Comment thread for Anarcho-Libertarian Coliseum debate

[TC Pilot]

I see two major flaws (on top of the pile of historical ignorance, logical fallacies, strawmanning, and sophistry) in Voluntaryist's arguing:

1. He fails to understand Surlethe isn't arguing for government, but against anarchism, and has no burden of proof responsibilities, which seems to be the linchpin of his "I'm going to dodge every demand for evidence" strategy. (Edit) Even more so because government has an approximately four thousand year history of success, for which Voluntaryist owes his very health, education, and very existence to. The question has never been does government work, but rather, is voluntaryism better (the answer is an obvious no, by the way).

2. He fails to understand that in trying to prove his broad, general claims, citing singular examples (as inaccurate or incorrect as they often are) do not constitute evidence, especially when just as many examples (usually more) directly contradict his claims. You can't point to a murder and say it proves there's an increase in crime.

In any case, Surlethe: 4 Voluntaryist: -3

(I'm penalizing Voluntaryist one point each for his tardiness and sheer stupidity. I trust no one objects.)

[K. A. Pital]

And while the USSR beat the snot out of the Nazis, it lost many more soldiers and suffered far heavier losses and had inferior equipment compared to the Nazis. The Russians in fact got lots of their best war supplies from the US, and if it wasn’t for the support from its free-market allies, the USSR would have likely been overrun by the Nazis.

I would have pounded the retard into the ground with statistics and data on vehicle performance here, but I fear it would be pointless.

Coercion through wealth is not nearly as dangerous as coercion through a priori claimed authority

"a priori" is bullshit (a state does not claim authority prior to a Constitutional referenda), but it does show him as a worthless plutocrat apologist. -3 indeed.

[Patrick Degan]

Alright, fuck him already. The same bullshit simply repeated, as if Surlethe said nothing at all. Volleyball is either hopelessly stupid or hopelessly dishonest, if not both. I too join in the expressed sentiment and repeat my own call for the present "debate" to get flushed into the HoS and let the mob have at him.

[PeZook]

I would have pounded the retard into the ground with statistics and data on vehicle performance here, but I fear it would be pointless.

Didn't the Yak-9 outperform practically all German fighters to the point that later in the war, German pilots would prefer to avoid engagement even with superior numbers on their side?

But, hell. Saying that Soviets got most of their "Best warfighting equipment" from the US just betrays his stunning ignorance of history.

Ok...he ignores something like thirty thousand years of government, too

(I'm including tribal organizations, too, because that is a form of government, with tribal elders holding power, making important decisions and judging disputes)

[Darth Servo]

I did like how he tried to argue against Standard Oil being a monopoly by pointing out that it was broken up by...



<drum roll>




...the Government. Thats a big old "Concession Accepted"

[Imperial Overlord]

I love how he called democracy "mob rule". The system of government where the rights of minorities are protected by laws and law enforcement agencies is "mob rule". What the fuck does that make anarcho-capitalism where I can round up a few of my buddies and beat and kill any minority the locals disapprove of (beside the Deep South) with no legal repercussions?"

[PeZook]

I did like how he tried to argue against Standard Oil being a monopoly by pointing out that it was broken up by...



<drum roll>




...the Government. Thats a big old "Concession Accepted"

Actually, he tried to argue that Standard Oil was not a monopoly, because it had only a 67% market share.

Because, ya know, you're not a monopoly untill you've managed to achieve 100% market share. He operates in the world of idealized models.

And, of course, in voluntaryist libertopia there would be no competitors to Standard Oil because SO would've just gobbled them up, price dumped them into oblivion or strongarmed their way to 100% market share.

[Zixinus]

And, of course, in voluntaryist libertopia there would be no competitors to Standard Oil because SO would've just gobbled them up, price dumped them into oblivion or strongarmed their way to 100% market share.

Or would have continuously wage war with various security companies over the industry moving resource until various companies merge enough for a weak form of warring plutocracy to form.

It takes only one psychotic, power-hungry maniac to destabilise this upotia and turn it into a dystopia or into a government. An unpleasant one at that. With just a ruthless competitive spirit being encouraged in a free market and nothing to keep it at bay, there will be not one psychotic, power-hungry maniac but a dozen and a hundred wannabes in its steps for every one. I just can't imagine such a setting being a stable one in any way.

[J]

Actually, he tried to argue that Standard Oil was not a monopoly, because it had only a 67% market share.

Because, ya know, you're not a monopoly untill you've managed to achieve 100% market share. He operates in the world of idealized models.

67% at the time they were broken up by anti-trust legislation. This was years after John D. Rockefeller retired, and Standard Oil had become a less ruthless company under their new management. When John D. was in charge Standard held over 90% of the market from the wells to the gas pump. The price of oil & oil products was whatever SO decided they'd be, they'd send guys around to post the prices and that's what they were. If someone tried to sell for a better price, SO would note who they were and either strongarm them into selling at the SO price or put them out of business.

John D. Rockefeller is famously quoted as stating "competition is a sin". Standard Oil, run by JD in a rules-free libertopia would own the entire global oil market by the time he chooses to retire. Standard would be the first, the last, and only word in oil.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Like I said a few pages back. He's just using a thesaurus.

[Darth Servo]

I love how he called democracy "mob rule". The system of government where the rights of minorities are protected by laws and law enforcement agencies is "mob rule". What the fuck does that make anarcho-capitalism where I can round up a few of my buddies and beat and kill any minority the locals disapprove of (beside the Deep South) with no legal repercussions?"

I'm really surprised Surlethe hasn't pointed out the easy refutation to that argument. Any Freshman political science class tells you that in a democracy, "the mob" is different group of people for each issue. As such, there is no real "tyrany" with each person being in the majority or the minority on different decisions.

[Wyrm]

Well, Vollyball never fails to disappoint. I'll just comment on his first paragraph, since I simply can't let it go.

In the above example, if I am to say that less government is better than more, and you ask for evidence, if I provide a chain of logic or series of principles, it seems that you would again assert that this would be unsupported.

Logic is only as good as the assumptions behind them. Garbage assumptions in leads to garbage conclusions out, even if your logic is impeccable. Surlethe is under no obligations to accept conclusions resulting from assumptions he does not agree with. You have to agree on the assumptions before Surlethe is required to accept the conclusion.

And you also have not justified your implied contention that examples and evidence are mutually exclusive.

A specific example can never, on its own, prove a generality. The specific example is necessarily based on a specific set of circumstances, and a generality holds under ALL circumstances. That's why hasty generalization is a falacy. However, a specific example can knock down a generality just fine, as the generality claims to hold in all cases, which is contradicted by the counterexample.

Thus, examples are insufficient evidence to prove a generality.

You suck at the logics, Vollyball.

[Illuminatus Primus]

He's probably an Austrian school idiot; these clowns think as long as your intrinsic reasoning is self-consistent, you'll end up with a good answer. I guess they think Aristotleanism is a great idea. They actually deliberately eschew econometrics and empiricism in their economics - unsurprisingly, this is the chosen economics school of libertarians and free market anarchists.

[Darth Wong]

The funny thing about libertarians is that they claim to be anti-monopoly, but they're actually pro-monopoly. The instant you deregulate, a wave of mergers follows, until any given industry is dominated by an oligopoly of a handful of giant corporations. And how do they think you solve the problem? Even more deregulation! Because you know, if a little bit of something destroys most of the diversity of competition, then a lot of it will ensure a flourishing diverse competitive landscape!

I guess it helps to be either too young to remember the Bell monopoly or too amnesiac to remember how much it sucked, and how it was virtually impossible for competitors to break into the business until the government stepped in (over the strident objections of the free-market libertarians in the Wall Street Journal, by the way). I still remember when it was very simple to choose your phone company: you could choose Bell, or Bell, or if you were feeling really adventurous, Bell.

[Sidewinder]

Don’t strawman me, and instead address my charge that democracy is majority rule. Regardless, whether the government is a pure democracy, a representative democracy, or a dictatorship has no bearing on my overall charge against government as a coercive ruling class.

If all decision making is retained by the consumer base, then logically it follows perfectly that the consumer base would be the central authority, and they would exercise this authority through the mechanism of supply and demand in a free market framework.

And what's to stop the "consumer base" from BEING the "coercive ruling class"? What's to stop the guys who drive American cars, guys in the majority, from beating me up and setting my car on fire because I drive a Nissan? After all, I'm driving a Japanese product, so these guys might feel its very presence is a threat to their jobs at American companies.

And will you please make up your fucking mind on whether or not a democracy is majority rule or not, when you keep mentioning a "ruling class," which implies that it's a MINORITY rule?!

[Darth Wong]

Volleyball clearly doesn't understand that a governing authority needs to understand what's happening in order to govern. Normally this is done by having lots of unelected experts, who are paid by elected officials to form various regulating agencies and conduct them according to their many years of education and experience in the field.

By assuming that "the free market framework" can govern effectively, Volleyball is assuming that there is no issue in the entire economy or industry which is beyond the comprehension of the average consumer.

Normally I would say that this is the most idiotic thing he's ever said, but in his particular case, I'm sure there are many viable competitors.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The funny thing about libertarians is that they claim to be anti-monopoly, but they're actually pro-monopoly. The instant you deregulate, a wave of mergers follows, until any given industry is dominated by an oligopoly of a handful of giant corporations. And how do they think you solve the problem? Even more deregulation! Because you know, if a little bit of something destroys most of the diversity of competition, then a lot of it will ensure a flourishing diverse competitive landscape!

I guess it helps to be either too young to remember the Bell monopoly or too amnesiac to remember how much it sucked, and how it was virtually impossible for competitors to break into the business until the government stepped in (over the strident objections of the free-market libertarians in the Wall Street Journal, by the way). I still remember when it was very simple to choose your phone company: you could choose Bell, or Bell, or if you were feeling really adventurous, Bell.

mike, some of us are stuck in the national parks and still have the choice of (AT&T)AT&T/Cingular or (USB)AT&T/Cingular or possibly (Cingular)AT&T/Cingular

oh and since the NPS gave AT&T complete Sat/Internet/Cable rights unto themselves I've gone from $35 phone, $10 Internet, $59 cable/sat. to ($70 phone, $50 internet, and $65 Cable/Sat because there's no one else has the rights to the park)

[Patrick Degan]

Don’t strawman me, and instead address my charge that democracy is majority rule. Regardless, whether the government is a pure democracy, a representative democracy, or a dictatorship has no bearing on my overall charge against government as a coercive ruling class.

Wrong again, you stupid fuck. Your very terms contradict one another —but then you clearly are attempting to have it both ways while ignoring that majority rule also incorporates constitutional protections for minority rights within a framework of law. Which BTW also negates your idiotic "democracy=mob rule" strawman which you think you can keep pushing out.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well it's a common Libertard misrepresentation of a Ben Franklin quote so it's understandable from his twisted viewpoint. "Democracy is Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. A controlled Republic is a well armed sheep refuting the vote."- Ben Franklin, most of the libertards just use the first half of the quote. Then again I hate out of context quotation/misrepresentation fallacy for the amount of it I generally saw back in the day on ASVS.

---edit---

It's also like quoting only half of Winston Churchill's "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of Government. (but excluding) Except for all the others that have been tried."

[Darth Wong]

So ... if a majority of consumer dollars choose something, that's the benevolent wisdom of the market at work, but if a majority of voters choose something, that's dangerous "mob rule"?

[Sir Sirius]

Well it's a common Libertard misrepresentation of a Ben Franklin quote so it's understandable from his twisted viewpoint. "Democracy is Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. A controlled Republic is a well armed sheep refuting the vote."- Ben Franklin, most of the libertards just use the first half of the quote. Then again I hate out of context quotation/misrepresentation fallacy for the amount of it I generally saw back in the day on ASVS.

Actually that quote is, as far as I can tell, just an internet meme. I have never seen anyone provide the actual source for it (i.e. where and when is Franklin supposed to have said or written it), it is always merely attributed to him without a reference.

Oh, and the Churchill quote in full goes: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[Darth Servo]

Of course even if valleytard were citing the quotes correctly, he's still just engaging in name dropping, which we all know is fallacious.

[Schuyler Colfax]

It's ironic that he is becoming a broken record by telling Surlethe that he's a broken record over and over and over and over again.

[Darth Wong]

Of course even if valleytard were citing the quotes correctly, he's still just engaging in name dropping, which we all know is fallacious.

I hate name-droppers. Name-dropping is pure pseudo-intellectualism. It's such a wonderful substitute for an actual logical argument.

[PeZook]

I hate name-droppers. Name-dropping is pure pseudo-intellectualism. It's such a wonderful substitute for an actual logical argument.

I think idiots like this way of arguing because you can find a quote to support any position, no matter how idiotic. And, of course, they think it makes you look all educated and intellamactual because you know philosophers.

But it's basically no different than the "My professor said once..." argument.