Similarity of Arguments

[Havet]

Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html) by Robert Higgs:
The similarity of arguments against the abolition of slaver and arguments against the abolition of government (as we know it) should shake the faith of all Americans who still labor under the misconception that ours is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." From where I stand, it looks distressingly like an institutional complex that rests on the same shaky intellectual foundations as slavery.Arguments Against the Abolition of Slavery
and Arguments Against the Abolition of Government (as We Know It)

Slavery is natural.

Government (as we know it) is natural.

Slavery has always existed.

Government (as we know it) has always existed.

Every society on earth has slavery.

Every society on earth has government (as we know it)

The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.

The people are not capable of taking care of themselves.

Without masters, the slaves will die off.

Without government (as we know it), the people will die off.

Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves.

Where the common people have no government (as we know it), they are much worse off (e.g., Somalia).

Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

Getting rid of government (as we know it) would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

Without slavery, the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

Without government (as we know it), the people would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.

Trying to get rid of government (as we know it) is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.

Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.

Forget anarchy. A far better plan is to keep the ordinary people sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.

Interesting, huh?

[trivas7]

You are speaking to the dining room table. Eveyone on RevLeft is de facto a statist (why else are you restricted?).

[Havet]

You are speaking to the dining room table. Eveyone on RevLeft is de facto a statist (why else are you restricted?).

I was restricted for being a right-winger, not because I was anti-statist.

[KC]

What is your definition of "government"?

[Havet]

What is your definition of "government"?

A government is the body within an organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) (the State) that has the authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) to make and enforce rules, laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and regulations. Current governments are elected through representative democracy through parties.

[KC]

A government is the body within an organization (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) (the State) that has the authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) to make and enforce rules, laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and regulations. Current governments are elected through representative democracy through parties.

So you're an "anarcho-capitalist" I take it?

Whose interests does the government represent?

[Dean]

You are speaking to the dining room table. Eveyone on RevLeft is de facto a statist (why else are you restricted?).

Your irrelevant trolling with strawmen gets worse every day. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

[Havet]

So you're an "anarcho-capitalist" I take it?

Whose interests does the government represent?

How does my definition imply "anarcho"-capitalism?

I'm a market anarchist/mutualist

And the government represents (unfortunately, but that is how the system is set up) the interests of the ruling class, the state and the capitalists, at the expense of the working class and everyone else.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

With the abolition of slavery all production will cease.

With the abolition of capitalism all production will cease.

Fuck yeah logical fallacies. We can do the same thing with mutualist arguments:

Without capitalism there is no freedom.

Without markets there is no freedom.

As long as there are Jews there will be no freedom.

As long as there are states there will be no freedom.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Without capitalism there is no freedom.

Without markets there is no freedom.

Mutualists don't argue that markets are necessary for freedom. They argue that markets can allocate resources more effectively than coordinated planning between factories and distribution centers. They are probably wrong about this, but don't misrepresent their arguments.



As long as there are Jews there will be no freedom.

As long as there are states there will be no freedom.Who claimed that the Jews were an obstacle to freedom?

Also, the latter argument is more a general anarchist argument than a mutualist argument.

[Demogorgon]

A government is the body within an organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) (the State) that has the authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) to make and enforce rules, laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and regulations. Current governments are elected through representative democracy through parties.
What precisely do you mean by authority? If you mean it as the power to enforce these things (as would be the correct definition I think) then all societies will have de facto Government even if it takes the forms of large corporations backed with mercenary muscle (anarcho-capitalism) or by the people creating and applying their own rules (anarcho-socialism).

Baring that in mind, I find it meaningless to talk about there being no Government because unless you want to use an unduly narrow definition for Government, it will always be there so long as people live together in a community. With that in mind it is best to talk about what kind of Government we might want and how to get it to serve our interests rather than the interests of the elite.

[Conquer or Die]

States infused with progressive thought and revolutionary action ended slavery. Anarcho-Capitalists, Paleo Libertarians seek to restore slavery and slaveocracy.

[Havet]

States infused with progressive thought and revolutionary action ended slavery. Anarcho-Capitalists, Paleo Libertarians seek to restore slavery and slaveocracy.

I agree a particular kind of State ended slavery

I agree Ancaps, paleolibertarians and others wish to restore slavery

I don't see how this is an argument that slavery can only disappear with a state.

[Havet]

What precisely do you mean by authority?

...or by the people creating and applying their own rules (anarcho-socialism).


If these people create these rules, and accept them, and don't impose them on their neighbors, the great. A government, on the other hand, tends to impose the rules on the neighbors. That isn't freedom. If a certain organizational system is inherently better, then it will gradually spread voluntarily, and will not require force upon others.

Freedom of movement, freedom of choice and equality of opportunity are essential in this.

[trivas7]

Baring that in mind, I find it meaningless to talk about there being no Government because unless you want to use an unduly narrow definition for Government, it will always be there so long as people live together in a community. With that in mind it is best to talk about what kind of Government we might want and how to get it to serve our interests rather than the interests of the elite.
Dean -- Please tell me how this doesn't represent the attitude of all RevLefters.

[Plagueround]

Dean -- Please tell me how this doesn't represent the attitude of all RevLefters.

Shouldn't you be the one to prove why all revlefters are statists? You're the one making the assertion, now defend it.

[trivas7]

Shouldn't you be the one to prove why all revlefters are statists? You're the one making the assertion, now defend it.
I've already explained why I believe this to be the case.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I've already explained why I believe this to be the case.

Link or it didn't happen.

[GPDP]

Shouldn't you be the one to prove why all revlefters are statists? You're the one making the assertion, now defend it.

This should be a standard response to almost every trivias post ever.


Link or it didn't happen.

This too.

[Dean]

Dean -- Please tell me how this doesn't represent the attitude of all RevLefters.

I may or may not disagree with his idea of a government. But if he doesn't believe that government or community must enact coercion, I don't see how you libertarians could criticise it. Well, rather, I could, but you would be being inconsistent.

[Havet]

I may or may not disagree with his idea of a government. But if he doesn't believe that government or community must enact coercion, I don't see how you libertarians could criticise it. Well, rather, I could, but you would be being inconsistent.

I think the only coercion that is justifiable is in self-defense against initial coercion from another entity.

[trivas7]

I think the only coercion that is justifiable is in self-defense against initial coercion from another entity.
Exactly the principle of non-aggression.

[Havet]

Exactly the principle of non-aggression.

Although I don't think (http://www.revleft.com/vb/non-aggression-principle-t115678/index.html) the Non-agression principle is an axiom, or that it alone is sufficient to guarantee a good and fair society.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Exactly the principle of non-aggression.

Except the non-aggression principle as used by ancaps and right-libertarians does not recognize enforcement of private property "rights" as aggressive or coercive. Anarchist theory does.

[trivas7]

I may or may not disagree with his idea of a government. But if he doesn't believe that government or community must enact coercion, I don't see how you libertarians could criticise it. Well, rather, I could, but you would be being inconsistent.
Government is coercive by definition, no? I think of myself as an agorist/ancap, not as member of the Libertarian Party.

[Havet]

Except the non-aggression principle as used by ancaps and right-libertarians does not recognize enforcement of private property "rights" as aggressive or coercive. Anarchist theory does.

Yeah that too.

[trivas7]

Although I don't think (http://www.revleft.com/vb/non-aggression-principle-t115678/index.html) the Non-agression principle is an axiom, or that it alone is sufficient to guarantee a good and fair society.
Surely nothing guarantees a good and fair society (by whose definition?).

Except the non-aggression principle as used by ancaps and right-libertarians does not recognize enforcement of private property "rights" as aggressive or coercive. Anarchist theory does.
Exacly why anarchism is off the rails of any realistic implementation.

[Havet]

Government is coercive by definition, no? I think of myself as an agorist/ancap, not as member of the Libertarian Party.

agorism = market anarchism = mutualism =/= anarcho-capitalism.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Exacly why anarchism is off the rails of any realistic implementation.

No u :rolleyes:

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't know if it's been explicitly made, but until the 1700s it was common to say that a capitalist democratic republic cannot succeed; merchantalist monarchies were the "natural form of social organization" and the proverbial "End of History".