Freedomain Radio

Hey. This is an argument I have been working on for the past couple of days that shows why the state is necessarily immoral according to premises that statist's themselves hold. It is similar to arguments that Stef has made against the social contract. I think it has the potential to be as effective as the "against me" argument, and can be used in the same kind of conversations.

Here is the link:

http://theemptiness.info/2010/08/why-cant-i-do-that/

Let me know what you think. Of course any constructive criticism is appreciated. Let me know if you spot any holes.

Thanks!

Okay, it's official.  I'm bookmarking your blog.  Your writing has been consistently excellent.  Very nice!

I posted this on your blog in response to this article:

Have you used this argument with statists? What was the response?

I foresee this tactic running into a couple of problems:

1)  I can't think of a single statist I know who believes that everything the state does can be qualified as moral. Most statists adopt an argumentation of utilitarian ethics when defending its moral legitimacy. Many consider the state to be a necessary evil, and hence moral. In other words, actions that are typically considered to be immoral become moral on the basis that they are necessary to do a certain amount of good. This is why so few statists will be satisfied solely with things like "the against me" argument. Pointing out the inherent violence in the state may open people up more to the possibility of anarchism, but it's a long road of economic theory and empirical example to get from being a statist to an anarchist.

2) Statists tend to believe that the foundations of the institution (the state) - popular vote, bill of rights, check and balances, etc. -  are what set it apart from the likes of gangs and mafias as a morally acceptable institution. The state is thought to abide by, or at least be checked by, the "will of the people." You and I and mafia rings do not have the foundation stories (revolutionary war with Britain, cool deliberation in the constitutional congress), nor the popular participation, nor the implementation of our own public schooling to establish an identification in people's minds with "society," and, thus, we are seen to be without moral legitimacy. Of course, you and I know that popular support and the "right to vote" are no more a moral justification for the state than the popular support and "rule by God" that monarchies operated under centuries ago. Still, at least this perspective must be deconstructed and exposed for the logical fallacy that it is, before proceeding with other moral arguments... including the "against me" argument.

Oneironaut:

Have you used this argument with statists? What was the response?

Yeah. I have tried it. Before I fully worked out the argument the response would ususally be that the statist would claim the state is not moral or immoral it just is, or there is no such thing as right and wrong etc. that is why I dismiss these objections right from the start. Now it is easy to demonstrate that in fact the statist logically must be a moral absolutist. It is very difficult to get them to admit this though.

You can still move on and talk about a particular thing that they think the state does that they like. Then you can still apply the argument. One time I asked why if speeding laws were so important everyone could not go out and issue speeding tickets. That provoked a violent reaction, and the statist stormed out of the room in rage.

Usually the response is that they get really confused. They feel like it would be crazy for me to do stuff like fight drugs and issue speeding tickets, but they can't imagine the state not doing it. Sometimes the response is anger and outrage, but we always run that risk. The thing I like is that I can usually get the statist himself to argue against the state. And it shows them that they are genuinely scared of some of the stuff the state does.

Also with stuff like welfare, when you ask this, they say "you can do that", to which you can then point out that if anyone can do it, there is no need for the state, and if they think only the state should do it then they have to say why. This puts them in the position of saying that anyone can help the poor with welfare, though they have probably never thought that before.

Most of my debating this way has been in chat threads, Sometimes it goes well, sometimes you get extreme rage.