GasCap Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Hey guys, I have been debating with my friend about anarchy. He seems to think that without governments warlords are going to pop up everywhere. his reasoning is huaman greed which is that everyman for them selves, survival of the fittest. Also because he thinks humans are inherently bad so if there are no governments people will immediately start killing others to gain resources instead of trading. He cannot really back anything of this up with any evidence. Could you guys give me some insights to counter the warlord argument please. Thanks!
prolix Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 The human nature argument. Simply put the human nature argument is a myth. If there are some absolutes about humans it is that we are dynamic and adaptable. This is modern science. If you raise a kid to be a monster then he will be a monster. And the opposite is also true. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/03/12/arnold-kling/human-nature-vs-libertarian-ideals One year ago, Michael Huemer challenged readers with the Problem of Authority. He wrote, what gives the government the right to behave in ways that would be wrong for any non-governmental agent? And why should the rest of us obey the government’s commands? In other words, why are government officials entitled to rule, and why are citizens obligated to obey? This is a fundamental question in political philosophy. In this month’s lead essay, Mark Weiner criticizes libertarians for wanting to strip government officials of their right to rule and to release citizens from their obligation to obey. According to Weiner, if such wishes were granted, then the ultimate result would be a loss of the individual freedom and autonomy that libertarians cherish. Behind any political philosophy, you will find, at least implicitly, a theory of human nature. For example, Thomas Hobbes evidently saw mankind as competitive and violent, which meant that without government there would be a “war of all against all.” In contrast, Huemer sees humans as sufficiently rational to recognize the futility of initiating violence. Elsewhere, I have described what I see as problems and inconsistencies in Huemer’s treatment of human nature. For me, a key issue in human nature concerns cooperation and trust. Our economic and social systems cannot function without trust and cooperation. Often, it is in our self-interest to “defect” rather than to cooperate. Yet we have the ability to cooperate to a greater degree than if we were solely acting out of individual self-interest. On the other hand, we do not seem capable of universal brotherhood. Instead, our ability to trust and cooperate with strangers seems to be an extension of a more natural inclination to trust and cooperate with people with whom we feel kinship. It appears that humans are most inclined to cooperate in small groups, in which everyone knows everyone else and repeated interactions are likely. The tribe strikes me as the social unit under which we are most naturally inclined to interact on the basis of trust and cooperation. Under skilled leadership, this tribal cooperation instinct can be harnessed to encompass larger social institutions, including religion, business, and political action. These larger social structures are held together by several forms of emotional glue. Our membership in these units is a precious part of our sense of identity, which we fear losing, just as a primitive member of a tribe fears expulsion into the wilderness. Our social units develop rituals, which we come to love and to consider important. They reward loyalty in both tangible and intangible ways that help bind us to the larger group. However, in order to harness our tribal nature on behalf of large organizations, it seems necessary to have an enemy as part of the motivational structure. We demonize our opponents, attributing to them evil motives and repugnant qualities that they do not objectively possess. Red Sox fans demonize Yankee fans. Religions demonize unbelievers. Corporations demonize their competitors. Even within a corporation, it is not uncommon for animosities to flourish between, say, engineering and marketing. Certainly, political partisans demonize their opponents. The universal phenomenon of demonization leads me to hypothesize that it is important for group solidarity. Only if there are villains to contend with will we be willing to treat some members of our tribe as heroes and to grant them the sort of authority that enables them to maneuver large masses of people. Suppose that we take it as given that humans as social animals are tribal. If part of the glue that binds groups together is their hostility toward other groups, how can order be achieved? In their book Violence and Social Orders, Douglass North, Barry Weingast, and John Wallis say that the most basic way to create order is for groups to form a ruling coalition that extracts rents from the rest of the population. The key is to allocate sufficient advantages to each group within the coalition so that they would rather remain in the coalition as peaceful members than defect from the coalition and engage in violence. They call this sort of polity the “natural state.” North, Weingast, and Wallis use the term limited-access order as a synonym for this natural state. Only members of the ruling coalition have access to political and economic power. Equilibrium is maintained by differentiating the privileges enjoyed by the ruling coalition from the more circumscribed possibilities given to everyone else. Natural states do not tolerate a vibrant civil society, because any organized activity that is not controlled by the governing coalition represents a competitive threat to that coalition. In some countries, notably the Western democracies, limited-access orders have evolved into what North, Weingast, and Wallis call open-access orders. Opportunities for economic and political power have gradually been extended to formerly underprivileged groups within the population. At the same time, the rule of law has come to apply to those holding political power. Libertarians prefer open-access orders to limited-access orders. However, both types of state have tended to evolve to be much more powerful and intrusive than libertarians believe is proper. Is there an alternative, in which there is not a strong central state inclined to undertake a vast array of functions? Mark Weiner says that there is an alternative, decentralized form of social order: the rule of the clan. However, this order is characterized by tight social control. Group honor is supremely important, while individual autonomy is threatening. Group norms are rigid, and conformity is required. For Weiner, rule of the clan is the natural state. Even the limited-access orders described by North, Weingast, and Wallis represent not much more than an advanced form of clan-based rule. According to Weiner, only when the state achieves a high level of power and legitimacy can it rid a society of the vestiges of clannism. Implicit in Weiner’s thesis is a presumption that humans naturally want the services that are provided by clan leaders or by large, modern states. What do clan societies and modern states have in common? Both seek to provide physical security. Both offer mechanisms for fair resolution of disputes. Both offer help to individuals when adversity strikes. Weiner claims that in the absence of a strong state, those of us in modern democracies would fall back on the rule of the clan. In contrast, James Bennett and Michael Lotus in their book America 3.0, claim that there is an important cultural-historical difference between our society and clan-based societies. They argue that for nearly 1500 years, the Anglo-Saxon people have developed a culture centered on the absolute nuclear family. They write, Its features include: (1) adult children choose their own spouses, without arranged marriages, (2) adult children leave their parents’ home to form a new, independent family in a new home, (3) the parents do not have a duty to leave their property to any child, and they may sell it during their lives or leave it by will to anyone they choose, (4) children have no duty to provide for their parents, and (5) extended families are weak and have no control over personal decisions… the underlying Anglo-American family type was the foundation for all of the institutions, laws, and cultural practices that gave rise to our freedom and prosperity over the centuries. This social pattern creates a different mentality than the collective-ownership, extended-family culture of clan societies. Most important, the absolute nuclear family requires strong property rights, so that new families can establish themselves on an independent basis. Thus, for Bennett and Lotus, it is the strong central state that runs contrary to our nature. What Weiner sees as a necessity for individual freedom, they see as a temporary aberration resulting from the extreme capital-intensity of mid-twentieth-century production and warfare. Going forward, as the economy comes to be dominated by intangible sources of wealth, notably human capital, the role of large, centralized institutions, both private and public, will diminish. I believe that there is evidence to support the claim by Bennett and Lotus that in the future the United States is likely to experience a radical decentralization of power. I recently looked at the list compiled by the Fraser Institute that ranks countries in terms of economic freedom. It is striking how many countries near the top of the list, such as Singapore and Switzerland, are small in terms of population. Conversely, it is apparent that most countries with large populations are not near the top of the list. The same conclusions are apparent looking at the United Nations’ Human Development Index, which starts from a very different ideological perspective. As I read the data, good government is more likely to be found in countries with small populations than in countries with large populations. I believe that we do not face the false choice between a multi-trillion-dollar central government that recognizes no boundaries on what it attempts to control on the one hand, or a primitive clan-based society on the other. Libertarians should remind Americans that the security and social insurance that people want can be provided by much smaller-scale institutions, both private and governmental. If we want to avoid political structures that degenerate into Mafiosi, then we should radically shrink, not grow, the government in Washington.
Cosmin Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Just tell him that we already have warlords. They are called politicians, they will imprison you if you don't do what they say. So if he does not like warlords he should be against the current system.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Yea, as soon as a warlord pops up, you now have a government again.
Pepin Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Yes, the biggest problem with a peaceful society based solely on voluntary interaction is that it will be in constant war with those at the top taking all that they want through violence... On a more serious note, becoming any sort of warlord would entail a short life. The meme of going after footsoldiers as opposed to leaders would cease to replicate, and those who attempt to gain extreme power through force will be killed before they could conduct any too immoral. Rewards would be given to anyone within a terrorist group to kill the leader and ought everyone else. Essentially, in a society which is based primarily on non-aggression, there would be extreme disincentives and risks for those who would attempt to resurrect the state. If someone were to use violence to gain power, they would be stamped out quite quickly. Even better, there would be many mechanisms such as peaceful parenting to prevent this sort of behavior to begin with. There is also the logistical problem of what to take over exactly. Markets are incredibly interdependent, and taking over a few towns or factories may provide resources, but since the means of production are so decentralized it really has little control. Nobody is going to be happy about it, companies are going to not comply and will fight back because you are hurting their business. There being no existing government infrastructure to take over, it would be difficult to actually gain any control. When power is put in the hand of the individual, it becomes very difficult to take power from people. It is kind of like trying to take control of the internet. Lastly, things would be good enough for almost everyone to not revolt. Even in the current day, it takes near starvation for people to take up military action. In a voluntarist society where not much is wrong, people are going to be infinitely less willing to take up arms.
shirgall Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 The transition would certainly be a problem, but once you got there I suspect they wouldn't tolerate anyone trying to lord over others.
TheRobin Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 So his solution to greedy bad people is to give some greedy bad people basically absolute power over everyone else witthout any personal liability or possiblity for repercussion?I think he just forgot that government is a group of PEOPLE as well, so the whole argument falls apart there.
powder Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Hey guys, I have been debating with my friend about anarchy. He seems to think that without governments warlords are going to pop up everywhere. his reasoning is huaman greed which is that everyman for them selves, survival of the fittest. Also because he thinks humans are inherently bad so if there are no governments people will immediately start killing others to gain resources instead of trading. He cannot really back anything of this up with any evidence. Could you guys give me some insights to counter the warlord argument please. Thanks! If that statement is true, then that is the reason that you cannot have government because the bad people will naturally climb to the top of any hierarchical structure that gives them control of people and resources.
GasCap Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 The transition would certainly be a problem, but once you got there I suspect they wouldn't tolerate anyone trying to lord over others. These people I talk to believe people should be ruled.. so unless they are already subscribed or open to the anarchism idea. It would be hard to tell them people will not tolerate people lording over them once we are there... Yea, as soon as a warlord pops up, you now have a government again. Ya so what would be the point of over throwing the current gov? So his solution to greedy bad people is to give some greedy bad people basically absolute power over everyone else witthout any personal liability or possiblity for repercussion? I think he just forgot that government is a group of PEOPLE as well, so the whole argument falls apart there. I gave him examples of why the current gov is bad. Like tax is theft and the use of force. but it seems like it is still better than having war lords.
MagnumPI Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I've never actually met a warlord. Do they hide during the State and come out when anarchy? 1
GasCap Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 I've never actually met a warlord. Do they hide during the State and come out when anarchy? well apparently to some people they are like the the air we breathe and the water we drink. they are everywhere!
andkon Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 He cannot really back anything of this up with any evidence. Does he notice? Does that bother him?
shirgall Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 These people I talk to believe people should be ruled.. so unless they are already subscribed or open to the anarchism idea. It would be hard to tell them people will not tolerate people lording over them once we are there... That's kinda my point, getting there means fixing that. No one would be saying, "there oughta be a law" or "there oughta be a king" and that's a revolutionary social change.
AynRand Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I think their is a failure of communication. If warlords exist then anarchy doesn't exist. If the sides of the square are all circular it is a circle not a square. 1
Cosmin Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Also, even if these people want to be ruled, that doesn't give them the right to extend that rule to someone else. See Stefan's "against me" argument:
GasCap Posted January 9, 2015 Author Posted January 9, 2015 I think their is a failure of communication. If warlords exist then anarchy doesn't exist. If the sides of the square are all circular it is a circle not a square. Yes I agree. But buddy is saying we will never get to a anarchy society because there will always be people who wants to rule over people. Also, even if these people want to be ruled, that doesn't give them the right to extend that rule to someone else. See Stefan's "against me" argument: How could I forget the against me argument. I watched this a few months back. This will get really personal... That's kinda my point, getting there means fixing that. No one would be saying, "there oughta be a law" or "there oughta be a king" and that's a revolutionary social change. Does he notice? Does that bother him? I think he knows he's not providing evidence and I don't think that is bothering him. he thinks the world is just that way plain and simple and there is no changing.
andkon Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I think he knows he's not providing evidence and I don't think that is bothering him. he thinks the world is just that way plain and simple and there is no changing. Well, that may be your answer. With that said, I will offer a short rebuttal to " humans are inherently bad so if there are no governments people will immediately start killing others to gain resources instead of trading": If humans are altruistic enough to agree upon and vote for a government, why create a monopoly with all its inherent inefficiencies (you wouldn't want to be told you can only buy one sort of shoe)? If people can cooperate enough to form a monopoly, why assume that if people formed several insurance-protection companies, there'd be chaos? Why resort to violence and not cooperation if the very premise is that people cooperate (at least long enough to form and maintain a government)?
GasCap Posted February 23, 2015 Author Posted February 23, 2015 Round 2, I was having a conversation with a socialist about anarchy. it was mainly on Government Vs Corporation and how you can leave corporation but you cant leave government. - He talked about government's money printing and tax collecting is a form of money management and not theft... oh felt like my brain just got hit by a train!!! -He talked about how we will be able to build roads, provide health care, pension, public education (school), etc.... I told him business man who sees the opportunity would provide anything that the markets wants. -Then he goes on and say, well then the road company would be a monopoly and dictate how people drive. I told him there would be other business men raising up to challenge promoting competition. He replied you make building roads sound easy, people are just going to pop up building things. -Then he goes on and say that a company will start their own army to force people to use their services or products or somehow "attack their competition" to gain monopoly position. This is when I really wanted to stop talking to him. But I went on and told him it is incredibly hard or even impossible for a company to sustain an army whose core product isn't army building and management. The cost to hire,feed,equip,train these men would bankrupt the bank within in months and when this information is public, most people will stop using their services/products and the company will stop generating income which would promote a even faster bankruptcy. Also if the company does start funding some sorta of army or gang, they will immediately lose competition edge on their core service/product because they are not investing money into maintenance, R&D and innovation. so again, why do people so sheep minded and feel that everyone is bad and the people needs to be protected by gov and non gov. organizations are evil or will turn evil.... Rant Over
J. D. Stembal Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Round 2, I was having a conversation with a socialist about anarchy. it was mainly on Government Vs Corporation and how you can leave corporation but you cant leave government. - He talked about government's money printing and tax collecting is a form of money management and not theft... oh felt like my brain just got hit by a train!!! -He talked about how we will be able to build roads, provide health care, pension, public education (school), etc.... I told him business man who sees the opportunity would provide anything that the markets wants. -Then he goes on and say, well then the road company would be a monopoly and dictate how people drive. I told him there would be other business men raising up to challenge promoting competition. He replied you make building roads sound easy, people are just going to pop up building things. -Then he goes on and say that a company will start their own army to force people to use their services or products or somehow "attack their competition" to gain monopoly position. This is when I really wanted to stop talking to him. But I went on and told him it is incredibly hard or even impossible for a company to sustain an army whose core product isn't army building and management. The cost to hire,feed,equip,train these men would bankrupt the bank within in months and when this information is public, most people will stop using their services/products and the company will stop generating income which would promote a even faster bankruptcy. Also if the company does start funding some sorta of army or gang, they will immediately lose competition edge on their core service/product because they are not investing money into maintenance, R&D and innovation. so again, why do people so sheep minded and feel that everyone is bad and the people needs to be protected by gov and non gov. organizations are evil or will turn evil.... Rant Over I have sympathy, but you are playing into the statist trap of irrational panic at the prospect of anarchy. Say that you don't know how a stateless society will work, but then ask the statist how well it all works now. Roads are shitty, the US post office is shitty, health care is shitty, education is shitty, pensions are running out, social security has been insolvent for decades, welfare and warfare systems are choking American productivity while the Federal Reserve has been stealing from everyone for a century. Every US citizen would have to pay around a million dollars in taxes each to pay off the national debt and various public liabilities. You can make a solid case that any paradigm that promotes more economic freedom would be better than having a burdensome state.
shirgall Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 so again, why do people so sheep minded and feel that everyone is bad and the people needs to be protected by gov and non gov. organizations are evil or will turn evil.... Rant Over It's a trite response to your question, but how many years did those people spend in government school?
Pelafina Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Article and video by Bob Murphy - "But Wouldn't the Warlords Take Over?" http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3TwNXA0w 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Why don't you ask him for historical evidence of anything he said? Which of course you could then reply with the multitudinous historical evidence contrary to what he said. However, I'm guessing that this may be a waste of time, because it sounds like he isn't interested in discussing these subjects; it sounds like he's interested in dominating you with them.
Recommended Posts