Anarcho-Capitalism- A Stateless Society

atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Anarcho-Capitalism- A Stateless Society

What are your thoughts on a Stateless society?

To start any conversation like this I need to define a couple things:

State (Government): A group of people that can legally initiate the use of force over a group of people within a certain geographical boundary.

Nonaggression Principle (N.A.P.): It is immoral to initiate force against another human being in any fashion.

Free Market (Capitalism, etc): A system of voluntary exchange.

I think these definitions are sound. So if you have an issue with them then start there. If you find them agreeable then my proposition is this:

If you accept the N.A.P. then a stateless society with a free market is the only logically sound and morally acceptable way to "organize" society.

Discuss.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Won't happen. Humans will

 Won't happen. Humans will always set up some sort of social order. Humans have different values and behaviors and unfortunately greed (be it greed of money, or greed of political power, or greed of religious power). That won't change.

The only reasonable leash on any lopsidedness is bans on monopolies of power. I am no fan of corporate abuse as it is currently displaying. But I am also not willing to rid the entire planet of the private sector either, as if you could.

 

I really hate the word "capitalism" is it is popularly defined and used. Humans worldwide fail to understand that there is absolutly no government, in  open or closed societies, where a family or party does not invest in the global market. The Saudi Royal family owns oil companies and invests in banks and weapons. China's communist party allows for western businesses. Gaddafi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.

 

I am concerned with the increasing pay gap, and I do see that as a race to the bottom. But there are some in business who I do see as trying to do the right thing. I simply do not see the majority of the climate following that. 

 

I am no more a fan of Ayn Rand's "Fuck you I got mine" economics, but I am no fan of Che either.

 

Power structures will happen no matter what. Simply having a revolution to have one does not insure that what ends up will be a benifit to more people.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Won't

Brian37 wrote:

 Won't happen. Humans will always set up some sort of social order. Humans have different values and behaviors and unfortunately greed (be it greed of money, or greed of political power, or greed of religious power). That won't change.

The only reasonable leash on any lopsidedness is bans on monopolies of power. I am no fan of corporate abuse as it is currently displaying. But I am also not willing to rid the entire planet of the private sector either, as if you could.

 

I really hate the word "capitalism" is it is popularly defined and used. Humans worldwide fail to understand that there is absolutly no government, in  open or closed societies, where a family or party does not invest in the global market. The Saudi Royal family owns oil companies and invests in banks and weapons. China's communist party allows for western businesses. Gaddafi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.

 

I am concerned with the increasing pay gap, and I do see that as a race to the bottom. But there are some in business who I do see as trying to do the right thing. I simply do not see the majority of the climate following that. 

 

I am no more a fan of Ayn Rand's "Fuck you I got mine" economics, but I am no fan of Che either.

 

Power structures will happen no matter what. Simply having a revolution to have one does not insure that what ends up will be a benifit to more people.

Wont happen? That's a really stupid argument quite frankly. And not even historically accurate when it comes to things like this.

Voluntary organization is absolutely allowed in a stateless society. That's what differentiates it from the state.
It seems you're giving me a consequentialist argument. Im asking a moral question (and one of consistent logic if you accept the N.A.P.)
And it seems youre making an argument in favor of human nature being bad so we need the state. Isnt that the EXACT argument theists use for God? Besides its complete bullshit.

There has never been a monopoly that has sustained itself without State intervention. And in a Free Market (as defined above) a monopoly could never happen economically speaking. Name me one monopoly that hasn't sustained itself without government help.

Everything you just described happens through and because of government.

The Ayn Rand argument, outside of being sophist tripe, isn't even accurate. A gross strawman and complete misstatement of her beliefs. Intellectually lazy as well. And Im not even an objectivist. She was a miniarchist. But atleast I have the decency to actually understand her stuff.

And after all that you STILL didn't make an argument against any of my definitions, nor did you say whether or not you personally accepted the N.A.P.

My question is one of morality and logic NOT consequences.

You get rid of slavery because its immoral not because youre worried about how the cotton is going to be picked afterwards.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm sympathetic to the

 I'm sympathetic to the idea of a stateless society and certainly find it appealing. The problem is that there are a lot of totalitarians like Brian who think they know better than anyone else and want everyone to live according to their script. They reject the NAP and are more than willing to use violence to get what they want or feel entitled to. Those types of people severely outnumber us and their armies are going to win every time. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I'm sympathetic to the idea of a stateless society and certainly find it appealing. The problem is that there are a lot of totalitarians like Brian who think they know better than anyone else and want everyone to live according to their script. They reject the NAP and are more than willing to use violence to get what they want or feel entitled to. Those types of people severely outnumber us and their armies are going to win every time. 

I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow. It's a generational thing.

I think the N.A.P. is something pretty much any atheist who argues against the "human nature is bad" argument theists love to use would accept gladly.

From there its a question of logic and morality. Something we as a group love to harp on about. What usually happen is EXACTLY what theists do. They use sophist nonsense.

Im just saying, if you accept the N.A.P its the only really logical (and moral) stance. And if you accept it you should advocate for it.

I don't know how people 200 years from now are going to deal with these issues, if they even have them. It's completely impossible to tell. Nor is it lost on me that these questions are never asked of government, "Tell me how youll fix all of societies ills two centuries from now".

Either way. The question is a moral one and should be looked at as such.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Brian37

atomicdogg34 wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

 Won't happen. Humans will always set up some sort of social order. Humans have different values and behaviors and unfortunately greed (be it greed of money, or greed of political power, or greed of religious power). That won't change.

The only reasonable leash on any lopsidedness is bans on monopolies of power. I am no fan of corporate abuse as it is currently displaying. But I am also not willing to rid the entire planet of the private sector either, as if you could.

 

I really hate the word "capitalism" is it is popularly defined and used. Humans worldwide fail to understand that there is absolutly no government, in  open or closed societies, where a family or party does not invest in the global market. The Saudi Royal family owns oil companies and invests in banks and weapons. China's communist party allows for western businesses. Gaddafi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.

 

I am concerned with the increasing pay gap, and I do see that as a race to the bottom. But there are some in business who I do see as trying to do the right thing. I simply do not see the majority of the climate following that. 

 

I am no more a fan of Ayn Rand's "Fuck you I got mine" economics, but I am no fan of Che either.

 

Power structures will happen no matter what. Simply having a revolution to have one does not insure that what ends up will be a benifit to more people.

Wont happen? That's a really stupid argument quite frankly. And not even historically accurate when it comes to things like this. Voluntary organization is absolutely allowed in a stateless society. That's what differentiates it from the state. It seems you're giving me a consequentialist argument. Im asking a moral question (and one of consistent logic if you accept the N.A.P.) And it seems youre making an argument in favor of human nature being bad so we need the state. Isnt that the EXACT argument theists use for God? Besides its complete bullshit. There has never been a monopoly that has sustained itself without State intervention. And in a Free Market (as defined above) a monopoly could never happen economically speaking. Name me one monopoly that hasn't sustained itself without government help. Everything you just described happens through and because of government. The Ayn Rand argument, outside of being sophist tripe, isn't even accurate. A gross strawman and complete misstatement of her beliefs. Intellectually lazy as well. And Im not even an objectivist. She was a miniarchist. But atleast I have the decency to actually understand her stuff. And after all that you STILL didn't make an argument against any of my definitions, nor did you say whether or not you personally accepted the N.A.P. My question is one of morality and logic NOT consequences. You get rid of slavery because its immoral not because youre worried about how the cotton is going to be picked afterwards.

To even suggest humans will do the right thing on their own automattically is fucking absurd. 

Our species has always displayed the same range of behavior, both good and bad, and greed is part of that. That greed can come in the form of greed for money, greed for power, and greed for religious power.

Only an idiot would think you can leave everyone to their own divices.  "Government" is a reflection of our species setting up order. The only thing you can do is set up checks and balances so NOTHING in the public sector or private sector can become abusive.

Anarchy is as much a bullshit concept as theocracies or nanny states. A utopia is a utopia no matter what the idea is in trying to create it. Deal with what you can change without projecting your desires on a diverse species.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:atomicdogg34

Brian37 wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

 Won't happen. Humans will always set up some sort of social order. Humans have different values and behaviors and unfortunately greed (be it greed of money, or greed of political power, or greed of religious power). That won't change.

The only reasonable leash on any lopsidedness is bans on monopolies of power. I am no fan of corporate abuse as it is currently displaying. But I am also not willing to rid the entire planet of the private sector either, as if you could.

 

I really hate the word "capitalism" is it is popularly defined and used. Humans worldwide fail to understand that there is absolutly no government, in  open or closed societies, where a family or party does not invest in the global market. The Saudi Royal family owns oil companies and invests in banks and weapons. China's communist party allows for western businesses. Gaddafi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.

 

I am concerned with the increasing pay gap, and I do see that as a race to the bottom. But there are some in business who I do see as trying to do the right thing. I simply do not see the majority of the climate following that. 

 

I am no more a fan of Ayn Rand's "Fuck you I got mine" economics, but I am no fan of Che either.

 

Power structures will happen no matter what. Simply having a revolution to have one does not insure that what ends up will be a benifit to more people.

Wont happen? That's a really stupid argument quite frankly. And not even historically accurate when it comes to things like this. Voluntary organization is absolutely allowed in a stateless society. That's what differentiates it from the state. It seems you're giving me a consequentialist argument. Im asking a moral question (and one of consistent logic if you accept the N.A.P.) And it seems youre making an argument in favor of human nature being bad so we need the state. Isnt that the EXACT argument theists use for God? Besides its complete bullshit. There has never been a monopoly that has sustained itself without State intervention. And in a Free Market (as defined above) a monopoly could never happen economically speaking. Name me one monopoly that hasn't sustained itself without government help. Everything you just described happens through and because of government. The Ayn Rand argument, outside of being sophist tripe, isn't even accurate. A gross strawman and complete misstatement of her beliefs. Intellectually lazy as well. And Im not even an objectivist. She was a miniarchist. But atleast I have the decency to actually understand her stuff. And after all that you STILL didn't make an argument against any of my definitions, nor did you say whether or not you personally accepted the N.A.P. My question is one of morality and logic NOT consequences. You get rid of slavery because its immoral not because youre worried about how the cotton is going to be picked afterwards.

To even suggest humans will do the right thing on their own automattically is fucking absurd. 

Our species has always displayed the same range of behavior, both good and bad, and greed is part of that. That greed can come in the form of greed for money, greed for power, and greed for religious power.

Only an idiot would think you can leave everyone to their own divices.  "Government" is a reflection of our species setting up order. The only thing you can do is set up checks and balances so NOTHING in the public sector or private sector can become abusive.

Anarchy is as much a bullshit concept as theocracies or nanny states. A utopia is a utopia no matter what the idea is in trying to create it. Deal with what you can change without projecting your desires on a diverse species.

 

 

I'm absolutely amazed I'm debating with an atheist. It's unreal to see you use the same arguments theists use for God.

And besides that, all of this was consquentialist nonsense that you have zero evidence for. You still haven't answered my questions. It would force you to confront the massive cognitive dissonance youre living in. Youre a statheist.

And youre argument makes zero sense. ZERO. If what you say is true then giving a small group of people the legal right to initiate force on other people is the LAST thing youd want to do.

An are you suggesting what we have is any kind of order? With the decade plus of wars, people being thrown in cages for noncrimes, the president claiming he has the right to kill or imprison you just on his will. Modern states killing hundreds of millions of people over the last century or so. Great track record.

Sophistry. And its a complete dodge of the questions.

If you don't accept the N.A.P. just say so.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote: I think

atomicdogg34 wrote:

 

I think the N.A.P. is something pretty much any atheist who argues against the "human nature is bad" argument theists love to use would accept gladly.

The evidence is that they don't. Most atheists tend to support a very strong state. 

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Im just saying, if you accept the N.A.P its the only really logical (and moral) stance.

Really? A totalitarian dictatorship seems to be quite logical for the dictator. Slavery is very logical for slave owners. What organization (or lack thereof) is logical really depends on your goals doesn't it? Exactly what makes the moral stance of NAP any more rational or logical than any other moral stance?

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

 

I think the N.A.P. is something pretty much any atheist who argues against the "human nature is bad" argument theists love to use would accept gladly.

The evidence is that they don't. Most atheists tend to support a very strong state. 

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Im just saying, if you accept the N.A.P its the only really logical (and moral) stance.

Really? A totalitarian dictatorship seems to be quite logical for the dictator. Slavery is very logical for slave owners. What organization (or lack thereof) is logical really depends on your goals doesn't it? Exactly what makes the moral stance of NAP any more rational or logical than any other moral stance?

 

 

I think most atheist are living in a huge cognitive dissonance.

Well neither the totalitarian nor the slave owner are following the N.A.P.

Well you're asking an entirely different question. More akin to what is the nature of morality and how do we define it. Interesting question but not really related. Speaking to a group of atheists, who tend to hear this type of argument a lot from theists, I figured this would be more of a given.

I'm willing to discuss it, but it's sort of a different question no? To know if the N.A.P is moral and where it would fall on a morality scale compared to other things we'd have to define what morality is and where it comes from no?

The N.A.P. is rather simple: It is immoral to initiate force against another human being.

I figured, atleast in this setting, something rather elementary would be a given.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:you haven't

Brian37 wrote:
I am no more a fan of Ayn Rand's "Fuck you I got mine" economics, but I am no fan of Che either.



you haven't the foggiest idea of what either ayn rand or che guevara stood for. you've proved that time and time again.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 atomicdogg34 wrote:I think

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

I think most atheist are living in a huge cognitive dissonance.

How so? Perhaps if most atheists accepted NAP, but most don't, so where is the dissonance? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

I think most atheist are living in a huge cognitive dissonance.

How so? Perhaps if most atheists accepted NAP, but most don't, so where is the dissonance? 

I guess I should be more precise.

I'm talking about the liberal/progressive atheists (atheists tend to go in this direction) who are also antitheists. That's to say those who not only don't think there is a God but are glad that there isn't because of the nasty implications of such a being (he owns you, can convict you of thought crime, etc etc). Pretty sure most fall into that category.

Now I think they argue correctly and beautifully on this point. But after doing so well up to this point, as soon as the State is the issue all that skepticism and critical thinking goes directly out the window.

The State has basically all the powers a God might have (not literally omniscient, omnipotent or any of that but it does claim ownership of your body, life, property, can convict you of thought crime, can kill/imprison you on a whim, etc etc).

What makes it far worse is that the State is an actual thing (well its just a concept but it is made up of real people) that can actually kill you, can actually in real life do all those things. God cannot. God is imaginary.

And on top of all of that, what do you think the religious are going to use to try and impose there beliefs on the rest of us? The State.

As a matter of just being consistent in your argumentation and practical usefulness is wanting to advance the position of not having religion imposed, atheists/antitheists should absolutely be against the State.

Hope that clears it up.


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

I think most atheist are living in a huge cognitive dissonance.

How so? Perhaps if most atheists accepted NAP, but most don't, so where is the dissonance? 

And as an aside, I think they really do accept the N.A.P.

They show it in their everyday lives, with all the voluntary transactions and interactions they go through on a daily basis. They go to the store and trade the product of their labor for the things they need. A lot of everything you do almost every single day IS based on the N.A.P.

The State is the same as God (in a very limited way of course, but the powers it claims and the moral implications are only a difference in degree, not kind) and all the same flaws in thinking that theists apply to God holds true for Statheists.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Beyond

atomicdogg34 wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

I think most atheist are living in a huge cognitive dissonance.

How so? Perhaps if most atheists accepted NAP, but most don't, so where is the dissonance? 

I guess I should be more precise. I'm talking about the liberal/progressive atheists (atheists tend to go in this direction) who are also antitheists. That's to say those who not only don't think there is a God but are glad that there isn't because of the nasty implications of such a being (he owns you, can convict you of thought crime, etc etc). Pretty sure most fall into that category. Now I think they argue correctly and beautifully on this point. But after doing so well up to this point, as soon as the State is the issue all that skepticism and critical thinking goes directly out the window. The State has basically all the powers a God might have (not literally omniscient, omnipotent or any of that but it does claim ownership of your body, life, property, can convict you of thought crime, can kill/imprison you on a whim, etc etc). What makes it far worse is that the State is an actual thing (well its just a concept but it is made up of real people) that can actually kill you, can actually in real life do all those things. God cannot. God is imaginary. And on top of all of that, what do you think the religious are going to use to try and impose there beliefs on the rest of us? The State. As a matter of just being consistent in your argumentation and practical usefulness is wanting to advance the position of not having religion imposed, atheists/antitheists should absolutely be against the State. Hope that clears it up.

I think some similarities can be drawn, but it isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison. Their are numerous factors that make the state different from a god morally speaking. For example, a state can be modified, restructured, reorganized and structured to pursue specific goals. I think a statist could argue that while some states are immoral, states in and of themselves are not necessarily immoral. Also, since states aren't omnipotent, they don't share the moral responsibility for unintentional or collateral damage caused while pursuing other goals. Thus, a moral judgment of a state can take the form of weighing the good a state does against the bad without conflicting with the argument that the Christian God is immoral if he existed.

 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Beyond

atomicdogg34 wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

I think most atheist are living in a huge cognitive dissonance.

How so? Perhaps if most atheists accepted NAP, but most don't, so where is the dissonance? 

And as an aside, I think they really do accept the N.A.P. They show it in their everyday lives, with all the voluntary transactions and interactions they go through on a daily basis. They go to the store and trade the product of their labor for the things they need. A lot of everything you do almost every single day IS based on the N.A.P. The State is the same as God (in a very limited way of course, but the powers it claims and the moral implications are only a difference in degree, not kind) and all the same flaws in thinking that theists apply to God holds true for Statheists.

Simply being non violent in your day to day life is not sufficient to accept NAP, brian37 is probably the least likely person to get in a bar fight with me, but when it comes to politics, he is the largest advocate of institutional violence you will find. So while many won't be personally violent towards you, when asked if the government should take money from you and give to cause X, most will say yes. Ultimately, it is a moral question of whether a state should be held to the same moral standards as an individual, they don't believe it should be.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

I think most atheist are living in a huge cognitive dissonance.

How so? Perhaps if most atheists accepted NAP, but most don't, so where is the dissonance? 

I guess I should be more precise. I'm talking about the liberal/progressive atheists (atheists tend to go in this direction) who are also antitheists. That's to say those who not only don't think there is a God but are glad that there isn't because of the nasty implications of such a being (he owns you, can convict you of thought crime, etc etc). Pretty sure most fall into that category. Now I think they argue correctly and beautifully on this point. But after doing so well up to this point, as soon as the State is the issue all that skepticism and critical thinking goes directly out the window. The State has basically all the powers a God might have (not literally omniscient, omnipotent or any of that but it does claim ownership of your body, life, property, can convict you of thought crime, can kill/imprison you on a whim, etc etc). What makes it far worse is that the State is an actual thing (well its just a concept but it is made up of real people) that can actually kill you, can actually in real life do all those things. God cannot. God is imaginary. And on top of all of that, what do you think the religious are going to use to try and impose there beliefs on the rest of us? The State. As a matter of just being consistent in your argumentation and practical usefulness is wanting to advance the position of not having religion imposed, atheists/antitheists should absolutely be against the State. Hope that clears it up.

I think some similarities can be drawn, but it isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison. Their are numerous factors that make the state different from a god morally speaking. For example, a state can be modified, restructured, reorganized and structured to pursue specific goals. I think a statist could argue that while some states are immoral, states in and of themselves are not necessarily immoral. Also, since states aren't omnipotent, they don't share the moral responsibility for unintentional or collateral damage caused while pursuing other goals. Thus, a moral judgment of a state can take the form of weighing the good a state does against the bad without conflicting with the argument that the Christian God is immoral if he existed.

 

 

 

 

While the State can be modified, my argument isn't against the effects of the State (though I do argue against those as well), its against the principle of the State

Definitions are important here I think, the State is a group of folks who can legally initiate force against other folks in a certain geographical area, that is what differentiates it from other entities/groups. If you accept the definition then the State is immoral in and of itself. (of course if you don't think initiating force against people is immoral, well I think that says more about that person than anything, I don't even need to respond to such things, just underline them)

The fact that you can modify it doesn't change that fact, the premise of it is immoral.

Im not saying its a clear 1 to 1 comparison, obviously the State (which is just people) isn't literally omnipotent or omniscient, but for all intensive purposes in what it can do to us, it might as well be, when the effects are such that it claims ownership over your life, body, property, etc etc, I don't think it makes much of a difference, its similar to a deity in that way, in that God claims ownership and can do all the things I just listed, its omnipotent in that sense. Now you could say "well we can restructure it to not do those things" but then youre arguing for an abstraction that has never existed, despite countless versions and iterations of the State, over the reality of what it is and does and always has done. Kinda like when people say "well communism could be good and work in the right hands/situation/etc." Unfortunately it has never happened and everytime its been tried millions and millions of people have died.

And just because the State isn't literally omnipotent I absolutely do not agree they don't share in the responsibility for collateral damage and unintended consequences, kind of a crazy dangerous thing to say

For example say what you want about the war on terror but stopping real terrorists that wish to do us harm I think we can agree is a noble motive, however that certainly doesn't excuse the State for all the women and children and other innocents it has killed (including a 16 year old American citizen who was drone bombed while having a bbq with friends and whos only crime appears to be his last name was Al-Awlaki, if that isn't all powerful in a real sense then I don't know what is)

My claim IS that the mere existence of the State is immoral because of what it is. Exactly the same as my argument saying God is immoral because of what it is. Weighing good vs bad is irrelevant.

If you want to argue against that claim then your argument is with the definition.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 My argument isn't with

 

My argument isn't with your claim that the state is immoral, I am inclined to agree with that. My disagreement is your claim that there is a logical connection leading from the argument against god that should lead atheists to the same conclusion. I can see similarities, but ultimately a god and a state are so dramatically different that the analogy breaks down. Ultimately, your position relies on accepting NAP as an axiom. Whether or not a particular person accepts it is unrelated to atheism. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: My

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

My argument isn't with your claim that the state is immoral, I am inclined to agree with that. My disagreement is your claim that there is a logical connection leading from the argument against god that should lead atheists to the same conclusion. I can see similarities, but ultimately a god and a state are so dramatically different that the analogy breaks down. Ultimately, your position relies on accepting NAP as an axiom. Whether or not a particular person accepts it is unrelated to atheism. 

 

I tried to clarify earlier by referring to the subset of atheists (if they even are a subset, id imagine its the majority actually) who not only don't believe in God but are happy such a being doesn't exist because of the implications. Those arguments, as to why youre happy God doesn't exist or why it would be terrible if he did, are separate from the arguments against existence. So in that way youre right, my argument has nothing to do with atheism, but I think its certainly relevant to atheists. If that makes sense.

The difference between God and the State is a matter of degree, not kind. My analogy isn't to compare God as a whole to the State as a whole but particular qualities of each. Which again aren't exact in theoretical terms but the effect they can have on a person is quite similar. For instance, God claims ownership over you as does the State. The nature of the ownership is different but its ownership nonetheless. So if your problem is with ownership of human beings and you should reject as immoral anything/anyone that claims ownership over another, then you should reject both propositions as immoral and fight to overturn them. If your problem is with the nature of the ownership, supernatural/imaginary vs actual, well then I think you're pretty much a poser and hypocrite who likes to fight against shit that doesn't really exist instead of something that can actually kill you.

It's quite funny actually. Fight against an immoral being that doesn't exist because its immoral but something that's also immoral in a lot of the same ways but can actually do things to you, yeah that's fine.

The N.A.P aside, if you find a particular quality of God to be immoral or have immoral implications then just as a matter of consistency I think you need to find those same qualities (again, which differ in degree but not kind) in the State as immoral as well.

So my argument isn't about atheism, but about atheists who are making the moral argument against God and its qualities, not existence claims.

And if you think God is immoral and even if he did exist should be rejected and fought against, well I think those same standards should apply to the State, which actually does exist, actually does kill people, actually does jail people for no reason, etc and actually can be overturned.

Hope that makes sense. I think I repeated myself a few times but I'm too tired/lazy to fix it. Lets just say I was trying to hammer the point home, much better excuse than I was too lazy. lol


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3925
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:What are

atomicdogg34 wrote:
What are your thoughts on a Stateless society? To start any conversation like this I need to define a couple things: State (Government): A group of people that can legally initiate the use of force over a group of people within a certain geographical boundary. Nonaggression Principle (N.A.P.): It is immoral to initiate force against another human being in any fashion. Free Market (Capitalism, etc): A system of voluntary exchange. I think these definitions are sound. So if you have an issue with them then start there. If you find them agreeable then my proposition is this: If you accept the N.A.P. then a stateless society with a free market is the only logically sound and morally acceptable way to "organize" society. Discuss.

Questions on State:

I think the term "force" should be changed to "deadly force or torture". Why geographical borders? What about cyber space police?

Would a drug gang in Chicago or a War Lord in Somila be considered a state since they fit your definition? They have their own laws just not any lawyers.

 

On NAP:

Could anyone just walk into your home and eat your food and sleep in your bed without retribution?

In FM Capitalism:

If you have a contract and one party reneges or commits fraud, what happens to them?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I suspect I'm thinking on

I suspect I'm thinking on about the same lines as EXC. I'm really curious about your definitions and am itching to poke at them. For now, I'll just wait for you to answer his questions.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:What are

atomicdogg34 wrote:
What are your thoughts on a Stateless society? To start any conversation like this I need to define a couple things: State (Government): A group of people that can legally initiate the use of force over a group of people within a certain geographical boundary. Nonaggression Principle (N.A.P.): It is immoral to initiate force against another human being in any fashion. Free Market (Capitalism, etc): A system of voluntary exchange. I think these definitions are sound. So if you have an issue with them then start there. If you find them agreeable then my proposition is this: If you accept the N.A.P. then a stateless society with a free market is the only logically sound and morally acceptable way to "organize" society. Discuss.

 

I do not accept the NAP. /anarchy. /thread.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.