Hey guys, been away for a while (real life stuff, et cetera). I came back due to both having more time on my hands, and because of the ostensible topic of discussion. Without further adieu:
Discussing politics
on a brony image board pretty much anywhere can usually bring out the stupidity and ignorance in people,
especially if you support a political ethology that is either infamous (fascism), or considered "unrealistic" (communism/libertarianism), and when someone posted an image explaining the non-agression principle, this led to arguments in the comments. I chimed in with a link to Shane's video on how to argue with statism (great video BTW Shane :) ), to which a user by the handle of TexasUberAlles responded with:
Quote"Real life doesn't work that way" is the most succinct counterargument to libertarianism; it's not reality's fault that libertarians demand and then promptly ignore further clarification.
Since the burden of proof was on him, I asked him how
reality contradicted libertarianism, to which he responded with, well...take a look for yourselves:
QuoteI'll explain it to you, but you're clearly very far down the rabbit hole and I am quite certain that you will not understand it.
There are obviously a lot of variations on "libertarian"— with varying degrees of lunacy/practicality— but the underlying reason why libertarian ideology has no real chance of ever bridging the gulf between theory and practice is that, like all belief systems based on selfishness and ideological sociopathy, it ignores a number of very fundamental aspects of human nature; primarily, that when you put a bunch of people in the same space and let them make up their own personal rules for everything with no accountability to anyone else, it's only a matter of time before cannibalism— metaphorical or literal— sets in. It simply is not conducive to a stable society in any way at all to allow people in an age of internal combustion and automatic weapons to act as if each one of them is an island unto himself, beholden to no one and nothing and having no responsibility aside from his own selfish interests. That is 100% opposed to the very concept of "society", and as even a casual perusal of world history shows, any attempt to order a system along such lines descends almost immediately into either total anarchy or dog-eat-dog warlord rule; which I suppose sounds great to those who fantasize that they would somehow be the warlords, but to people who live in the real world sounds like the living definition of "failed state". All of those pesky rules and regulations that libertarians and other anti-statists rail against? They are the only thing that keeps bigger dogs from eating you, and there are always bigger dogs. As a number of people have already pointed out— and you have pointedly ignored— the very concept of private property is itself "coercive", because you are taking a resource for yourself and refusing others access to it; in the absence of any governing authority to set rules on such things, there is nothing to stop someone else from "coercing" it away from you. "Voluntary compliance" is an absurd myth, and one which self-evidently does not work in actual practice; human beings— especially those with the profound sense of entitlement and self-righteousness that comes with inherited wealth and other unearned fortune— do not voluntarily comply with anything detrimental to themselves without some kind of impetus toward societal or communal responsibility. If telling people to behave was all that was needed to ensure proper behavior, no one would ever exceed the posted speed limit even when there were no traffic enforcement officers around. An overabundance of rules and regulations is of course detrimental to progress and opportunity, but a lack of rules is a sure and certain guarantee of failure.
The absurd Randian übermensch belief that one exceptional individual can prosper entirely of his own awesomeness without any input or constraint of government or society is another absurd myth, and one that sounds suspiciously like a paraphrasing of "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS-A ME!" to anyone who has ever spent time around small children.
This to me reads like a
MASSIVE objectivist strawman, thus I'm wondering if I should dismantle his response piecemeal, or just call it on the strawman that it is. One thing that stands out to me, and was mentioned by others in the comments was the idea that
property is coercive, which correct me if I'm wrong, was/is a cornerstone of Marxism, and supported wholeheartedly by the anarchist bombers of the late 1800s/early 1900s.
The picture and accompanying comments can found here: https://derpiboo.ru/648398 (https://derpiboo.ru/648398)
My next video in my How To Argue For Statism series will cover the Human Nature bogosity. I'm pretty sure Stefan Molyneux's already demolished it somewhere.
Excellent. My problem with the "human nature" argument is that whenever I encounter it and challenge people on it, it always degenerates into hobbesian nihilism alongs the lines of "libertarianism can't work because humans are assholes!" If you challenge them on that (like saying "if humans are assholes, and the government is made up of humans, then how is the state meant to overcome human nature?"), then it just further degenerates into juvenile misanthropy.
Basically: "We need the government because «insert thought-terminating cliché here»"
The real problem is, there is no human nature. Humans adapt to the environment they find themselves in. In the video, I mention (once again) Plymouth Plantation and how, by going from collectivism to property rights, people went from being shiftless and lazy to being honest, productive, and happy. Same human beings, different context.
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 14, 2014, 08:23:37 AM
My next video in my How To Argue For Statism series will cover the Human Nature bogosity. I'm pretty sure Stefan Molyneux's already demolished it somewhere.
There's a series?
Also, there kinda is a human nature, it just not what these people think it is. (it sort of involves consuming organic matter, procreating, defecating, and stuff like that.)
The biggest flaw of course is that no studies are ever cited, it's always just anecdotes and conjecture which of course is worthless in debate.
One thing that sticks out to me is this:
QuoteAs a number of people have already pointed out— and you have pointedly ignored— the very concept of private property is itself "coercive", because you are taking a resource for yourself and refusing others access to it; in the absence of any governing authority to set rules on such things, there is nothing to stop someone else from "coercing" it away from you.
This is something that I cannot wrap my head around:
How exactly is the
concept of private property "coercive"? What does that mean in a practical sense? Does anyone here know enough about Marxism to be able to answer that?
Quote from: ebalosus on June 15, 2014, 12:55:05 AM
One thing that sticks out to me is this:
This is something that I cannot wrap my head around: How exactly is the concept of private property "coercive"? What does that mean in a practical sense? Does anyone here know enough about Marxism to be able to answer that?
I don't read a lot of religious fiction anymore :T
Quote from: ebalosus on June 15, 2014, 12:55:05 AM
One thing that sticks out to me is this:
This is something that I cannot wrap my head around: How exactly is the concept of private property "coercive"? What does that mean in a practical sense? Does anyone here know enough about Marxism to be able to answer that?
You assume that anything in Marxism makes practical sense. How do you know Marx didn't write that after being refused the use of a relative's home (due to his complete incompetence with the large amount of money he had leaving him a rich and chronically destitute man who got down to living in a two room apartment with his whole family and servant/mistress at one point)?
Quote from: evensgrey on June 15, 2014, 04:02:40 AM
You assume that anything in Marxism makes practical sense. How do you know Marx didn't write that after being refused the use of a relative's home (due to his complete incompetence with the large amount of money he had leaving him a rich and chronically destitute man who got down to living in a two room apartment with his whole family and servant/mistress at one point)?
I don't. It's just that the paradigm of
property == coercion seems very Marxian to me. Maybe be I'm wrong, but it's something I'm trying to understand, as I'm really struggling to get into the mindset of people whom hold that paradigm to be true.
Quote from: ebalosus on June 15, 2014, 12:55:05 AM
One thing that sticks out to me is this:
This is something that I cannot wrap my head around: How exactly is the concept of private property "coercive"? What does that mean in a practical sense? Does anyone here know enough about Marxism to be able to answer that?
after years of reading marxist literature--mostly in Arabic (and having been asked by other Arabs), I can only answer you as I answered them--complete with gesture:
الله أعلم :shrug:
the same would apply to the rest of their train of thought.
Quote from: ebalosus on June 15, 2014, 04:09:05 AM
I don't. It's just that the paradigm of property == coercion seems very Marxian to me. Maybe be I'm wrong, but it's something I'm trying to understand, as I'm really struggling to get into the mindset of people whom hold that paradigm to be true.
Their position is that everything belongs to everyone, and therefore stopping someone else from say living in your house is coercion. Most of these people then turn around and make a distinction between what they call personal property and private property, which is discussed at some length on another thread on this forum, so I won't re-hash it here.
Although it has Marxian undertones, the source of it is actually the Bible. Acts 2:44-45.
Quote from: dallen68 on June 15, 2014, 05:18:08 AM
Their position is that everything belongs to everyone, and therefore stopping someone else from say living in your house is coercion. Most of these people then turn around and make a distinction between what they call personal property and private property, which is discussed at some length on another thread on this forum, so I won't re-hash it here.
Although it has Marxian undertones, the source of it is actually the Bible. Acts 2:44-45.
Would you mind linking that thread? It would be much appreciated :)
Quote from: ebalosus on June 15, 2014, 09:34:49 AM
Would you mind linking that thread? It would be much appreciated :)
I believe it's in the fail quotes thread, but Shane would be the most likely to know for sure. It wasn't that long ago... wait, in terms of internet time, it's been a while actually. (Like a couple weeks)
Edit: Yes, it is fail quotes. Start reading @ about page 390.
Quote from: dallen68 on June 15, 2014, 10:16:43 AM
I believe it's in the fail quotes thread, but Shane would be the most likely to know for sure. It wasn't that long ago... wait, in terms of internet time, it's been a while actually. (Like a couple weeks)
Cheers :)
Hopefully what was written there should give me enough of what I need to counter the "private property == coercion" arguments.