Monday, May 12, 2014

Walter Block vs Jan Helfeld on Anarchy vs Limited Government

18 comments:

  1. The only way to defend anarchy is to assume that govt makes everything worse. In other words, you have to make a circular argument. There is no credible counterfactual to support the claim govt makes everything worse. You have to assume it is true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is truth right here, and it's the fatal flaw in the anarchist position. Anarchists are a lot like atheists in their logic, in that they both make an awful lot of assumptions to arrive at their conclusions. Then when they debate others, it becomes a game of keeping the opponent's eye off the ball (their assumptions).

      Delete
    2. The only way to defend statism is to assume that govt makes everything better. In other words, you have to make a circular argument. There is no credible counterfactual to support the claim govt makes everything better. You have to assume it is true.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for proving my point, Anon @9:04. Once again, the anarchist/libertarian loads his argument with a false premise, and then proceeds to rail on said premise. You can disagree with statism and not be an anarchist. Your premise is wrong; therefore, there's no point in going further until you correct your error. Of course, you can't correct your error without blowing your entire anarchist position wide open so I don't expect you to do that. Anarchists aren't as reasoned as they like to think they are.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous May13 at 6:21am, I'm sorry I don't understand your statement about anarchists and atheists make a lot of assumptions to arrive to their conclusions. Do I have any knowledge that is reproducible (scientific method) that there is an invisible man in the sky, invisible spirits, or conscious without matter? No. Is it okay ethically to use aggression against another person's private property (rape, theft, murder)? No.

      To accept the state you have to assume that it's ethical to violate a person's private property. To accept religion or a believe in god(s), souls, etc. you have to assume that they have conscious without matter which is scientifically impossible.

      Delete
    5. "There is no credible counterfactual to support the claim govt makes everything worse. You have to assume it is true."

      Jerry, you have it exactly backwards.

      As Anon@9:04 almost said, there is no credible counterfactual to support the claim that govt makes anything [which is desired by consumers] better, and further, that non-Statist-govt must necessarily do a worse job. You have to assume it is true.

      In this context, I remind you about the seen and the unseen, the broken window fallacy, the argument via competition, and all other relevant counterfactuals of economics.

      You need to learn a lot about truth, Jerry. There is this curious property it has called consistency. When you run into inconsistencies, you need to examine your premises, not go around asserting the truth/falsity values of statements.

      Perhaps you were not smart enough to be aware of this inconsistency in your thinking. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Just keep in mind that it is possible to prove almost anything from false premises - circularity of arguments is the least of your concerns when your underlying theory is inconsistent.

      Delete
    6. To JW & Anon @ 6:21, the problem of government starts with its basic violation of the NAP in its existence, there's nothing circular about the base logic.

      In order for government to exist in most cases up to this point historically, it starts by taking something from someone else. That is an existential problem.

      Which is why it was so interesting a couple of years back when RW once commented about the possibility he could support a poll tax....because it's VOLUNTARY...(not withstanding any debates about how/what philosophy said gov't may try to enforce that would violate the NAP)

      So if/when man ever figures out how to have a government that doesn't violate the NAP, then yes, there is a possibility of a government that might not make everything worse.

      Delete
    7. Precisely my thinking Anonymous 9:04 AM.

      Jerry, did you really think that quip of yours was an incredibly insightful thing to say?

      Delete
    8. The problem with government doesn't start with a libertarian principle, sorry. Not everyone accepts the NAP, first of all. The NAP is weak and arbitrary. Libertarians are going to have to come up with something better than that. Nonresistance is much better, and that predates the sacred NAP by thousands of years.

      Delete
    9. @ Anon 2:23

      "Libertarians are going to have to come up with something better than that. Nonresistance is much better, and that predates the sacred NAP by thousands of years."

      Agreed. In elite circles, this hallowed doctrine of nonresistance is communicated to new initiates as "when rape is inevitable, just lie back and enjoy!". The wisdom of this doctrine is of wide applicability: even if rape is not inevitable, a posture of non-resistance is always better because it allows the rape go down more smoothly.

      Ancient wisdom must necessarily be more valid than any new developments! After all, it has stood the test of Time for so long! What has been so must be so and continue to remain so, for it is so because it is just and right and good and true and absolutely optimal.

      Delete
    10. I know, Anon @3:45, it's sad that ancient wisdom is much more enlightened than modern-day (and supposedly more "advanced") wisdom. The more you think you know, the less you actually know. One day, young padawan, if you seek real understanding, it'll smack you in the face and make you realize just how little you know. But your current path of haughtiness leads only to destruction. The choice is yours.

      Delete
    11. Who says the NAP is a modern idea? Ever hear of a guy named Lao Tzu?
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/libertarianism-in-ancient-china/

      Delete
  2. These tele-debates are ridiculously frustrating to listen to. People talking over one another, not understanding how the technology works, being unclear on the rules of the debate, etc. Regarding the debate, I think both sides start from the wrong premise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Block converted limited govt folks they must give individual right to the anarchism position, on a logical basis, it is impossible to be a nationalist. From the first at bat !

    ReplyDelete
  4. Skip to 1h:09m to begin "ON TOPIC" (but do it only after listening to Walter's killr logic intro statement)

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's a much better debate than the Kinsella episode. It kind of fell apart at the end, but Block did a great job overall.

    Even though I think Jan got his ass handed to him in this debate, I still dig his Socratic interviews of pols. The Pete Stark interview is pretty funny.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Helfeld is such a whiny A@%*$*#
    'You're interrupting me!'
    'You didn't answer my question!'
    'You're ethically inconsistent so your answer isn't good enough!'
    Just STFU already.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is fantastic. Mr. Helfeld is almost there! Dr. Block should indeed have said he'd drink the water and accept the just penalty (with the caveat that if the person with the water was a pregnant in equal duress, he would not drink it), though some (Bob Murphy? Larken Rose?) might say otherwise. Then we could have gotten past the 'integrated ethics' objection, and all we're left with is utilitarianist (or 'economic') discussion, which I think is the main hurdle (and Dr. Block has dealt with this very well - the monopoly problem is the crux of it).

    And for the record, Mr. Helfeld should bring back the Charlie-Chaplain-non-Hitler mustache. See you on the other side Mr. Helfeld.

    ReplyDelete