Third Party Watch

a philosophical challenge…

...from crispin sartwell

...about anarchism.

This entry was posted by ThirdPartyWatchTV on Saturday, May 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm and is filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

37 Responses to “a philosophical challenge…”

GREEN DAD Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
what a capitalist way to sell books !
Thomas J. Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Anarchists are children.
disinter Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Anarchists are children.

Strange, they aren’t the ones that beg the state to be their nanny.
Jonathan Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
anarchists are worse than children, they are as mental deviant as a child molestor or seriel killer. Something went wrong when they were growing up. They crave attention. I’m sure there are psycological studies on this , if not there should be. Not suprising that Disinter defends them, wow, surprise surprise, we just found out something Disinter can finally support, not surprising really, but at least it is the first positive thought he has had, although again he expressed it in a half ass negative matter as always.
disinter Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Poor Jonathan…. so sad.
GoNolzOhio Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
the fact that this guy would appear on youtube to shill for his book, apparently from his basement, does not give me great hope that the book is worth reading.

anyway, he says “state power rests of force, violence, and coercion, and that requiries a moral justification.”

no it doesnt. it just requires the state having more firepower.
GREEN DAD Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
even Anarchists should have the right to free speech no different than a Neo Nazi that is until they cross the line and break the law. well then again I’m thinking everyone should have the right to free speech if they have something to contribute to a conversation which leaves Disinter out
Robert Capozzi Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
sartwell seems to believe that “morality” is something more than an opinion. He seems to discount some rather BIG names philosophers. Good for him!

He might offer us some evidence that his opinion is correct in some precise, absolute sense, yet I didn’t hear one.

Did anyone else?
Thomas J. Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Locke states that source of government power comes from the people’s consent to be governed. If the people consent, there there is no use of force. Just because the state DOES exert force doesn’t mean the system is failed, just that it is being abused. This guy is a moron.

He might as well ask for proof that the sky is pure blue.
timothy west Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I have never met a anarchist who moved to a anarchist place in the world thats closer to their ideals. They seem to prefer living here under the state, regardless of how big it is.
disinter Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Locke states that source of government power comes from the people’s consent to be governed. If the people consent, there there is no use of force.

Ok, I don’t consent. There is use of force.
Brian Holtz Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The argument for the state’s use of force initiation to minimize aggression is the same as for a doctor’s use of needles to minimize pain.

For more details, see the last 20 links on the front page of http://libertarianmajority.net/.
Susan Hogarth Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
If the people consent, there there is no use of force.

What evidence do you have that people have consented?
Yangus Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hey, Jonathan. How about forming an argument with substance instead of the classic ad hominem logical fallcies? Science forbid we stick to the rules of logic.
Susan Hogarth Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
anarchists are worse than children, they are as mental deviant as a child molestor or seriel killer.

Unlike your mature, well-socialized self, I suppose.
Susan Hogarth Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I have never met a anarchist who moved to a anarchist place in the world thats closer to their ideals.

I don’t buy another house if mine become infested with roaches.
timothy west Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
the consent is implied by the fact that they don’t leave. Implied consent is an actionable argument for proof required in every courtroom in this land.

Until you either renounce your US citizenship and take off for libertopia, you’re just shit out of luck Dis.
Susan Hogarth Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The argument for the state’s use of force initiation to minimize aggression is the same as for a doctor’s use of needles to minimize pain.

But what is the state? If I may be permitted to quote Bastiat:

I wish some one would offer a prize, granting a large sum of money, for a good, simple, and intelligent definition of the word “State.”
...
I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to the State for the realization of them. ...

I contend that this personification of the State has been, in the past, and will be hereafter, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions.

There is the public on one side, the State on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits. What will be the consequence?

In fact, the State is not maimed, and cannot be so. It has two hands, one to receive and the other to give; in other words, it has a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first.
Strictly, the State may take and not give.
This is evident, and may be explained by the porous and absorbing nature of its hands, which always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But the thing that never was seen, and never will be seen or conceived, is, that the State can give to the public more than it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for us to appear before it in the humble attitude of beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer a particular benefit upon any one of the individualities which constitute the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole.
Susan Hogarth Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
the consent is implied by the fact that they don’t leave.

This is a very dangerous idea. If a woman, in fear for her children or her own life, suffers through a rape without struggling, can she be said to have consented the sexual act?
disinter Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:23 pm

the consent is implied by the fact that they don’t leave.

Uh huh… So someone in jail is consenting because they don’t leave? If everyone left because they don’t consent, then this country would have never been founded.
Carl M Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
My refutation published back in 2006
The Need to be Anarchists
timothy west Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
circular. Presumably someone is in jail because they have committed a CRIME using FORCE of some kind or another.

thanks for undermining yourself.

really, I’m no longer in the LP, I just come over sometimes to yank some chains. Be as anarchistic as you wanna be.

till next time
Craig Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Locke states that source of government power comes from the people’s consent to be governed.

Locke ignores history. No state anywhere was formed by the people’s voluntary consent.
disinter Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Presumably someone is in jail because they have committed a CRIME

Like a victim-less crime?
disinter Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.

Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html
Brandon Sharitt Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
My problem with the theory of anarchism, is that once you reach the goal of abolishing the state, you aren’t at the end of the state, you’re back to the beginning. If you get rid of all government, people are still going to form groups, and some of those groups are going to bully weaker groups and individuals in competition for resources, just as what happened at the dawn of civilization. If you get rid of the state and replace it with nothing, the state will organically reemerge will probably be despotic and totalitarian. If it was human nature to respect the rights of others and to coexist peacefully, anarchy would clearly be the best philosophy. Until that change happens in basic human nature, I will continue to believe that a limited government that has just the capacity to protect an individuals right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is necessary.

As a libertarian, I’m for small government where ever possible, but don’t want to abolish it completely. Of course for the biggest things that are necessary, they should be done at the lowest level possible. For instance, police, instruments that should only be used to defend the life and liberty of citizens, nothing more. (Disclaimer: Most of the people I’ve talked with who consider themselves anarchist, are similar to what you would find in the extreme radical wing of the LP, so sorry if I have a skewed view of anarchism.) I often hear that a truly free market will replace many functions of the state in the absence of the state, such as police and fire protection and roads, but that seems to bring us back to a defacto state, though a very fractured one with the truest consent of the governed. If you don’t pay your “taxes” to the police company, they won’t protect you, or if you don’t pay you “taxes” to the road company, you can’t use the roads. This “free market tribalism” might even be able to protect you from the inevitable bands of thugs that I spoke of earlier, but at the end of the day, you’re back to having government.
DIAMOND DAVE Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
disinter Says:

May 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers

WOW this is an insight into disinter sick mind. This is how Disinter see life. No wonder he has yet to post a positive or at least constructive post. All he knows to do is tear down
James Aiken Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Well the reason we need government is because when looking at the real world, we need forced order. In a perfect world, anarchy would work, everybody would help each other, we would rarely have to work, and everybody would be happy, I admit if it were a perfect world we would be happiest, but the fact of the matter is, we need forced order, we need, believe it or not, people to be forced to help each other (in some cases). As a libertarian, its easy to say that private charity would do all this, but lets face it, the government is much more powerful than private charity.

Also, the war issue, and the fact that with anarchy, weakness is expressed and we would be defenseless (not literally) to another country taking us over.
Hugh Jass Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
You guys do realize that in anarchy, law enforcement would be transfered from the state to voluntary DFOs which compete on the market, right? It’s not like anarchy would be complete lawlessness.
David Aitken Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 12:22 am
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” – James Madison, Federalist #51
disinter Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 12:26 am

If it was human nature to respect the rights of others and to coexist peacefully

So when you go visit your neighbors and friends you try to start fights with them and violate their rights?
disinter Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 12:28 am

but the fact of the matter is, we need forced order, we need, believe it or not, people to be forced to help each other

Sounds like an advocate of socialism if I ever heard one.
Eric Sundwall Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 6:15 am
“I have never met a anarchist who moved to a anarchist place in the world thats closer to their ideals. They seem to prefer living here under the state, regardless of how big it is.”

Doesn’t deal with Sartwell’s premise. Smells like “America, love it or leave it”. Ergo, you’re a hypocrite for believing in no government and not having a place to go.

“He might offer us some evidence that his opinion is correct in some precise, absolute sense, yet I didn’t hear one.”

Isn’t that the point of the book? Draft copies have been posted on his blog in the past if uber critics just think its a cheap publicity stunt.

“The argument for the state’s use of force initiation to minimize aggression is the same as for a doctor’s use of needles to minimize pain.”

Perhaps if a parent directs a child to yield to it. Otherwise the patient is presumably undergoing voluntary treatment. As far as the link after that comment is concerned, Sartwell is not making a plea for political expediency or reality based on the logical consequences of his assertion. He can be happily ‘pure’ in this regard. He’s not saying ZAP is a good way to form a political party. Nothing of the sort. He’s asserting that the moral justification for the state is inherently wrong. It’s not about where we want to go or need to be according Sartwell’s assertion.

The last bit also applies to holistic politics guy without a political home. The consequentialist arguments against anarchy are based on impracticality in the political arena and some presumed aspects of human nature and previous human historical conditions, not the moral proposition that the state has no moral basis as apologists like Locke, Rawls and others conclude. Thus while there may be some resonance as to the affect that advocating anarchy in a political environment may be impractical, fall on deaf ears etc., Sartwell is not shilling for a faction in any political party, he’s coming from a pure philosophical basis. That’s hard for most politicos to reconcile in their earnest quest for change.

Odd that no one picked up on the irony that he’s publishing through a State University Press though . . .
Clark Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 7:12 am
...it seems to this ‘angel’..’mankind’—at least given the low general level of true ‘education,’ ‘awareness,’ decency, etc. now and in the past—is prone to disputes, etc. ad goddamned nauseam..

..SOMEWHAT PRECISELY, how would any self-described ‘anarchists’ resolve ‘disputes,’ etc. ad goddamned nauseam?..

...i have concluded that ‘today’—aside from whether ‘government’ is good, bad, ugly, etc..—that government is INEVITABLE..

...whether it’s the mcsame’s, obama’s mamas, boob ‘whipped cream’ barfers, or maybe the hell’s angels, etc. ad goddamned nauseam who might quickly fill any void..’government’ is inevitable TODAY on this still-primitive planet..

..but this shouldn’t stop decent folks from moving towards ‘angelic an (without) archy’ (rule)...as there is a lifetime of hideous, inexplicable ‘government’ to eliminate..abundant, easy pickings for the obvious betterment of mankind..

..that’s my ooga booga and i’m sticking to it..for now anyway!.. ;o)
Brian Holtz Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
Eric, that’s precisely my point: in ethics, consequences matter—indeed, they ultimately ground our ethics. Rejecting all consequentialism is to ethics as allowing division by zero is to mathematics—it allows you to prove any result you want.

Here’s a counter-challenge I bet Sartwell’s book doesn’t address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

If Sartwell’s challenge/argument had compelling intellectual rigor, then we’d all be anarchists by now. He’s clearly just wishing for a sticker on the store packaging of this universe that guarantees that all ethical judgments inside the box involving political theory have to be simple ones. Nobody can certify for us that for the tool-using speech-capable pair-bonded omnivorous bipedal primates on this planet, it just so happens that 100% absolute abstinence from force-initiation is always the optimal strategy for minimizing the net incidence of aggression in the societies such primates form. Life is just not that simple, no matter how good it feels to believe otherwise.
ralph Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
Another one like Brian setting up straw man arguments based on a failure to actually use the definitions of anarchism and Libertarianism.

The object is to convey the impression there are no definitions so they can insert their ‘definition.’

These issues were settled years ago. Read a book, will you?

Dream on.
disinter Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pm

If Sartwell’s challenge/argument had compelling intellectual rigor, then we’d all be anarchists by now.

If that nonsense (typical for Brain Holz) was true, then everyone would be libertarians by now….

a philosophical challenge…

37 Responses to “a philosophical challenge…”

Leave a Reply

Navigation

Other Useful Sites

Party Websites

Archives

Categories