StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hey Volly, you forgot to start your post with the obligatory "We who are about to die salute you"

I see nothing in that mass of post besides a bunch of "because I say so" nonsense.

Every time he uses the word "government" and "voluntaryism" (I refuse to capitalise it) should be switched.

It's good that Surlethe opened up killing the bullshit definition of government.

Volly's game of redefining terms so he can later claim warlordism and and anarchy are "government" was so fucking transparent. I'm also glad Surlethe didn't waste (I don't think he did) too much of his time finding concrete examples... he lays the burden of proof straight on Volly to find his own examples, immediately exposing his weakness.

Obviously Volly expects Surlethe to argue a certain way, to bring up Somalia and other talking points that most people do when smashing down libertarians, and the best tactic is not to oblige. How's it feel to have wasted all those hours figuring out genius rebuttals to what you thought he'd bring up, now all wasted Volly? You are about to be crushed -- Surlethe is not just another talking head who memorizes talking points like some others in the dogpile, but has a razor sharp intellect and won't stand for your crap. Let's see if you can prove something, or if you're argument is completely empty like creationists who have no argument at all but only criticisms of what they don't understand.

Surlethe: 1 Voluntaryist: 0

brianeyci wrote:
*snip*

Obviously Volly expects Surlethe to argue a certain way, to bring up Somalia and other talking points that most people do when smashing down libertarians, and the best tactic is not to oblige. How's it feel to have wasted all those hours figuring out genius rebuttals to what you thought he'd bring up, now all wasted Volly? You are about to be crushed -- Surlethe is not just another talking head who memorizes talking points like some others in the dogpile, but has a razor sharp intellect and won't stand for your crap. Let's see if you can prove something, or if you're argument is completely empty like creationists who have no argument at all but only criticisms of what they don't understand.

I too found it interesting and impactful that rather than simply regurgitating the myriad points from the first thread Surlethe simply picked apart all the logical fallacies Volly-wolly-doodle threw up as a 'pre-emptive' counter attack. It was as though Volly was trying to have the same debate again, and Surlethe grabbed the BS by the horns and said "we're going to start this right from the beginning."

I agree in this though: Volly: 0, Surlethe 1.

Now that your arguments have been refuted, Volly, it would be good to counter his specific points rather than moving the goalposts.

It has always been a popular tactic for ideologues to redefine terms in order to suit their argument. In all my years of debating creationists, I don't think I've ever encountered even one creationist who was willing to use the correct definition of evolution. It's the same thing here: the fact is that even the managerial staff of an independent company constitute a form of "government"; it is simply impossible to organize large amounts of human labour without some form of coercive structure. You can do it with a small study group of volunteers in school, but the higher you go, the more infeasible it becomes. Even charities and churches require some kind of hierarchy, with the ability to forcibly eject people from the association if they refuse to conform to its rules.

In short, his definition of government is so broad that even a private company, charity or church has a government.

Hah! An excellent opening salvo, truly masterful.

I've advocated going after his first principles from the get-go, especially his worship of a single, simplistic economic model. Surlethe cut right to the point by crushing Volly's bullshit definitions, and correctly went after his unsupported claim that all things work better in a free market environment.

A model debate opening, if I may say so myself, being an unexperienced flame warrior and all.

DW wrote:In short, his definition of government is so broad that even a private company, charity or church has a government.

You know, I wonder how he really sees a voluntaryist society defending itself from outside agression ; Any guerilla force has to be well organized and disciplined to stand a chance against a military ; Does he expect people to spontaneusly associate and form large clandestine organizations without any form of coercion? What if,for example, some of them turn traitor and have to be executed for the good of the resistance movement?

A point that I feel must be made: people in a restrictive system are often terrified of having those restrictions removed and being cast out into the wilderness of life without a map to fail on their own. Voluntarist probably doesn't know about these people, but only needs to look at what happened to the law-abiding citizens of the USSR to see what happens when you remove the Rules and pull out the floor from under someone.

Forum Judo-Crushing your opponent under the mass of the own attacks by demanding evidence for unsupported assertions. Surlethe has a good mastery of this art. It is the bread and butter of these foums, and comming here without mastering it is just choosing your own doom.

It would be somewhat amusing to start listing off all the organizations that constitute a government according to Volly's definition. For example the PEO (Professional Engineers of Ontario) are a government according to his definition, because they regulate a particular group of people and claim sole authority to do so. Similarly, a union is a Volly government, for the same reason. As mentioned previously, the executive staff of any corporation fits his definition, as does any landowner, by virtue of claiming sole authority over a group or area.

There's not a whole lot left of society once you get rid of everything that meets Volly's definition of "government", is there?

Surlethe surely does not disappoint. I am now no longer sad that I lost the champion poll.

Darth Wong wrote: There's not a whole lot left of society once you get rid of everything that meets Volly's definition of "government", is there?

Pretty much only the insane and the hermits out in the woods.

After all, even a homeless guy probably has a little spot under the bridge he calls his own. Some will even violently defend it from others, therefore they claim sole authority over this little area, and thus are a government.

I am guessing most international law specialists would find such a broad definition somewhat...lacking

Volleyball's "definition" of government is essentially one big strawman he likes to set fire to. To focus on a particular example of his argument discussing democracy, he proceeds in complete ignorance of the various forms of democratic government in practise in the modern world. His "50%+1" formulation flies in the face of California's popular referrendum system for deciding major public issues as well as the known mechanics of proportional parliamentary democracy, which in many instances has resulted in governments based on coalitions of minor parties plus one of the major parties which failed to get a clear majority.

Patrick Degan wrote:Volleyball's "definition" of government is essentially one big strawman he likes to set fire to. To focus on a particular example of his argument discussing democracy, he proceeds in complete ignorance of the various forms of democratic government in practise in the modern world.......

I nominate Volleyball to be the official flamename for Voluntaryist. Surlethe proves once again that he never disappoints. Well done.

Schuyler Colfax wrote: I nominate Volleyball to be the official flamename for Voluntaryist. Surlethe proves once again that he never disappoints. Well done.

I presume that's a merging of "Voluntaryist Screwball"? I had hoped for Volly-wolly myself, but Volleyball gets my vote

Schuyler Colfax wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:Volleyball's "definition" of government is essentially one big strawman he likes to set fire to. To focus on a particular example of his argument discussing democracy, he proceeds in complete ignorance of the various forms of democratic government in practise in the modern world.......

I nominate Volleyball to be the official flamename for Voluntaryist. Surlethe proves once again that he never disappoints. Well done.

I think Nitram hung that one on him but I'm not sure.

Surlethe did make a lot of great points, especially all the "lump every type of government into one big category" strawman. But doesn't have the audience-pleaser style some of our other debaters have.

What does it even mean to 'recognize' an interaction? Is it like when one country "recognizes" another country as a legitimate government?

I was reminded of a line from "Good Morning Vietnam"

Robin Williams wrote:Great Britain recognized the island state of Singapore. How do you recognize an island? Do you go, exc-- Hey, wait. No, don't tell me. Wait, wait. Didn't we meet last year at the Feinman bar mitzvah? You look a lot like Hawaii. Didn't we meet last year at the Peninsula Club? No.

You also shouldn't let his argument that democracy and government always acts in the interests of the majority fly. Not only is it false, but I fail to see what is wrong with a more precise - that the government in general is supposed to act in the interest of the majority, from a moral (utilitarian) standpoint.

I wonder what system of ethics does Voluntarist use. Since he advocated "weak perish, strong survive - nature-style" for a human society, I highly suspect it's terribly broken.

I remember once that a good point was made on SDN when a person in need of medicine was dying and in a libertarian society another person witnessing it could deny this medicine to him, and suffer no penalty. Whilst in reality this would be criminal neglience leading to death and suffering of a person.

It took a while to hammer that point, but it's really true for all incarnations of "property right is the only and supreme".

Darth Wong wrote:In short, his definition of government is so broad that even a private company, charity or church has a government.

I brought that up in the original HoS thread, and he ignored it. Then, when I commented on this to another poster, he claimed that he hadn't ignored it, but had just missed it because everyone was piling on him. So I reposted it and he promptly ignored it again! I loved that, and I'm looking forward to seeing if he actually has any answer for this point at all.

Stas Bush wrote:You also shouldn't let his argument that democracy and government always acts in the interests of the majority fly. Not only is it false, but I fail to see what is wrong with a more precise - that the government in general is supposed to act in the interest of the majority, from a moral (utilitarian) standpoint.

I wonder what system of ethics does Voluntarist use. Since he advocated "weak perish, strong survive - nature-style" for a human society, I highly suspect it's terribly broken.

I remember once that a good point was made on SDN when a person in need of medicine was dying and in a libertarian society another person witnessing it could deny this medicine to him, and suffer no penalty. Whilst in reality this would be criminal neglience leading to death and suffering of a person.

It took a while to hammer that point, but it's really true for all incarnations of "property right is the only and supreme".

It's true for any system of ethics which relies solely upon "rights". Human rights are part of a healthy system of ethics; they are not the entirety. Any system of ethics which refuses to recognize the individual's responsibility to society is broken.

Does anyone else think that Surlethe might have scared Volly away?

Coiler wrote:Does anyone else think that Surlethe might have scared Volly away?

Surlethe took 2 or 3 days to answer, give V time. Plus, its a holiday weekend.

Did Volleyball even provide one real piece of evidence to back up his claims? This guy does not know how to debate. Vortex Co. Security Forces have been dispatched to apprehend him, as the stupidity is a threat to those around him.

The Vortex Empire wrote:Did Volleyball even provide one real piece of evidence to back up his claims? This guy does not know how to debate. Vortex Co. Security Forces have been dispatched to apprehend him, as the stupidity is a threat to those around him.

He doesn't know how to present evidence. It's a lot like dealing with the sort of creationist who says that the complexity of the human body is proof of God's intervention. They produce voluminous "evidence" to support their point, but they don't realize that you need a non sequitur in order to regard it as evidence.

Similarly, Volleyball can produce examples of competitive market forces outperforming governments, but he does not realize that these examples are not evidence of his claim that the total elimination of government would benefit society. As an engineer, I can produce examples of bolts outperforming welds too, but only an imbecile would conclude that therefore, we should get rid of all welding in construction and manufacturing.

Voluntaryist wrote: But government, on the other hand, believes that some people are inherently better and should be trusted with extra special rights over others in the vain belief that this ruling class will somehow produce superior results.

I must confess I'm in awe of the strength of the wall of ignorance necessary for a citizen of the US to make such a statement in spite of the fact the constitution he lives under explicitly separates powers, mandates regular elections of, places term limits on... governors precisely because of an awareness that people are fallible and shouldn't be trusted.

Plekhanov wrote:

Voluntaryist wrote: But government, on the other hand, believes that some people are inherently better and should be trusted with extra special rights over others in the vain belief that this ruling class will somehow produce superior results.

I must confess I'm in awe of the strength of the wall of ignorance necessary for a citizen of the US to make such a statement in spite of the fact the constitution he lives under explicitly separates powers, mandates regular elections of, places term limits on... governors precisely because of an awareness that people are fallible and shouldn't be trusted.

I don't know for sure if all US states have term limits on governors or other elected officials.