Voluntaryism vs. Statism

[Darias]

I have created this thread primarily for the sake of not derailing other threads with my long rebuttals to the brief claims and questions of others. I also believe it will be a useful reference point so I won't have to repeat the same arguments.



I get a lot of objections and claims from statists, which I will reiterate in the form of debatable questions. Feel free to address however many you like:

• 1. Do you believe that the state/government is synonymous with society and civilization?
  
  2. Do you believe that the absence of the state/government necessitates chaos, disorder and destruction?
  
  3. Are essential goods and services (food, water, roads, security, insurance) which are necessary for the survival and prosperity of society, incapable of existing apart from their provision by the state? If not, who else can provide any of them? If another system can, which is more efficient for society?
  
  4. Assuming the needs and wants of society are met equally by both government programs, and by voluntary behavior, (in the free market, or alternatively, collectivism), is there any other reason why the former shouldn't?
  
  5. Assuming there is no good reason for the state to have a monopoly on providing essential goods and services for society, can a voluntaryist society possibly come to be, or would that be an impossible utopia? Is there historical precedence for such an idea?

My response addressing some of these will come in the following post, which may take time considering my lengthy style. I will be responding to questions from other threads which relate to the above.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 20 by Goat]
You purposefully ignored the examples of Somalia and Ireland I gave in point #5 of post 8 then? There is a reason why I provide links in my posts.

As for the idea that markets can provide basic services, evidence for that is everywhere. Freer economies work better than controlled ones at providing society's needs.

I have spent many hours citing examples and making arguments, but I can't make people read them of course. Repeating fallacious claims on your part neither dismantles my case nor helps your own.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 20 by Goat]
You purposefully ignored the examples of Somalia and Ireland I gave in point #5 of post 8 then? There is a reason why I provide links in my posts.

As for the idea that markets can provide basic services, evidence for that is everywhere. Freer economies work better than controlled ones at providing society's needs.

I have spent many hours citing examples and making arguments, but I can't make people read them of course. Repeating fallacious claims on your part neither dismantles my case nor helps your own.

That is not showing how voluntarism WORKS. As for alternate currency.. yes, it's a fad for now, but as soon as someone breaks into the server, and starts hacking it, the value will go way down and be worthless.. Those alternate coinage take advantage of other stable economies to function also.. so you can't show they would stand alone.

Frankly, your arguments are NOT examples. Arguments are not evidence, and you have provided an example where a society has been set up on voluntarism.

[Darias]

That is not showing how voluntarism WORKS. As for alternate currency.. yes, it's a fad for now, but as soon as someone breaks into the server, and starts hacking it, the value will go way down and be worthless.. Those alternate coinage take advantage of other stable economies to function also.. so you can't show they would stand alone.

Frankly, your arguments are NOT examples. Arguments are not evidence, and you have provided an example where a society has been set up on voluntarism.

Your dishonesty is becoming tiresome. Appealing to tradition, as you have repeatedly done is not a refutation of the concrete examples proving precedence for and lawfulness of stateless societies, as well as proof that economies not controlled by the state do much better than controlled ones.

Since you are confident in your baseless belief that non-state chaos is so potentially destructive as to warrant the state, despite the mountain of bodies it creates, I find it difficult to think you lack the imagination necessary to comprehend a stateless society (evidenced by history) that relies on markets to get things done (the capabilities of the market all around you). Don't make me insult your intelligence by giving examples of the obvious.

There are examples of not completely free markets existing and doing things better than state programs, but no there isn't necessarily a western, nationwide example of a voluntaryist society today. But that says nothing about its potential. It's no more a valid refutation of my position than demanding an abolitionist to cite examples of modern successful societies that did not use slavery ( since Rome, Great Britain, and the US did). How does that prove that slavery can't be abolished or that nothing else can replace the need for slaves? It doesn't.

You know all to well the horrors that socialist economies create, yet you ignore that evidence by saying it can work, yet I am the one making "baseless" accusations when I have proof that freer markets can work better than controlled ones and I have proof of stateless societies in history and the present day? Who is the real dreamer here?

Rather than conceding to my point that currencies can exist without the state, you back peddle and claim that alternative currencies are a fad, as if they have never existed until recently. Please. And the idea that Bitcoin is a server that can be hacked betrays your ignorance on the subject.

Do you even know what the FED does to the value of the US dollar? Its job is pretty much to make it worthless, and yet you're worried about Bitcoin?

And of course any good investor knows not to put all his eggs in one basket. Competing currencies is a good thing. Oh and here is an example of that in the real world you claim to live in.

[help3434]

Yet more often than not, those same atheists (who believe in the goodness of humanity when debating with Creationists) readily adopt statism of the Hobbes' variety when debating with anarchists. Without hesitation, they claim that the morality, survival, and success of a society depends on the belief in the need for democracy/government, rulers, the constitution, and the bill of rights--lest chaos and warlords create hell on earth.

Sounds like a strawman to me. Atheists saying that would be unjust to send the majority of people to hell is not the same thing as being so optimistic about human nature that they believe that there could be a civilized society without civilizing institutions, so there is no inconsistency there.

[Darias]

Sounds like a strawman to me. Atheists saying that would be unjust to send the majority of people to hell is not the same thing as being so optimistic about human nature that they believe that there could be a civilized society without civilizing institutions, so there is no inconsistency there.

1. The core point of the analogy was that atheists often claim that people can be moral because they want to be (in part because there are genetic reasons for moral behavior) -- not because of fear of Yahweh and hellfire, or hope for reward. They claim that you don't need the Bible or the 10 commandments to exercise common sense morality. They claim that you don't need to attend church to be a good person, and that you don't have to obey a commandment to tithe in order to be charitable.

In short, they argue that people can be moral apart from religious authority, be it from seated in the Vatican or on the throne of heaven.

Yet, those same atheists do an about face and claim that society needs states (a self appointed monopoly on force), constitutions (paper that neither restrains the power of the state nor protects you), taxation (theft) for civilization to exist, lest there be hell on earth.

And yes, atheists are so greatly offended by the idea that most people will go to hell for victimless crimes, yet they champion the institution that incarcerates people unjustly for the same thing. The fact is, since hell is a myth, the reality of our mortality should make being jailed for years of your temporary life all the more repulsive. This "land of the free" puts Russia to shame with the highest prison population in the world. Yet somehow, atheists are more offended by believers scaring people about a mythical place than the very real reality of their precious state's prison system.



2. What do you mean by civilizing institutions? If you are referring to common law, property rights, services, etc., I have no problem. But if you're referring to the state, which I assume you are, then you couldn't be more wrong. The state is no more a civilizing institution than the mafia is; their behavior is exactly the same, except the state operates under the shroud of self-appointed legal legitimacy.

[WinePusher]

This "land of the free" puts Russia to shame with the highest prison population in the world.

And how is this a bad thing? I think it's great that we have the 'highest prison population in the world.' It shows that we actually punish criminals and law breakers, which is a good thing. The fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rates says nothing about the proclivity of the American population towards criminal behavior. It only shows that the United States criminal justice system is harsher than those of other nations. And that's the major difference, people like you want a lenient criminal justice system that gives second chances to pedophiles, serial rapists, serial killers, thieves, etc while I want a harsh criminal justice system that locks up these 'people' forever.

Unfortunately, you (Darias) not only have a misunderstanding of libertarianism but you also buy into the liberal nonsense and propaganda on criminal justice. What a shame.

[Darias]

This "land of the free" puts Russia to shame with the highest prison population in the world.

And how is this a bad thing? I think it's great that we have the 'highest prison population in the world.' It shows that we actually punish criminals and law breakers, which is a good thing. The fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rates says nothing about the proclivity of the American population towards criminal behavior. It only shows that the United States criminal justice system is harsher than those of other nations. And that's the major difference, people like you want a lenient criminal justice system that gives second chances to pedophiles, serial rapists, serial killers, thieves, etc while I want a harsh criminal justice system that locks up these 'people' forever.

[center]
[/center]


In my previous post, I was referring to the incarceration of non-violent persons guilty of victimless crimes, who account for 60% of the US prison population, according to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. An article in the National Review reveals that non-violent drug offenders account for 25% of the entire prison population.

Contrary to popular perception, violent crime is not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States since 1980. In fact, violent crime rates have been relatively constant or declining over the past two decades. The exploding prison population has been propelled by public policy changes that have increased the use of prison sentences as well as the length of time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release.

Although these policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, they have instead yielded high rates of confinement of nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes.2 Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates are held for violent offenses.3

The drug war has had no substantial impact on drug use, but has cost us and our children $1 trillion. I don't think it's wise or moral to arrest young people just because they had some plants, and then sentence them to 20 years gang culture and prison rape. If you want to know why prisons are called "correctional facilities" you should go ask Orwell.

Unfortunately, you (Darias) not only have a misunderstanding of libertarianism but you also buy into the liberal nonsense and propaganda on criminal justice. What a shame.

It is the sweetest of ironies that the only libertarian in the world who supports ungodly amounts of spending for big government initiatives, such as ineffectual, counter-productive, liberty-destroying wars (on drugs and "counter-terrorism") sees fit to lecture me on my libertarian views.







-

[WinePusher]

The drug war has had no substantial impact on drug use, but has cost us and our children $1 trillion. I don't think it's wise or moral to arrest young people just because they had some plants, and then sentence them to 20 years gang culture and prison rape. If you want to know why prisons are called "correctional facilities" you should go ask Orwell.

Who the hell said I was in favor of the drug war? What I am in favor of is a harsh and punitive criminal justice system, unlike you apparently.

Unfortunately, you (Darias) not only have a misunderstanding of libertarianism but you also buy into the liberal nonsense and propaganda on criminal justice. What a shame.

It is the sweetest of ironies that the only libertarian in the world who supports ungodly amounts of spending for big government initiatives, such as ineffectual, counter-productive, liberty-destroying wars (on drugs and "counter-terrorism") sees fit to lecture me on my libertarian views.

First of all, I am not a supporter of the war on drugs. I support legalizing soft drugs like marijuana, but I am also in favor of outlawing hard drugs like cocaine and meth. Second of all, I've explained my view of foreign policy many times to you before and why I don't think it is inconsistent with libertarianism. I've also explained why your understanding of libertarianism is flawed and you've yet to respond.

[Darias]

The drug war has had no substantial impact on drug use, but has cost us and our children $1 trillion. I don't think it's wise or moral to arrest young people just because they had some plants, and then sentence them to 20 years gang culture and prison rape. If you want to know why prisons are called "correctional facilities" you should go ask Orwell.

Who the hell said I was in favor of the drug war? What I am in favor of is a harsh and punitive criminal justice system, unlike you apparently.

Since you criticized my post on the unjust mass incarceration of non-violent persons by claiming that the exploding prison population isn't bad, I assumed you also supported the cause for such a high figure -- and as I explained in post 27, the drug war is wholly responsible for that increase.

[center][/center]

My apologies for misreading your position, but that raises the question: what other reason can you possibly have to support the exponentially growing prison population--mostly comprised of non-violent persons, including drug-law violators?



Now the reason you were greeted by Mr. Bolger in my last post is because I have no idea how you could possibly infer my support for letting violent persons roam around. Certain criminals have a very high proclivity for recidivism, and keeping them apart from society is the only way to go. However, because this country incarcerates non-violent persons into a violent environment with violent people for years, how is anyone to expect them to come out as productive members of society? These young people once imprisoned find themselves facing pressure to join racial gangs and get into fights so they won't become someone's rape toy. They're given maximum sentences, sometimes longer than thieves and murderers. When they get out, they have a criminal record, which makes getting a job nearly impossible. Adapting to a normal life after being in a cage full of predators for so long is not much easier.

Your affinity for the government not only keeps you from looking at this problem critically, but also gives you a reason to crack open a beer and wave the flag around 'cuz 'murica's the best. A libertarian concerned with wasteful spending and counterproductive government solutions might realize that there is no good reason for squandering taxpayer dollars for the sake of the prison industrial complex. A libertarian might recognize the reality that criminalization of drugs grows the police state at the expense of civil liberties, that capital punishment costs far more than life imprisonment, and that rehabilitation is far less costly for the tax payer than building more dungeons and recidivism factories.

It is the sweetest of ironies that the only libertarian in the world who supports ungodly amounts of spending for big government initiatives, such as ineffectual, counter-productive, liberty-destroying wars (on drugs and "counter-terrorism") sees fit to lecture me on my libertarian views.

First of all, I am not a supporter of the war on drugs. I support legalizing soft drugs like marijuana, but I am also in favor of outlawing hard drugs like cocaine and meth. Second of all, I've explained my view of foreign policy many times to you before and why I don't think it is inconsistent with libertarianism. I've also explained why your understanding of libertarianism is flawed and you've yet to respond.

Despite widespread support for the legalization of marijuana, the plant is criminalized because the drug war guarantees more revenue for the state than legalizing a product that is extremely difficult to regulate. Treating addicts like criminals, regardless of the drug, seems costly and wasteful to the tax payer, but that means more jobs for the state and more profits for private prisons that benefit from state laws.

As for your claims, you have stated that your stance on foreign wars is perfectly consistent with libertarian ideals without showing why. I personally think your foreign policy views are more true to objectivist ideology.

As for my understanding of libertarianism, I don't think you realize that market anarchism is well within the definition, and I argue the only logical conclusion. Wikipedia doesn't seem to exclude us.

You have repeatedly claimed that my views are extreme without explaining what exactly is wrong with them. If you can direct me to the post you were talking about I'll see if I have time to respond. I don't want to derail this thread by addressing it here.



-

[help3434]

[Replying to Darias]

Of course markets can provide basic services, but what proof do you have that markets would be able to function in a society of millions of people without government?