I should be so grateful...

[Lord T Hawkeye]

You know how someone once said a politician is someone who can talk for hours and never actually say anything?  Well, it's not limited to politicians to say the least.  Faced with someone who liked to call me a lolbertarian (I really think Godwin's law needs to be extended to the use of lol and lulz as words).  I challenged him to put his own claims on the table and see if they can stand up to my questions.

What I got was this...

Litmus test: Prove how all these would be better served by private enterprise and I will no longer dismiss you as a lolbertarian.


This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post about how the government can't do anything right.

I already addressed some of them but didn't have time due to work to do it all just yet.

But seriously, is it just me or does he not even actually make any real claims here?

[MrBogosity]

Considering his first sentence is a shifting burden of proof, I don't see that there's anything to respond to.

Besides, his electric company, water company, Post Office, etc. are all government-protected monopolies. If the free market couldn't provide the services, then why did government need to give themselves a monopoly on it? Why do they need to use force to stop other people from providing the same service if it's impossible for them to provide the service?

[Travis Retriever]

Considering his first sentence is a shifting burden of proof,

At the risk of sounding stupid, how is the first sentence a shifting of the burden of proof? ^^;

[MrBogosity]

The burden of proof is on the claimant. The people who would use the force of government to restrict our choices MUST be required to justify it. Since he is advocating direct action in the form of force and taxation to keep his precious government programs, the onus is on HIM to justify them and show that they work better than private options.

It would be like me forcing you to use homeopathy and only homeopathy for an illness, unless you can prove to me that it doesn't work as well as other options. I think we can all agree that it would be a shifting burden for a homeopath to claim this even in the absence of force, when the decision is in the hands of the people. How much greater would his burden be under force or threat of force?

[Travis Retriever]

Does that apply to private vs public:  Courts, Police, Defense, Prisons and Law?

Does it mean that the Anarchists are Justified placing the burden of proof on people who want government?

[MrBogosity]

I would think it does, yes.

[Travis Retriever]

Would it also mean that the default position would be Anarchy, again, as they state?

Also, I made a post regarding this:
"Some Anarchists have this weird tendency to conflate the belief that something is more effective at a task with the belief in existence:
I don't believe in government for the same reason I don't believe in gods; because they haven't met their burden of proof.
This is fallacious in both ways this could be interpreted.  If he's talking about existence, and says that he doesn't believe in government, then what's the problem?  By this logic, we already have anarchy!
In the non literal sense, it's a weak analogy.  Even if the government is shown to be horrible at something, that doesn't necessarily strengthen the case for anarchy, and to try and suggest this is asinine (many anarchists, when asked how would we do this or that in an anarchy will just bitch about the government itself).  It could be that Anarchic Equivalent is even worse.  Because when arguing about which is more effective, you show that one is better than the other, not, one is horrible, therefore get rid of it.
For example, if two college students submit a paper and one gets a 50 (F), that doesn't mean that the other student's is automatically better, no matter how much the other student goes on about the first student's paper.  It could very well be that this other student gets a 30% (F-) after all is said and done."

What do you think of my analysis?

[Travis Retriever]

Is the analysis and point made in the post above, with the grades a red herring and/or shifting the burden?
Why/why not?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

It's even simpler really.  While government has failed the test in many areas, the areas where libertarians do want government is where it in fact has not.

Rule of law has been proven to be superior to mob rule.  That's why we do want a government to enforce that.  In mob rule, the many decide the rights of the few.  In outright anarchy, the strong decide the rights of the weak.  So in essence, both are just other forms of tyranny.  So to be an anarchist and yet say you hate tyranny is really contradictory when you get down to it.

[Travis Retriever]

@Shane: OK

Well next things next; I gotta refute the point about Libertarians being ungrateful because we use government services.
The reason is because we don't have a choice.  We can't not pay for them because we'll be thrown in jail or shot (taxes, yes?), and we can't even use private alternatives because they're either crowded out by the public ones, or outright prohibited.  In short, the point of ungratefulness is just a very lame appeal to emotion, really.

It's even simpler really.  While government has failed the test in many areas, the areas where libertarians do want government is where it in fact has not.

Rule of law has been proven to be superior to mob rule.  That's why we do want a government to enforce that.  In mob rule, the many decide the rights of the few.  In outright anarchy, the strong decide the rights of the weak.  So in essence, both are just other forms of tyranny.  So to be an anarchist and yet say you hate tyranny is really contradictory when you get down to it.

Government is a failure (or at least really shitty) with those things too (as Shane pointed out in his video response to TheAmazingAtheist), it's just not as bad as mob rule with Anarcho Capitalism may or may not end up being.  The main point of this was to explore a logical fallacy (Burden of Proof) and take it from the point of "existence" to the point of "this system is better at achieving the desired goal than an alternative" as it applies to Anarcho Capitalism.

Although to be fair, a YouTuber named Confederalsocialist has made quite a few videos on private law, police, courts and defense, and on past successful Anarchist societies.  The ones he primarily focused on were:  Medieval Anarchic Ireland and Iceland and (believe it or not) the Wild West, all complete with sources.  He also uses Somalia and how it's far better after becoming Anarchic, however he does tend to gloss over the militias acting like mini states thing (which TECHNICALLY doesn't make it Anarchist, but I digress).
He also made serveral videos about the Anarchy (and private law) = mob rule thing.  It's not ultra convincing, but it at least gives some kind of refutation from them, to be fair (which I try to be )

As I've said over 9000 times before, the best arguments for private police, prisons and courts I've ever heard was from Mary Ruwart in her book Healing our World (the free online version).

Also, a good quote from Morrakiu about Anarcho Capitalism that pretty much summed up how I feel about a transition to Anarchy -

Morrakiu:  "'I don't think we're at the stage where anarchy could prevail.'

I agree, but for different reasons. The only way I see a stateless society coming into being in the current conditions is through the collapse of a state, and that would make for a very painful transition during which foreign governments would attempt to re-establish a state. (A more specific version of Shane's argument about armed takeover of an Anarchist Society.  Also, Shane's point that, getting a free market is half the battle while keeping it is the other half).
It has to be phased out, and that can only happen after any real or simply perceived use for the institution is gone."