Freedomain Radio

I've been discussing my opinions on anarchy and government with another individual. I seem to be getting nowhere. If anyone could point me to podcasts that have already been released so I can refresh my memory to better articulate this in my own head (because it may not be worth discussing with this person). I have read almost all the books, but if it would help me to re-read one or two of them, I'm willing to.

The discussion will go something like this (it's much much much longer, but this is the basics of the ideas):

"Government is wrong and no government would be better."

"That's just your political opinion. And it wouldn't be better. What would stop me in a FREE MARKET from taking over other people and starting my own gang [and so on]?"

"Lots of things would stop you. And basically, violence is morally wrong, [insert poor explanation of UPB]. It's just how things natually work... Not just my political opinion"

"You think that because society taught you those things are RIGHT and WRONG. It is, in fact, human nature to control others and be the most powerful. Anarchy/free market wouldn't work; it would lead back to what we already have."

"But you don't initiate force in your own life"

"Sure I do. I lie to and overprice people who won't know the difference and I make customers come to my shop. Some people are weak and they will be controlled/forced/coerced by others. It's just how things naturally work."

"You force people to come to your shop?"

"Yes, I make my services better than others."

[long, teeth-grinding argument about how this isn't force]

"People want to be powerful and 'on top'; they will do whatever it takes to do that. They will kill, steal, and manipulate to get there"

"People would rather work together to get what they want and do not care about being on top of everyone. [at this point, I'm well into my aneurysm ]"

Well, he's right. He's living his philosophy. He's not one to say the government is GOOD/RIGHT/MORAL since those aren't really anything more than religious praises given to things by society.

I guess I shouldn't argue/discuss if I'm not that quick on my feet.. and if the other person isn't willing to hold values anywhere close to mine. He claims that there is nothing wrong with controlling and killing people to get what you want, even if a few people feel that way, they will be the ones to control the weak and be on top.

Oh, and I'm one of the weak people who is a follower to someone controlling me (Stef) and making things seem wrong and bad and evil .

I can't type anymore. Had another aneurysm .

EDIT: Now looking back on this a few hours after I posted it I realize that he is the only person I know right now who is fully living and can live his entire belief structure. His values greatly vary from many people's values (especially mine) ... but I have to give him credit if he's telling me the truth. 

This is, of course, after listening to Stef's podcast FDR 1722 The Souls of the Masters - Part 1 and hearing about how the movement would be nothing unless people were opposed to violence/coercion/etc.

Thoughts?

So, basically this guys holds the Hobbsian position about the natural state of mankind, where it's a war of all against all.  If you've already tried and failed to show him how this is not the case (as even a single counterexample of a person not acting towards maximizing their own pleasure/wealth/power should disprove this absolutist claim), then I would suggest that this person is not likely to change their position regardless of how good your arguments are - especially if he somehow thinks that competitive pricing is a form of violence.

I would personally suggest that the topic of governance (or lack thereof) is not a topic you should further pursue with this friend of yours, or, if you think he can still be swayed somehow, perhaps taking a different approach could work.  Stef always talks about how using curiosity (ie the Socratic method) can be a useful way to get people to reason through their own beliefs and (hopefully) see what contradictions are there, so that might be one approach to take.  I'm not sure what other advice I could give you, honestly, and I hope you found what I wrote useful to you in some way.

JermJus:

"People want to be powerful and 'on top'; they will do whatever it takes to do that. They will kill, steal, and manipulate to get there"

There is a self-detonating illogic to that assertion which is extremely difficult for many people to grasp (your debate partner almost certainly).

The next logical question would be, "Do you desire to be on top and the more powerful one in this discussion? Which of those three are you doing to me in this debate?"

Thanks for the responses, SDPalmTree and Dave Bockman.

I'm just not one to be able to easily break it down in the moment, so I'm sure the way I pause and have to think of how he is thinking doesn't help my case... but he will be very aggressive (not angry.. more like assertive and over-certain?) with his side of the discussion. I will remember to be curious if I do bring this up again (when I'm itching for an argument )

I'm still interested in hearing others' thoughts about this if anyone has any. I'm not sure I'm going to bring this up again with him (although sometimes it just comes up from day-to-day stuff happening). But if anyone has any questions, I'll ask him and type his response.

It's very interesting to examine someone's perception of the world like this. It brings up new ideas for me and confirms previous ones.

The common thread to this guys fallacious arguments is the philosophical error of equating similarities and equivalents. This is a very common philosophical error.

Examples:

1) A stateless society would free everyone from the threat of violence and theft by the state. Some criminal gangs could still form, as they do now, but without the apparatus (and effective ideology and propaganda) of the state they could not control everyone. That is clearly a better situation, not an equivalent one.

2) The attempt to use logic and debate or lies, or offer lower prices/better services is not coercion in the same way that a threat of imprisonment and fines is. Again, not equivalents.

There are some inaccuracies and falsehoods as well. Clearly only some people want to be powerful, not everyone is running for office and prepared to steal or kill to get there. In fact, most people are not that bad.

I expect some education in philosophy might change this person, but ignoramuses like this are usually not wanting to change, in my experience. These kinds of people don't usually like to admit that they are wrong.

SimonF, this is very accurate.

This person would argue that contracts/agreements and marketing is force much like manipulation (I guess). According to what he tells me, people do not have choices. (I may be hyperbolic when speaking for him about this though). Maybe I'm dealing with a determinist, but it seems he doesn't think/consider/ponder about his "choices". He collects as much facts and evicende about something, then he acts on whatever will work best for him. Very mechanical way of thinking, I would say.

You are 100% right that he will extremely rarely admit that he is incorrect. When he is incorrect, he is suddenly innocent and seems to shy away from the humility... or become agressive towards the situation and lead people to feel uncomfortable bringing up his mistake.

Here's another (heavily condensed, abridged) conversation that felt weird at first:

"I have to go to Pittsburgh this week"

"Actually, you want to go to Pittsburgh. There's a reason you are going, and that reason is worth the trip, or else you wouldn't go. You want to go rather than not going"

"No, I don't want to go. I want to stay here and not go. I am forced to go because I have business stuff out that way"

And so on...

Hey JerJus,

With statements like ""People want to be powerful and 'on top'; they will do whatever it takes to do that. They will kill, steal, and manipulate to get there"", the "I have to's" and force is the same as not force…. I don't think this person is worth sanctioning by giving your time. I mean, if he isn't willing to at least pause to consider the points where the logical deficiencies are evident… he's not arguing to find truth.

Oh, and I'm also the type who struggles in the moment and then, 1 day later, come up with a great comeback. However, there is one that I find is particularly good and it fits a wide range of scenarious (when a person is being a doofus). I thought of this comeback when I read ""People want to be powerful and 'on top'; they will do whatever it takes to do that. They will kill, steal, and manipulate to get there"". The comeback is:

"You must have a great relationship with your wife/GF" or "You're wife/GF is soo lucky knowing that she has such a great guy to trust and support her" "The level of trust/intimacy with your XXXX must be amazing"

Something like that… I try to make is as serious a statement as possible. I would advise against any kind of sarcasm. The goal is not to humiliate the person, but point out why he is a doofus. I don't believe you can do this with the state as the topic of conversation. bring it closer to home. If that is his perspective… he'll have bad relationships and be miserable. After making this point, I would withdraw… the person hasn't show worth of my time.

Good luck!

Haha. aljmiller87 that's what a normal person would respond to. This person is so outstanding from everyone else alive that he wouldn't even respond to that comeback with a human response.

I have to admit, this is someone who I went to high school with and has recently moved back to the area since he went to school. In high school, we would hang out a lot (I was in a very dark place ). I still talk to him and it wasn't until my philosophy thinking stage that I tried to understand him. Anyway, he's single at the moment, but I remember his past girlfriend clearly. He actually prefers the "dumb, skinny blonde" type and actually admitted he wouldn't be comfortable with a woman who was in any way smarter or stronger than him. He wants to make the money, provide everything for her, and basically use her for sex (that's how I would put it, he would use more vulgar terms to describe this). And that is for his long-term relationships.

Pre-FDR, I thought that maybe this is just how some people get along. I was no expert on relationships at all (really) so who am I to judge this couple's connection. Gut feelings do say a lot, and in retrospect I wasn't wrong in feeling uneasy when around them when they were a couple.

I believe he actually thinks that manipulation, passive-(and sometimes not-so-passive)-aggression, and money is the best way for him to be happy in a relationship.

I like Stef's constant metaphor about not speaking Mandarin. He's not stupid. He's also not a pushover. He just really does not see happiness as something that exists. When I discuss things I always imply that happiness is the end result, but he doesn't express that to me. His view is that things just work a certain way and that's that. I see a lot of frustration and quite possibly a lot of depression inside of him, but he's never expressed that nor does he even see that it's there. He is who he is and there's nothing that can change that unless he decides himself he wants to explore. But I don't think he sees even that as a possibility.

Maybe I'm too abstract and assuming too much, but that's pretty much my thoughts on what's really going on. It's sad to see; and I like helping him out.. I just wish I could offer more to him. He's one of the dead souls on the bottom of the ocean (mp3 link to podcast FDR 1643) who helped me out when I felt rejected everywhere else. I can't help but morn his non-life. I'm currently not able to let go from visiting the depths every once and a while... maybe, just maybe, I can spark a thread of life somewhere.

But no, in reality, I'm letting him drain from my alive-ness. I'm only enabling his abusive thoughts/behaviors/demeanor at the cost of my own progression while attempting to use him to manage my own thoughts and feelings. Gaaah, make it stop . Actually, no. Keep it going. Am I going nuts? Haha. (uncomfortable laugh)

Oh wow. A bit of MEcosystem stuff I just typed there.

as even a single counterexample of a person not acting towards maximizing their own pleasure/wealth/power should disprove this absolutist claim

No, this wouldn't work. This argument is not that everyone wants to be on top, it is that some people will always be on top.

Anarchy/free market wouldn't work; it would lead back to what we already have.

You should have pointed out that if that is the case, then he should have no objection to others giving it a try, as long as he is not involved (my local autonomy arguments you may have seen elsewhere).

Really, it sounds like it is time for you to move on. There are a lot of people out there a lot more reasonable than this. He may learn, but it will be in his own time and manner.

Paul47:

he should have no objection to others giving it a try, as long as he is not involved

He has no objection to people giving it a try just like he has no objection to anything other people do. He sees my position the same as a democrat or republican or communistic position: different ways of getting stuff done. He simply feels that things are the way they are because they are what works always happened and always worked. (I tried arguing for innovation, but he doesn't see much of that in human nature. Slavery still exists in the world. Women still are treated poorly. Etc.)

I fundamentally understand that talking to this person in any persuading manor is utterly a waste of time right now. My previous post in this thread describes some possible reasons why I'm compelled to even interact with him (and probably similar reasons why I'm the only one he would ever discuss things like this with... he truly doesn't care or wonder about any of this stuff until I talk about it with him.. he sees my position as pointless and weak and that I may* be following a 'cult' similar to religions or politics. He's trying to help).

*he says there is a slight chance for [FDR] to not be a 'cult'

He has no objection to people giving it a try just like he has no objection to anything other people do.

This is the most we can reasonably ask from people. So, even though he doesn't believe you, it doesn't matter. Our problem is not with statists who want to repress only themselves, it is with statists who want to repress everyone.