Objections - Revision history

Dumky: Elaborating on analyis of non sequitur

2014-01-09T02:54:58Z

Elaborating on analyis of non sequitur

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:54, 9 January 2014
Line 73:		Line 73:

	== Government is voluntary, people can migrate ==		== Government is voluntary, people can migrate ==

			This argument states that by staying in a country, the individuals consent to the government.

			But this suffers from logical leap; the fact that "people can leave" does not allow one to conclude that a system is voluntary. If people choose A over B, we can only conclude that they prefer A over B.

			In particular, even if situation A involves some downsides (very low risk of being murdered, low risk of being mugged or burglarized, or almost certainty of being taxed), demonstrating a preference of A over B does not mean that those interactions are voluntary. We can only conclude that all things considered (loss of social network, cost of moving, loss of employment, and coercive violations of property rights such as crime and taxation), moving to situation B is not worthwhile.

	Let me stimulate your thinking on this problem:		Let me stimulate your thinking on this problem:
Line 84:		Line 90:
	*If the state is voluntary, like a club, then why is it monopolistic on a territory?		*If the state is voluntary, like a club, then why is it monopolistic on a territory?
	::Counter argument is homeowner associations and gated communities.		::Counter argument is homeowner associations and gated communities.
	::::::Homeowners associations and gated communities can peacefully merge and split, unlike governments.		::::::Homeowners associations and gated communities can peacefully merge and split, unlike governments. Also, there is a very clear proof of all the owners voluntarily joining the club when it is formed. The same cannot be said for countries.
	*The lynchpin of a voluntary association is that it is formed with unanimous consent.		*The lynchpin of a voluntary association is that it is formed with unanimous consent.
	::No state demonstrates this feature. On the other hand, plenty of voluntary associations do: clubs, homeowners associations, ...		::No state demonstrates this feature. On the other hand, plenty of voluntary associations do: clubs, homeowners associations, ...

Dumky: /* Government is voluntary, people can migrate */

2014-01-08T17:16:34Z

Government is voluntary, people can migrate

Dumky: /* Objections to capitalism, liberty and anarcho-capitalism */

2014-01-08T17:07:20Z

Objections to capitalism, liberty and anarcho-capitalism

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 8 January 2014
Line 15:		Line 15:
	It is also often useful to clarify the person's conception of government: voluntary (on the basis of a Social Contract and such) or coercive (but necessary). All criticisms of capitalism rest on a baseline (capitalism compared to what) and it is a mistake to assume a perfect but unrealistic alternative (nirvana fallacy). If the person thinks government is voluntary, they are not objecting to capitalism (property rights and voluntary cooperation), so the discussion should focus on whether government is truly legitimate and voluntary. But if the person thinks government an exercise of coercion, then a different set of arguments open up (does allowing coercion in society improve ethics and outcomes?).		It is also often useful to clarify the person's conception of government: voluntary (on the basis of a Social Contract and such) or coercive (but necessary). All criticisms of capitalism rest on a baseline (capitalism compared to what) and it is a mistake to assume a perfect but unrealistic alternative (nirvana fallacy). If the person thinks government is voluntary, they are not objecting to capitalism (property rights and voluntary cooperation), so the discussion should focus on whether government is truly legitimate and voluntary. But if the person thinks government an exercise of coercion, then a different set of arguments open up (does allowing coercion in society improve ethics and outcomes?).

	Other terms worth clarifying include self-interest, altruism, greed, public or social good, and ~~society~~.		Other terms worth clarifying include self-interest, altruism, greed, public or social good, society, and rational/irrational.

	= Capitalism does not produce public goods =		= Capitalism does not produce public goods =

Dumky: /* Objections to capitalism, liberty and anarcho-capitalism */

2014-01-08T16:58:44Z

Objections to capitalism, liberty and anarcho-capitalism

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 8 January 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Liberty or freedom also often deserves some clarification. There are two distinct concept: un-coerced exercise of free-will (negative conception of freedom) and access (positive conception of freedom, as in freedom from hunger, need, etc). The same distinction also exists in discussions about rights (negative rights, as the right not to be coerced, and positive rights, as the right to healthcare).		Liberty or freedom also often deserves some clarification. There are two distinct concept: un-coerced exercise of free-will (negative conception of freedom) and access (positive conception of freedom, as in freedom from hunger, need, etc). The same distinction also exists in discussions about rights (negative rights, as the right not to be coerced, and positive rights, as the right to healthcare).

	It is also often useful to clarify the person's conception of government: voluntary (on the basis of a Social Contract and such) or coercive (but necessary). All criticisms of capitalism rest on a baseline (capitalism compared to what). If the person thinks government is voluntary, they are not objecting to capitalism (property rights and voluntary cooperation), so the discussion should focus on whether government is truly legitimate and voluntary. But if the person thinks government an exercise of coercion, then a different set of arguments open up.		It is also often useful to clarify the person's conception of government: voluntary (on the basis of a Social Contract and such) or coercive (but necessary). All criticisms of capitalism rest on a baseline (capitalism compared to what) and it is a mistake to assume a perfect but unrealistic alternative (nirvana fallacy). If the person thinks government is voluntary, they are not objecting to capitalism (property rights and voluntary cooperation), so the discussion should focus on whether government is truly legitimate and voluntary. But if the person thinks government an exercise of coercion, then a different set of arguments open up (does allowing coercion in society improve ethics and outcomes?).

			Other terms worth clarifying include self-interest, altruism, greed, public or social good, and society.

	= Capitalism does not produce public goods =		= Capitalism does not produce public goods =

Dumky: Tips on addressing objections in discussions

2014-01-08T08:29:22Z

Tips on addressing objections in discussions

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 8 January 2014
Line 3:		Line 3:
	= Objections to capitalism, liberty and anarcho-capitalism =		= Objections to capitalism, liberty and anarcho-capitalism =

	This page can start by listing objections and concerns, and link to more detailed sections to analyze and answer the problem.		This page can start by listing common objections and concerns, and link to more detailed sections to analyze and answer the problem.



			As far as addressing such objections in discussions, it is often useful to start with definitions.

			Merriam-Webster's definition of capitalism is perfectly serviceable, but less formal definitions (capitalism: the system of property rights and voluntary cooperation) can be useful in lay discussions.

			Liberty or freedom also often deserves some clarification. There are two distinct concept: un-coerced exercise of free-will (negative conception of freedom) and access (positive conception of freedom, as in freedom from hunger, need, etc). The same distinction also exists in discussions about rights (negative rights, as the right not to be coerced, and positive rights, as the right to healthcare).

			It is also often useful to clarify the person's conception of government: voluntary (on the basis of a Social Contract and such) or coercive (but necessary). All criticisms of capitalism rest on a baseline (capitalism compared to what). If the person thinks government is voluntary, they are not objecting to capitalism (property rights and voluntary cooperation), so the discussion should focus on whether government is truly legitimate and voluntary. But if the person thinks government an exercise of coercion, then a different set of arguments open up.

	= Capitalism does not produce public goods =		= Capitalism does not produce public goods =

Dumky: Adding references to typical objections

2014-01-08T07:53:16Z

Adding references to typical objections

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:53, 8 January 2014
Line 111:		Line 111:
	Actually, the State provokes foreigners to want to retaliate against it for its acts of aggression (including propping up tyrannical regimes to serve as puppet governments that will do domestic politicians' bidding), and the citizens get caught in the crossfire as they are hit by terrorist attacks, taxed to pay for foreign wars, subjected to intrusive searches at airports, etc. We would do well to heed what Morris and Linda Tannehill wrote in ''[[The Market for Liberty]]'':<ref>{{cite book\|title=The Market for Liberty\|chapter=Foreign Aggression\|pages=128\|author=Tannehill, Morris and Linda}}</ref>		Actually, the State provokes foreigners to want to retaliate against it for its acts of aggression (including propping up tyrannical regimes to serve as puppet governments that will do domestic politicians' bidding), and the citizens get caught in the crossfire as they are hit by terrorist attacks, taxed to pay for foreign wars, subjected to intrusive searches at airports, etc. We would do well to heed what Morris and Linda Tannehill wrote in ''[[The Market for Liberty]]'':<ref>{{cite book\|title=The Market for Liberty\|chapter=Foreign Aggression\|pages=128\|author=Tannehill, Morris and Linda}}</ref>
	{{quote\|Government can't defend its citizens, and it is foolish and sacrificial for the citizens to defend a coercive monopoly which not only enslaves them but makes a practice of provoking conflicts with other coercive monopolies-i.e., with other governments. ''In the matter of foreign aggression, government is far more of a liability than an asset,'' and people would be much better off with a free-market system of defense.}}		{{quote\|Government can't defend its citizens, and it is foolish and sacrificial for the citizens to defend a coercive monopoly which not only enslaves them but makes a practice of provoking conflicts with other coercive monopolies-i.e., with other governments. ''In the matter of foreign aggression, government is far more of a liability than an asset,'' and people would be much better off with a free-market system of defense.}}

			=Typical examples=
			Here are a few essays which illustrate many of the objections to capitalism:

			[http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/02/28/like-unicorns-the-free-market-is-a-myth/ Like unicorns, the 'free market' doesn't exist]

	=References=		=References=

50.46.123.17: /* Government is voluntary, people can vote */

2013-11-02T04:46:31Z

Government is voluntary, people can vote

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:46, 2 November 2013
Line 85:		Line 85:

	In the private sector, the consumer is also entitled to a refund for agreed-upon products not being provided; in the public sector, he is not. There is nothing to prevent a consumer from getting repeatedly ripped off as he bounces back and forth between two different restaurants, each of which keep taking his money without providing what was promised. In the U.S. electoral system, those two restaurants are the two major parties. The third parties are like small restaurants that, after receiving the customer's money, later say, "Sorry, we invested the money as best we could in producing a meal, but ultimately didn't have enough cash to succeed, and now the money is gone. However, if enough people buy hamburgers from us the next time around, we might have enough money to succeed."		In the private sector, the consumer is also entitled to a refund for agreed-upon products not being provided; in the public sector, he is not. There is nothing to prevent a consumer from getting repeatedly ripped off as he bounces back and forth between two different restaurants, each of which keep taking his money without providing what was promised. In the U.S. electoral system, those two restaurants are the two major parties. The third parties are like small restaurants that, after receiving the customer's money, later say, "Sorry, we invested the money as best we could in producing a meal, but ultimately didn't have enough cash to succeed, and now the money is gone. However, if enough people buy hamburgers from us the next time around, we might have enough money to succeed."

			A quick answer for knee-jerk internet comments, is "Which vote of yours led to the NSA tapping major internet companies and spying on citizens?". Another one is "If the government represent voters, then certainly voters should be responsible for their government's choices, such as a foreign policy killing in the order of a million innocent Iraqis. Are you ready to stand trial for your role in this crime?"

	== Government is needed to define the law ==		== Government is needed to define the law ==

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Government is needed to define the law */

2012-10-09T14:29:33Z

Government is needed to define the law

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:29, 9 October 2012
Line 91:		Line 91:
	*Languages (for the most part) emerge without centralized government definition		*Languages (for the most part) emerge without centralized government definition
	*Governments are in a state of anarchy with regards to each other (no "super-government" defining international law). There is more strife and violence within countries these days (e.g. the bloody civil wars in Africa) than between countries.		*Governments are in a state of anarchy with regards to each other (no "super-government" defining international law). There is more strife and violence within countries these days (e.g. the bloody civil wars in Africa) than between countries.
	:*Counter-argument: International relations are to some extent dominated by a few great powers that impose their will on the rest of the world. The countries that have been willing to engage in free trade with one another, such as the [[Benelux]] or [[World Trade Organization]] members, have tended to also form supranational federations to establish and enforce rules governing trade. One might argue that this means they found such federations necessary in order ~~for free~~ trade ~~to work~~.		:*Counter-argument: International relations are to some extent dominated by a few great powers that impose their will on the rest of the world. The countries that have been willing to engage in free trade with one another, such as the [[Benelux]] or [[World Trade Organization]] members, have tended to also form supranational federations to establish and enforce rules governing trade. One might argue that this means they found such federations necessary in order to pursue their goals of freer trade.
	*There are already multiple sets of law (from country to country, state to state, city to city), what is the optimal number and how would we know that number?		*There are already multiple sets of law (from country to country, state to state, city to city), what is the optimal number and how would we know that number?
	:*Counter-argument: Theoretically, if the voters become discontent with their current number of sets of laws, they will require their elected officials to change the number or impose tighter central control over local governments.		:*Counter-argument: Theoretically, if the voters become discontent with their current number of sets of laws, they will require their elected officials to change the number or impose tighter central control over local governments.

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Government is needed to define the law */

2012-10-09T14:28:26Z

Government is needed to define the law

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 9 October 2012
Line 90:		Line 90:
	Here are some points to stimulate thought on this problem:		Here are some points to stimulate thought on this problem:
	*Languages (for the most part) emerge without centralized government definition		*Languages (for the most part) emerge without centralized government definition
	*Governments are in a state of anarchy with regards to each other (no "super-government" defining international law)		*Governments are in a state of anarchy with regards to each other (no "super-government" defining international law). There is more strife and violence within countries these days (e.g. the bloody civil wars in Africa) than between countries.
	:*Counter-argument: International relations are to some extent dominated by a few great powers that impose their will on the rest of the world. The countries that have been willing to engage in free trade with one another, such as the [[Benelux]] or [[World Trade Organization]] members, have tended to also form supranational federations to establish and enforce rules governing trade. One might argue that this means they found such federations necessary in order for free trade to work.		:*Counter-argument: International relations are to some extent dominated by a few great powers that impose their will on the rest of the world. The countries that have been willing to engage in free trade with one another, such as the [[Benelux]] or [[World Trade Organization]] members, have tended to also form supranational federations to establish and enforce rules governing trade. One might argue that this means they found such federations necessary in order for free trade to work.
	*There are already multiple sets of law (from country to country, state to state, city to city), what is the optimal number and how would we know that number?		*There are already multiple sets of law (from country to country, state to state, city to city), what is the optimal number and how would we know that number?

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Government is needed to define the law */

2012-10-09T14:26:06Z

Government is needed to define the law

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 9 October 2012
Line 89:		Line 89:

	Here are some points to stimulate thought on this problem:		Here are some points to stimulate thought on this problem:
	*~~languages~~ (for the most part) emerge without centralized government definition		*Languages (for the most part) emerge without centralized government definition
	*~~governments~~ are in a state of anarchy with regards to each other (no "super-government" defining international law)		*Governments are in a state of anarchy with regards to each other (no "super-government" defining international law)
	:*Counter-argument: International relations are to some extent dominated by a few great powers that impose their will on the rest of the world.		:*Counter-argument: International relations are to some extent dominated by a few great powers that impose their will on the rest of the world. The countries that have been willing to engage in free trade with one another, such as the [[Benelux]] or [[World Trade Organization]] members, have tended to also form supranational federations to establish and enforce rules governing trade. One might argue that this means they found such federations necessary in order for free trade to work.
	*~~there~~ are already multiple sets of law (from country to country, state to state, city to city), what is the optimal number and how would we know that number?		*There are already multiple sets of law (from country to country, state to state, city to city), what is the optimal number and how would we know that number?
			:*Counter-argument: Theoretically, if the voters become discontent with their current number of sets of laws, they will require their elected officials to change the number or impose tighter central control over local governments.

	== Government is needed to provide law enforcement services ==		== Government is needed to provide law enforcement services ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 8 January 2014
Line 76:		Line 76:
	Let me stimulate your thinking on this problem:		Let me stimulate your thinking on this problem:
	*If the state is voluntary because you can move, then the mafia is voluntary too since you can change neighborhood or city.		*If the state is voluntary because you can move, then the mafia is voluntary too since you can change neighborhood or city.
	**Counter argument: So then why do you stay in a mafia-infested neighborhood or city, if you have other options? At what point might your acquiescence to the situation, when you have other options, be reasonably deemed voluntary? What about [[personal responsibility]] to remove oneself and one's property from harm's way? Libertarians, after all, advocate competition and consumer choice as safeguards against abuse, and believe that each person has a responsibility to provide for his own defense. That means that it is the libertarian's responsibility to either escape or fend off aggression when the means are available. To fail to exercise a preferable option that was available is to voluntarily acquiesce to a worse situation.		::::Counter argument: So then why do you stay in a mafia-infested neighborhood or city, if you have other options? At what point might your acquiescence to the situation, when you have other options, be reasonably deemed voluntary? What about [[personal responsibility]] to remove oneself and one's property from harm's way? Libertarians, after all, advocate competition and consumer choice as safeguards against abuse, and believe that each person has a responsibility to provide for his own defense. That means that it is the libertarian's responsibility to either escape or fend off aggression when the means are available. To fail to exercise a preferable option that was available is to voluntarily acquiesce to a worse situation.
			::::::To clarify, do you mean that the mafia in a neighborhood is indeed voluntary for the people who stay there? Do you believe that the victims of mafias do not take any steps to hide or protect their property? What is the minimal action (short of leaving) which demonstrates in your mind that the mafia is coercive?
	*If the state is voluntary, then are there limits to the state?		*If the state is voluntary, then are there limits to the state?
	::Was the confiscation of Jew property in Germany voluntary?		::Was the confiscation of Jew property in Germany voluntary?
	:::Counter argument: Why did the Jews live in Germany, rather than in a country like the U.S. with stronger protections for property rights? The libertarian position is that when you travel abroad, you do so at your own risk.<ref>{{cite web\|quote=We call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk.\|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/platform.html\|title=National Platform of the Libertarian Party\|date=May 2004\|chapter=International Travel and Foreign Investments}}</ref> Why would the logic behind that principle not apply also to Jews who choose to live in Germany?		:::Counter argument: Why did the Jews live in Germany, rather than in a country like the U.S. with stronger protections for property rights? The libertarian position is that when you travel abroad, you do so at your own risk.<ref>{{cite web\|quote=We call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk.\|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/platform.html\|title=National Platform of the Libertarian Party\|date=May 2004\|chapter=International Travel and Foreign Investments}}</ref> Why would the logic behind that principle not apply also to Jews who choose to live in Germany?
			::::::Can you clarify? Do you mean the confiscation was indeed voluntary and there are no limits to the state?
	*If the state is voluntary, like a club, then why is it monopolistic on a territory?		*If the state is voluntary, like a club, then why is it monopolistic on a territory?
	::Counter argument is homeowner associations and gated communities.		::Counter argument is homeowner associations and gated communities.
			::::::Homeowners associations and gated communities can peacefully merge and split, unlike governments.
	*The lynchpin of a voluntary association is that it is formed with unanimous consent.		*The lynchpin of a voluntary association is that it is formed with unanimous consent.
	::No state demonstrates this feature. On the other hand, plenty of voluntary associations do: clubs, homeowners associations, ...		::No state demonstrates this feature. On the other hand, plenty of voluntary associations do: clubs, homeowners associations, ...