JSDev Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Often when I get into debates with people on voluntaryism, the response from the statist is that they agree with me in principle but that because of human nature , man will always attempt to subjugate other men. On a recent flight I was reading some Spooner and was inspired to write this response to this line of reasoning. I wanted to get your thoughts and possibly help me word it better: --------- If it is to be said that we can't have a voluntary society because man is inherently irrational and will always attempt to subjugate other men, that there will always be slaves and slave masters, let us accept that for the sake of discussion. If this is true and slaves will always by orders of magnitude out number their masters and can over power them when they choose, at will, then enslavement is only effective in so much as man thinks himself slave. Even in a condition of stateless servitude, the masters do not pretend to be anything other than what they actually are. It is only within the servitude of the state that the masters pretend to be the servants and subjects, the masters. Which do you prefer? ---------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 If man is inherenty irrational, we would not have survived 200,000 years of our pre-history. Not only would we not have figured out how to hunt effectively, but we wouldn't have figured out anything. We would have been quickly disposed of by other animals. That being said, subjugating other men is not irrational, it's evil. If this is true and slaves will always by orders of magnitude out number their masters and can over power them when they choose, at will, then enslavement is only effective in so much as man thinks himself slave.---------- This is probably true, however, it doesn't effect the argument one way or the other for man being "irrational." Even in a condition of stateless servitude, the masters do not pretend to be anything other than what they actually are. It is only within the servitude of the state that the masters pretend to be the servants and subjects, the masters.Which do you prefer?---------- Both cases, although they make sense to me, don't address the "bad human nature" argument. I would just stick to denying the assertion in the first place instead entertaining it and trying to make heads or tails of a world where "man is inherently irrational" I think it's pretty easily debunked. For example, ask the person who makes this claim why you should listen to him in the first place if he is inherently irrational? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSDev Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 Thanks. I guess what I'm trying to convey is not that the this whole statist line of reasoning is invalid (because I think it is) but that I want to play devils advocate and show that even if it were true, that it takes both a willing master and a willing slave for it to even work. I want to point out their error in their attempt to equivocate the kind of slavery we have under the state and the kind they believe will exist in the free market. I'm pointing out that they are not the same which means they should prefer one over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 oh I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisN Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Thanks. I guess what I'm trying to convey is not that the this whole statist line of reasoning is invalid (because I think it is) but that I want to play devils advocate and show that even if it were true, that it takes both a willing master and a willing slave for it to even work. I want to point out their error in their attempt to equivocate the kind of slavery we have under the state and the kind they believe will exist in the free market. I'm pointing out that they are not the same which means they should prefer one over the other. Is it even possible to be a willing slave? If you choose to subjugate yourself or sign yourself as a servant of a master, then in that moment you are voluntarily choosing to work for him. If in the future you decide that you no longer wish to have the job title of "slave" and choose to forgo the contract then you may have violated the contract but a master forcing you to stay around, even if it said this was allowed in the contract legally, would be effectively turning you into an involuntary slave prisoner. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see how it's possible to be a voluntary slave. Is it not in the same vein, in terms of logically being possible, as being voluntarily murdered or voluntarily raped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinite Limit Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 What I never could figure out is why statists use the human nature argument to justify the state while completely ignoring the fact that their human nature claim also applies to those in the state. If humanity is inherently evil/irrational (ignoring the lack of evidence for this assertion), and this is used to dismiss a free society, then by the same standard, we must also reject any and all forms of government because governments are nothing more than a minority of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 The "human nature" argument is a self-detonating argument. Don't spend any time or energy entertaining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts