OtherOtie Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 It strikes me that most statists (and people in general) will just have this cognitive dissonance and that even though they support the state, they would not support state violence against you in particular. Is anyone who is well versed in this argument interested in doing a roleplay with me where I play the statist? I want to see how the argument handles the positions I have in mind. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I'd be willing to take a crack good sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherOtie Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 Alright! Let's try it out. So let me put on my statist hat. I think that the government is necessary for the maintence of a civilized society. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I think that the government is necessary for the maintence of a civilized society. The ends don't justify the means. The "against me argument" is an argument based on logic and principles, not pragmatism. So any argument a statist presents based on pragmatic reasoning is analogous to someone during slavery saying that slaves are necessary for the maintenance of the agricultural system. Just like the argument against slavery was about morality, the argument against the state is about morality. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Alright! Let's try it out. So let me put on my statist hat. I think that the government is necessary for the maintence of a civilized society. On goes the Voluntaryist hat! If the society is civilized, why would it need to be maintained? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherOtie Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 On goes the Voluntaryist hat! If the society is civilized, why would it need to be maintained? Well the maintenance is what leads to the civilization of a society. I think most people are good but there are a significant number of bad people which needs to be kept under control. Also, even good people will look for ways to get ahead so we need someone to enforce the rules and make sure everything is kept in order. The ends don't justify the means. The "against me argument" is an argument based on logic and principles, not pragmatism. So any argument a statist presents based on pragmatic reasoning is analogous to someone during slavery saying that slaves are necessary for the maintenance of the agricultural system. Just like the argument against slavery was about morality, the argument against the state is about morality. Oh, I understand. I just said that to get the roleplay ball going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Well the maintenance is what leads to the civilization of a society. I think most people are good but there are a significant number of bad people which needs to be kept under control. Also, even good people will look for ways to get ahead so we need someone to enforce the rules and make sure everything is kept in order. Seems fair. Are governments really the best way to do this though? I mean you and I both know those who enforce the laws break them. We'll get to the against me argument, but context needs to get there first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Oh, I understand. I just said that to get the roleplay ball going. That would be my answer to a statist, and therefore is my answer in this context. I am not going to play pragmatic "what if" games with a statist. The against me arguments purpose is to highlight the initiation of force, and therefore evil, that is fundamental to having a state. There is nothing to do with the against me argument that should leave you to debating "anarchism won't work" or "statism is the practical solution to civilization". The only thing to address with the against me argument is whether or not the state requires the initiation of force. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Wasatch Man said it best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I think also, it's a matter of pride. I feel irritation, disappointment and confusion when I hang around people who purport to care for me, but who support the use of violence against me. The idea of acting as if it's trivial / irrelevant and doesn't bother me makes me feel depressed and even ashamed. I care too much about me to subject myself to the pretense of people who care more about the state than me. Their caring, which I desire, feels cheapened, and I don't like myself when I ignore it. The less morality and virtue means to me, the less seriously I take my own life, and the lower my self appraisal. The idea of that causes me to feel repulsion. Obviously not any kind of logical proof, but sometimes responses like that land for people. Pride is important to me, and I assume for most everyone else. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naer Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 What bugs me about capitalist is they always want to have a one up on everyone else and they feel that their contribution is somehow solely theirs and not entirely environmental The state exist solely to maintain an equilibrium with the environment through the control of scarcity 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I think also, it's a matter of pride. I feel irritation, disappointment and confusion when I hang around people who purport to care for me, but who support the use of violence against me. The idea of acting as if it's trivial / irrelevant and doesn't bother me makes me feel depressed and even ashamed. I care too much about me to subject myself to the pretense of people who care more about the state than me. Their caring, which I desire, feels cheapened, and I don't like myself when I ignore it. The less morality and virtue means to me, the less seriously I take my own life, and the lower my self appraisal. The idea of that causes me to feel repulsion. Obviously not any kind of logical proof, but sometimes responses like that land for people. Pride is important to me, and I assume for most everyone else. I totally feel you on this one man. I brought this argument to my family over Christmas (yeah, I know) and all of them- grandparents, parents, aunt, uncle, cousins and one of two brothers openly supported the violence against me. Needless to say I was very rattled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 What bugs me about capitalist is they always want to have a one up on everyone else and they feel that their contribution is somehow solely theirs and not entirely environmental What bugs me about statists is they think their opinion gives them a right to pull a gun on people making money through voluntary trade. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 When a statist says he would use violence against me I scan the room for and exit and start inching towards it slowly. It's a lot more frustrating when the statist says he wouldn't use violence against me, but he's not going to change his opinion anyway. What he is saying equates to "I value being right more than I value truth." The worst possible outcome when you're an entrepreneur looking for investment is the 'long no'. Similarly, I really dislike the statist who drags you along for long periods of time not willing to come down on either side of the fence. We're in a plague so stop wasting my time, which could be spent on someone with intellectual integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naer Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 What bugs me about statists is they think their opinion gives them a right to pull a gun on people making money through voluntary trade. The gun was created out of protectionary insurance for the elite class. If things are universally balanced we would transcend the need for guns 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The gun was created out of protectionary insurance for the elite class. If things are universally balanced we would transcend the need for guns Taxation was created out of protectionary insurance for the elite class. If things are universally balanced we would all be able to protect ourselves from it with guns. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The gun was created out of protectionary insurance for the elite class. If things are universally balanced we would transcend the need for guns I have yet to see any universal balance that deals with coyotes or racoon as effectively. Heck, I have a friend that got a bobcat in his chicken coop this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The gun was created out of protectionary insurance for the elite class. If things are universally balanced we would transcend the need for guns Yeah, and food too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts