Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[lPeregrine]

So at our university's philosophy club, it's philosophy of government month. Unfortunately, this means the local libertarians/anarchists have succeeded in hijacking every discussion into "is hardcore libertarianism right?". As in zero government, with private corporations doing all the work (even the military, etc). Due to their debating tactics, I can't think of any good counter-argument to them. There are two main problems:

1) They reject all historical examples of the abuses of capitalism and its failures to provide for the less-fortunate as "not a true capitalist society". Textbook fallacy, but they're able to point to some minor interference/assistance of government and keep bringing it up.

2) They reject all government, especially taxation, as immoral coercion as a fundamental principle. Any discussion of government filling some role is immediately hijacked with "the state is wrong". Their logic:

* Individuals do not have the right to take property from/kill/imprison/etc other people. In their terms, "you are never allowed to initiate force."

* A representative government's powers are supposedly granted by the people, allowing it to act on their behalf.

* You can't grant a right you don't have.

* Therefore the government's powers are all illegitimate, and government is just another band of criminals stealing your hard-earned money.

While most people would agree that government is justified, maybe as a necessary evil, to provide for the good of society as a whole, I'm having trouble coming up with a convincing justification of this. Is there any way to argue this in their system of morality, or is it just a case of a fundamental difference in systems that we'll never agree on?

[Patrick Degan]

Just point out examples of no/weak-government paradises like the Sudan and Iraq as their philosophy-in-action and quote the body-counts. You'll never convince the Randroids, naturally, but you'll make an impression on the fence-sitters and show them the little cultists really don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[lPeregrine]

Just point out examples of no/weak-government paradises like the Sudan and Iraq as their philosophy-in-action and quote the body-counts. You'll never convince the Randroids, naturally, but you'll make an impression on the fence-sitters and show them the little cultists really don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

The problem is their amazing talent for finding some way to call it "not a true libertarian/anarchist society". I can even anticipate the reply to Iraq... Iraq is the product of a state invading another state. In libertarian fantasy world, the private security firm (the US) would have been exiled from society for initiating force, and the private security firms of all the Iraqi citizens (who are no longer poor now that they don't have to pay taxes) would defend their customers (since someone will fill that market need, and they won't want to lose their reputation/customers by running away).


I'm not kidding here. This is their exact plan for how your safety will be protected their fantasy world.

[Stark]

So if they refuse evidence, and can't present any, how are they debating? Oh in some magical pie-in-the-sky perfect world yada yada? That's worthless masturbation.

[Frank Hipper]

Ah, arguing with Me First And The Gimme-Gimmes?

If greed is the central thrust of their argument, why the fuck should anyone believe their faith-based ideals on providing for the less fortunate?

They cry about taxation taking it from them, but you're supposed to believe they'll give it away?

Have you asked for a single factual example of anarchy providing anything but brutality and might makes right?

Demand facts to support their position, be ruthless; don't allow yourself to be put on the defensive.

[Junghalli]

Point out the positive good that can come from a responsible government. If it wasn't for government grants I probably couldn't afford to go to college (or I'd have a much harder time of it anyway). They may think welfare is evil now, but if they ever lost their jobs and fell on serious financial difficulties I bet most of them would be singing a different tune. Point out that it's thanks to the evil government that they get to enjoy nice things like highways or a free education up to 12th grade. Ask them if they really want to see all these things done away with.

[Patrick Degan]

Just point out examples of no/weak-government paradises like the Sudan and Iraq as their philosophy-in-action and quote the body-counts. You'll never convince the Randroids, naturally, but you'll make an impression on the fence-sitters and show them the little cultists really don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

The problem is their amazing talent for finding some way to call it "not a true libertarian/anarchist society". I can even anticipate the reply to Iraq... Iraq is the product of a state invading another state. In libertarian fantasy world, the private security firm (the US) would have been exiled from society for initiating force, and the private security firms of all the Iraqi citizens (who are no longer poor now that they don't have to pay taxes) would defend their customers (since someone will fill that market need, and they won't want to lose their reputation/customers by running away).


I'm not kidding here. This is their exact plan for how your safety will be protected their fantasy world.

As I said, you'll never convince the Randroids. That's not the point. The object now is to show everybody else who isn't wholly convinced just how foolish they are.

[lPeregrine]

So if they refuse evidence, and can't present any, how are they debating? Oh in some magical pie-in-the-sky perfect world yada yada? That's worthless masturbation.

That's exactly the problem... winning the debate is the easy part. Those of us who aren't fundamentalist libertarians already think they're crazy. The problem is how to keep them from constantly hijacking every discussion with "taxation is theft, government is coercion". So for that, I was hoping someone had an idea of how to counter that point under their own "never initiate force" system of morality.

[Stark]

Eh? It's the philosophy club! Fucking kick the jokers out! If they constantly hijack and interrupt, they're just ruining it for everyone. Get onto the convenors.

Frankly, if they're not debating and just constantly taking over discussions, 'countering their point' WON'T WORK. They're just WANKERS, and you don't want them around.

[Junghalli]

Ah, arguing with Me First And The Gimme-Gimmes?

Personally I've always thought that a whining four year old really expresses the basics of Randian philosophy with much more honesty and simplicity than its actual adherents.

[Frank Hipper]

So if they refuse evidence, and can't present any, how are they debating? Oh in some magical pie-in-the-sky perfect world yada yada? That's worthless masturbation.

That's exactly the problem... winning the debate is the easy part. Those of us who aren't fundamentalist libertarians already think they're crazy. The problem is how to keep them from constantly hijacking every discussion with "taxation is theft, government is coercion". So for that, I was hoping someone had an idea of how to counter that point under their own "never initiate force" system of morality.

Argue by example; try and peacefully take one of their wallets and see if they initiate force.

Let ideology meet reality.

[Patrick Degan]

So if they refuse evidence, and can't present any, how are they debating? Oh in some magical pie-in-the-sky perfect world yada yada? That's worthless masturbation.

That's exactly the problem... winning the debate is the easy part. Those of us who aren't fundamentalist libertarians already think they're crazy. The problem is how to keep them from constantly hijacking every discussion with "taxation is theft, government is coercion". So for that, I was hoping someone had an idea of how to counter that point under their own "never initiate force" system of morality.

Start ragging them for their own initiation of force and coercion for constantly trying to ram their half-witticisms down everybody's throat who doesn't want to hear it. It would be worth it for the comical spectacle of their faces turning a nice, dark purple.

[lPeregrine]

Have you asked for a single factual example of anarchy providing anything but brutality and might makes right?

Of course. That was pretty much the first argument I tried. Unfortunately, they completely refuse any real-world examples since:

1) There has never been "true" anarchy/libertarianism. If you look hard enough, you'll find some involvement by a state making things worse.

2) They argue that "social pressure" will deal with this problem. If someone has a bigger private security company (they never honestly call them mercenaries) than you do and tries to use it to initiate force, the rest of society will refuse to deal with them.

The first one is the big problem... to any observer, it's a blindingly obvious fallacy. But that still doesn't get them to shut up about it.

Point out the positive good that can come from a responsible government. If it wasn't for government grants I probably couldn't afford to go to college (or I'd have a much harder time of it anyway). They may think welfare is evil now, but if they ever lost their jobs and fell on serious financial difficulties I bet most of them would be singing a different tune. Point out that it's thanks to the evil government that they get to enjoy nice things like highways or a free education up to 12th grade. Ask them if they really want to see all these things done away with.

You don't realize just how much they worship the idea of private charity... in libertarian fantasy world, all of these things will be provided by charity or voluntary groups.

The real-world examples of the failures of private charity are of course rejected. Since people are no longer poor after having all their money stolen by a government, they'll be much more willing to donate in the True Libertarian Paradise.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

* Individuals do not have the right to take property from/kill/imprison/etc other people. In their terms, "you are never allowed to initiate force."

* A representative government's powers are supposedly granted by the people, allowing it to act on their behalf.

* You can't grant a right you don't have.

* Therefore the government's powers are all illegitimate, and government is just another band of criminals stealing your hard-earned money.

I'm not sure I'd be able to refrain from flat out laughing at them for that.

The "right" to initiate force is one conveyed from the people to the government, in the trust that the Government will use it's wider scope of resources and it's ideal dis involvement from personal disputes, in order to use that force correctly.

But, these people are the same brand of idiots who think the government should be responsible for everything that could possibly affect them. Except they think that a Corporation (Who, time and again, have shown little loyalty to anything but their own bottom line...) will take care of them like a government that has a vested interest in the well being of it's citizens as a whole.

[lPeregrine]

Eh? It's the philosophy club! Fucking kick the jokers out! If they constantly hijack and interrupt, they're just ruining it for everyone. Get onto the convenors.

Frankly, if they're not debating and just constantly taking over discussions, 'countering their point' WON'T WORK. They're just WANKERS, and you don't want them around.

As much as I'd like to, I don't have that ability. I think the fact that philosophy of government month is ending soon makes the president reluctant to go to that extreme. Not to mention the problems they could cause if they complained to the university...

So if they refuse evidence, and can't present any, how are they debating? Oh in some magical pie-in-the-sky perfect world yada yada? That's worthless masturbation.

That's exactly the problem... winning the debate is the easy part. Those of us who aren't fundamentalist libertarians already think they're crazy. The problem is how to keep them from constantly hijacking every discussion with "taxation is theft, government is coercion". So for that, I was hoping someone had an idea of how to counter that point under their own "never initiate force" system of morality.

Argue by example; try and peacefully take one of their wallets and see if they initiate force.

Let ideology meet reality.

Not surprisingly, it's only initiating force that is wrong. Defending your hard-earned property (or life, of course) is simply opposing force, not initiating it.

Naturally, the idea of proportional response has never occured to them. One of them was quite happy to admit that he would consider killing a tax collector to be justified.

[Patrick Degan]

Naturally, the idea of proportional response has never occured to them. One of them was quite happy to admit that he would consider killing a tax collector to be justified.

At that point, the rebuttal (for audience consumption, mind you) is: "Ah, so you're really pro-murder, then". Put the assclowns on the defensive and keep them there.

[Frank Hipper]

Not surprisingly, it's only initiating force that is wrong. Defending your hard-earned property (or life, of course) is simply opposing force, not initiating it.

Naturally, the idea of proportional response has never occured to them. One of them was quite happy to admit that he would consider killing a tax collector to be justified.

Simply express your need, and protest the initiated force of their refusal.

Really, with the level of irrationality you're dealing with, all you can effectively respond with is good theater...

[Adrian Laguna]

It's unlikely anything short of kicking them out will stop them, in a way they follow their own brand of radical fundamentalism.

I'm wondering if anyone has tried pointing out that their arguments run counter to human nature. Fact of the matter is that in a state of nature governmental entities always form spontaneously. The most basic two being strongest individual or family takes control, and communal type arrangements like tribal councils and such. Hardcore libertarianism never happens or has happened, therefore the concept must be somehow incompatible with humanity itself.

You could say that until they cite an example of a libertarian (or even proto-libertarian) society actually existing, then their arguments have no basis on reality. I think that's the best stated reason for ignoring them.

[Darth Wong]

Their logic:

* Individuals do not have the right to take property from/kill/imprison/etc other people. In their terms, "you are never allowed to initiate force."

* A representative government's powers are supposedly granted by the people, allowing it to act on their behalf.

* You can't grant a right you don't have.

* Therefore the government's powers are all illegitimate, and government is just another band of criminals stealing your hard-earned money.

In other words, they state a bunch of a priori rules with no justification whatsoever other than their say-so, and then they draw a conclusion from those rules. Why don't you challenge their initial premises?

Who says that you are never allowed to initiate force regardless of justification, and why not? Don't let them simply repackage that premise in other words; it is nothing more than an assumption with no grounding whatsoever apart from their say-so.

For that matter, who says that the foundation of all ethics is rights? That is one particular model of ethics, but it is by no means the only one, nor is there any evidence that the elimination of all other ethical systems would be beneficial to anyone.

[Junghalli]

1) There has never been "true" anarchy/libertarianism. If you look hard enough, you'll find some involvement by a state making things worse.

But, logically, if government intervention is always bad states with the least government intervention should be the best off. The fact that this is not actually what you see in the real world is suggestive.

They argue that "social pressure" will deal with this problem.

First, social pressure by itself tends to be a rather poor lever against self-interest. Virtually every society in history places its citizens under huge social pressure not to be selfish, but nevertheless most people stay basically self-interested.

Second, social pressure isn't going to do much if some group gets a monopoly on force, or gets a monopoly on vital resource. In the modern West we've civilized the art of government to such a degree that we tend to forget it, but the bottom line is that ultimately power really does flow out of the sword. If you control the men with the big guns, you can control the society. When the choices are basically to submit or die most people submit: we've got a mighty powerful desire to go on breathing.

You don't realize just how much they worship the idea of private charity... in libertarian fantasy world, all of these things will be provided by charity or voluntary groups.

Which fails epically because people are essentially self-interested. They don't like parting with their money. And if they don't believe me they can try sending out emails to a bunch of people asking them to donate $5 (an infinitessimal fraction of the income of even a poor American, so they can't play the supposed artificial poverty card) to some charity, and compare the emails they sent out with the donations they actually get.

[Darth Wong]

You'll never get anywhere arguing with ideologues unless you challenge their initial assumptions. It's like arguing with a fundie but deciding to accept his assumption of Biblical inerrancy right off the bat, just so you can get it out of the way and go after other parts of his argument. It's a huge concession right off the starting line.

[lPeregrine]

In other words, they state a bunch of a priori rules with no justification whatsoever other than their say-so, and then they draw a conclusion from those rules. Why don't you challenge their initial premises?

Oh, of course I've tried challenging them. They just have a habit of repeating them over and over again as unarguable fact. This is why I was hoping for an argument that works in their own system, so they couldn't pull this kind of evasive tactic.

I've tried arguing it from a utilitarian point of view, where "initiating force" is justified for the greater good, but that just provokes more "capitalism does it better" dreaming. Same with the premise that a government can't have more rights than an individual, it's met with more echoing of "so it's right for me to steal your money?"

Of course I'm willing to accept that they're beyond any hope of a rational discussion. It would just be a lot more satisfying to hit them with something they have no choice but to concede to.

[Darth Holbytlan]

1) They reject all historical examples of the abuses of capitalism and its failures to provide for the less-fortunate as "not a true capitalist society". Textbook fallacy, but they're able to point to some minor interference/assistance of government and keep bringing it up.

Do they bother to provide evidence for those imperfections leading to the abuses and failures of capitalism? Or do they just say "Oh it's not 'true' capitalism, so it doesn't count."?

That's exactly the problem... winning the debate is the easy part. Those of us who aren't fundamentalist libertarians already think they're crazy. The problem is how to keep them from constantly hijacking every discussion with "taxation is theft, government is coercion".

Do you have a good majority of sane people? If so you could say the following next time the subject is brought up: "You know, we discussed that most of last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. I think we've covered the issue quite thoroughly, and it's time to move on. Therefore, I move that we shelve any further discussion of [insert preferred term] during government month and move on to other matters." At this point someone else seconds you—you should have already planned this out with some allies in advance—and you hold a show of hands. Hopefully you win and have a basis to shut down any further discussions.

Note that it doesn't really matter if the philosophy club runs on parliamentary procedure or not.

[Patrick Degan]

You'll never get anywhere arguing with ideologues unless you challenge their initial assumptions. It's like arguing with a fundie but deciding to accept his assumption of Biblical inerrancy right off the bat, just so you can get it out of the way and go after other parts of his argument. It's a huge concession right off the starting line.

What's even more fun is taking those initial premises and turning those against the opposition, just like in the famous Brady/Drummond cross-examination scene in Inherit The Wind.

[CJvR]

* Individuals do not have the right to take property from/kill/imprison/etc other people. In their terms, "you are never allowed to initiate force.

Funny Anarchists who appeal to superior powers to intervene in their very first point. Who will enforce the force ban? If the answer is the people themselves... Well down that road you find the clan and tribal based societies and we know how well they work.