, self-destructive - the caricatural, gross, vague projection of a frustrated and maladaptive individual on the entire world.

 

In my experience - the best argument against that type of "statist counter-revolution" is this one: you should point out the fact that the expression "human nature" is systematically intended and applied to qualify unsustainable, prehistorical, involuntary, sub-communicationnal, etc. - behaviours. What about the innumerable inventions made by men in the course of history: printing, car, space travel, vaccine, etc. ? You can also use the excellent "Argumentative ethics" originated by Hoppe: the very conversation you're having defy literally the impotence of man, it's supposed "nature" remained trapped in the remnants of the so-called "bellum omnium, contra omnes".

 

It would be explicitly illogical, inaccurate and ridicule to define the wicked outcome of man by its nature - and not the good ones ! But if your statist is by chance also a believer (and a "belieber", accessorily) - forget it: move on !

[J. D. Stembal]

Whenever you hear the phrase, human nature, you have to ask for the speaker's definition. There is no inherent concept of human nature. We are defined by our surroundings. Human nature is a collectivist imagining of the human species that has no universal meaning. I wouldn't use the phrase because so many biological and parental factors play into it. There is cause and effect. It would be fair to theorize that everyone starts out as a blank slate at conception, and then learns and reacts to their environment from there. I say conception not because I'm a pro-lifer (I'm closer to the pro-choice camp) but because stressors placed on the mother during pregnancy have a profound hormonal and developmental effect in utero.

 

When people use science to prove there's an aggression gene which determines whether you are going to be violent or not, I will feel very nervous for our species. Essentially, this is the same line of thought feminists use to tell men that we are all guilty of fostering rape and rape culture. That Y-chromosome is just naturally prone to violence. Men can't help it; the genes turn them bad! Parenting has absolutely no role in indoctrinating children into violence, right?

[MFK]

Do you remember the movie "Aliens 3" (David Fincher) - in which Ripley is rescued on a planet who happens to be a gigantic maximum security prison ? The narrative tells us that the prisoners are of the "YY - chromosome", - but essentially theyr are composed of black men, mentally ill individuals, rapists and savages, all religious freaks BTW. I think this is an excellent example of what we call: "naive realism" - what you perceive is what it is, this caricatural, monomaniac aggravation of one simple wicked characteristic as the whole thing, cognitive inferential fallacy also known as the: "fundamental attribution bias". What is fun here is that this opus of the franchise was certainly the best one, considering the psycosocial exploration of the protagonists interactions. The James Cameron's version was a grotresque, childish "action flick" with no philosophical meaning or purpose in it. Perhaps that this modern kind of "Panem & circences" is what the masses need in order to stay quiet: when "our" actual biased culture try to define characters (see 'Romantic manifsto" by AR) - it is always a pure fiasco, in which the "minor difference narcissism" (Freud) is the dominating trend, forbidding all nuances, every criticism.