Response Requested From Libertarians/Market Anarchists

[ticktockclok]

I joined a political forum, and identified myself as a libertarian/market anarchist. One of the people who greeted me said they were an MA as a teen, but as they matured they switched their views. I asked him why, and this was his response. I asked, and he said it would be fine to put his response on a libertarian forum. I just wanted to know what your opinion is. Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On markets and government:

I'm not even going to get into the fact that, except in Libertopia where they have flying ponies and lollipop trees, corporations can violate and oppress just as badly as a government can.

A market is a derivative of a functioning civilization, not a replacement for it. Markets can only exist within a structured framework. A lot of libertarians take that for granted. Over-regulating the market will suppress economic activity (e.g. France), but underregulation can be worse (N.B. the financial and industrial powerhouse that is Somalia).

By way of analogy: Libertarians see the government like a cage around a bird. In reality, it is like a tank around a fish.

Besides, societies as a whole might decide that unfettered growth is not something they want for reasons of long-term sustainability, different priorities, morality, or as a hedge against misfortune. (Examples of each: Not fishing to below a minimum breeding population, funding for the Apollo program which was socially important but economically negative, abolishing slavery, publicly funding health care because one day you might need it.)

On government as an agent of change:

If you don't trust your representatives, run for office. To avoid the political realm is to abdicate responsibility of your civilization to others. If you don't share their beliefs, the best way to confront them with your own beliefs is to threaten to replace them.

Your openness to ideas and willingness to challenge status quo demonstrates that you are somebody that I would vote for (if you were, like, old enough to run and stuff).

[TylerM]

I joined a political forum, and identified myself as a libertarian/market anarchist. One of the people who greeted me said they were an MA as a teen, but as they matured they switched their views. I asked him why, and this was his response. I asked, and he said it would be fine to put his response on a libertarian forum. I just wanted to know what your opinion is. Thanks.

Hallo and welcome! I'm an anarchocapitalist and I'll try the best I can to answer his response. He reminds me of a lot of the AnCom's(anarchocommunist) over in the anarchist LJ community. This the sort of response I get from them, except they take the "no private property" road, rather than the "we need the state" path he has.


Before I begin, a joke:

How many market anarchist does it take to screw in a light bulb.






None. The market will take care of it. 

On markets and government:

I'm not even going to get into the fact that, except in Libertopia where they have flying ponies and lollipop trees, corporations can violate and oppress just as badly as a government can.

Okay, brushing aside his snide comment there, he's actually correct that corporations (*cough*federal reserve, inc,*cough*) can violate people's personal liberty, however he fails to see that this, in a truly free society, is extremely hurtful to the business. He also falls into the mind set that when one says "anarcho-capitalism", that McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Starbucks are ruling the world (ala Jennifer Government) and target and Wal-Mart would be locked in a shooting war over customers. War is uneconomic unless you have a government robbing people to pay for it. "Oppressing" your workers and customers, when there are many, many other job opportunities and stores (one of the benefits of a free market is that monopolies are short lived without a State to back them up), is a one way street to ruin. Even in our mixed up economy in the US, you can see the power of consumers. The reason we have "dolphin safe" tuna is more because American consumers don't like the idea of Flipper being killed so they can have a sandwich, than regulation. Of course, you can see this has been used by corporations (with the State's help) to flush out foreign competition. In the end, most of the so called "corporate" oppression can be traced back to the State. Also, corporations are a product of the state and without the state, could not exist. In an AnCap society, business would be moved towards to local level, just like government would in a Libertarian (notice big L) society.

A market is a derivative of a functioning civilization, not a replacement for it. Markets can only exist within a structured framework. A lot of libertarians take that for granted. Over-regulating the market will suppress economic activity (e.g. France), but underregulation can be worse (N.B. the financial and industrial powerhouse that is Somalia).

Errrrrnnnnt! Wrong answer. The market is a self-supporting structure. The first hundred years or so of the United States, saw a virtual ancap existence for the market. The corporate evils of the late 1800s can be traced to government involvement in business, which they started in the 1850s. The Federals in the second war of independence only cemented the throne of this State-Corporate alliance to the detriment of the workers. Markets will exist anywhere. In Cuba (in the form of black markets), in Hong Kong and on Gilligan's Island. Wherever two people exchange something for something else, you have a market. You don't need a council, a State or anything else.

Now, to form a massive military-industrial complex, with huge market power and shares like our economy you do need a State (and wars and regulation and oppression). No, the United States economy with a GDP of trillions requires a state to artificially create it. But why the hell do you want that? I mean I guess if letting 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth is a good thing, but a free market by nature would spread the money out.

Somalia, eh? It is true, there is a strong movement to form an anarchist state there based on free market principals. In the end, if they succeed, they will be a power house of wealth in Africa. However, first they haave to battle down all these tyrants. Plus, it's not the most hospitable place on Earth. If you could move the same situation to a place like, say... New Hampshire! The movement would be much more successful. But they are trying to make progress, it's a long struggle. If Insurgent is right, we might have a chance soon to try this out in whatever is left of the US of A.

By way of analogy: Libertarians see the government like a cage around a bird. In reality, it is like a tank around a fish.

Okay, so either way it's keeping me in a livable environment. But I'd rather have the sky or the ocean. (*hums*"I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me..."*hums*)

Besides, societies as a whole might decide that unfettered growth is not something they want for reasons of long-term sustainability, different priorities, morality, or as a hedge against misfortune. (Examples of each: Not fishing to below a minimum breeding population, funding for the Apollo program which was socially important but economically negative, abolishing slavery, publicly funding health care because one day you might need it.)

Wow, socialist here, eh? Fishing below a certain population makes no good business sense. Anyone with long, forward thinking business strategy knows this would ruin your future. Plus, with private ownership of rivers, lakes, etc. There is more of an incentive to maintain those areas for the future.

The Apollo program? You mean the game we spent billions on to beat the Russians in a political move to help us secure more of the world for exploitation. Right. Socially important? More like politically important. If space travel is desired, the market will eventually take control of it, as it is slowly doing now, and move outwards for resources or entertainment. If we weren't having 65% of our income taken in taxes, we might be more willing to spend of flying to the moon for vacation. Right now, the state is propping up even the 'private' space industry (satellites, etc) with our stolen funds. That's why there's billion dollar investments in projects like the Iridium project, with no return. Because the State is giving cuts. A market inefficiency brought on by state.

On government as an agent of change:

If you don't trust your representatives, run for office. To avoid the political realm is to abdicate responsibility of your civilization to others. If you don't share their beliefs, the best way to confront them with your own beliefs is to threaten to replace them.

State protects State. If we truly were a free society to elect who we felt was best, there wouldn't be a bunch of Dems and Reps in the DC area. Only issue here is the fact that the reason they are there is because somebody with another set of ideas put them there. If I route them out and place who I want, or myself there. Unless you have something stopping you, you are in the position to use force to coerce conformity out of others. That, however, is moving back to basic anarchist philosophy.

Your openness to ideas and willingness to challenge status quo demonstrates that you are somebody that I would vote for (if you were, like, old enough to run and stuff).

I'm assuming he's referring to you in that statement? If so, tell him since you aren't running, to put his vote in Ron Paul for president in 2008!

Hope that help. I'm going to cross post this to my LiveJournal

[EthanAllen]

He reminds me of a lot of the AnCom's (anarchocommunist) over in the anarchist LJ community. This the sort of response I get from them, except they take the "no private property" road, rather than the "we need the state" path he has.

Maybe he is just a type of Jeffersonian anarchist like Albert J. Nock and believes that a monopoly on force within a specific territory  (courts, police, jails, etc) is actually necessary for a just society rather than believing the market can properly provide this. Nock drew a clear distinction between "the state" and "local governance as legitimate agency".

[TylerM]

He reminds me of a lot of the AnCom's (anarchocommunist) over in the anarchist LJ community. This the sort of response I get from them, except they take the "no private property" road, rather than the "we need the state" path he has.

Maybe he is just a type of Jeffersonian anarchist like Albert J. Nock and believes that a monopoly on force within a specific territory  (courts, police, jails, etc) is actually necessary for a just society rather than believing the market can properly provide this. Nock drew a clear distinction between "the state" and "local governance as legitimate agency".

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Community government, with the sole purpose of providing a justice system that would allow lawsuits, etc with some ability to enforce rulings.

Roads are the only thing I think the market would have a hard time taking care of. I never have found a good solution to this problem. The excise tax on gasoline, and a DOT seems to work pretty well. I'm sure there is a solution, but haven't seen one yet.

[Braddogg]

ticktock, that guy's response is so snarky and demeaning that it's hard to tell where to begin.  The line at the end -- "you are somebody that I would vote for (if you were, like, old enough to run and stuff)" -- is just so . . . full of hatred.  I mean, talk about a back-handed compliment!  "You're smart, but dumb."  I don't think he's interested in having a discussion with you.  I mean, he may type a response to you, but he doesn't want a conversation.  He's more interested in shooting down your arguments from a position of ignorance.

Anyway, for your own benefit: Corporations are products of government.  They spend BILLIONS lobbying government to get regulations to prevent competition in their sector (a la Netscape).  So whenever someone mentions "THE CORPORATIONS" in an an-cap society, it shows that they don't know too much about economics.

Somalia is suffering from massive government intervention, in the form of the UN and neighboring countries.  They also are a very backwards country in terms of their philosophical development -- the US has a strong tradition of relatively free markets and relative secularism (most Christians are "cultural Christians," as opposed to the violent warlord types).

"[The government] is like a tank around a fish."  Ya -- except the tank is filled with the blood of the innocent and we're choking.

"Societies" cannot make decisions.  Individuals can make decisions, but "society" does not exist.  I mean, if all the people disappeared, you wouldn't have a pile of "society" somewhere.  "Society" is an aggregation of individuals.  It's like a forest: You can't have a forest without trees (and birds and squirrels, I guess, but let's keep it simple).  The forest has no qualities not contained in the trees.  "Society" can do nothing -- it can't decide to abolish slavery.  People can stop choosing to enforce slavery laws (that's what happened to end slavery in Brazil -- government agents stopped enforcing the laws and slavery went away), but that's the culmination of millions of little decisions taken by individuals.  And, the FREE MARKET is the best way to determine what people want, because they are choosing it!

"If you don't trust your representatives, run for office. To avoid the political realm is to abdicate responsibility of your civilization to others."  Let's try that with something else: "If you don't trust the health system, run for chairman of the board at the American Medical Association or local hospital.  To avoid the health realm is to abdicate responsibility of everyone's health to others."  And there are a million other things -- join the PTA, run every church, become CEO of Wal*Mart, etc., etc.

This guy is just making shit up, being incredibly arbitrary.

If you're into the political philosophy stuff, I've discovered a really good political philosopher you might be interested in.  His name's Stefan Molyneux, you can find some of his articles on LewRockwell.com (here).  He also runs a podcast and a forum at freedomainradio.com.

[Braddogg]

Roads are the only thing I think the market would have a hard time taking care of.

The Maine Turnpike (a section of I-95) runs completely on tolls.  So it's possible to have a functioning road system without violence.

[ticktockclok]

Hmm... thanks everyone. I posted that first reply on the forum w/o your name. I'll check out the Molyneux articles.

I've got a friend who's the same age as me, 15, but his views are very statist. He supports Obama, Social Security, universal health care, etc. We're both taking a economics summer course (forced to do so by parents),  which he is enjoying, and I'm despising. When we were talking about social security, I mentioned that it would be bankrupt by 2030. The teacher just rejected that and said they'd up the retirement age to 75  years. It doesn't even seem like I'm learning, more like I'm being stuffed with propaganda.   

On another note, what would you say to comments like these?

On Google/Wire-tapping/Search w/o Warrant: "What have you got to hide?"

On freedom: "Why do you want freedom just for freedom's sake?"

On government:  "You can't live without government."

I'd probably show the person TOLFA, which is the best way to introduce anyone to market anarchism.

Thanks all.

[d_goddard]

You (and your friend) might want to check out Free Talk Live, they cover a lot of these bases -- and you can call in if you have a question for them!
http://freetalklive.com

[David]

Discussion on roads.  I believe private roads are first off, moral, and second, practical.  We don't have them now, for the same reasons that there are not too many private libraries, the gov't competes with the free market by offering a service 'free' to the user.  The most obvious exceptions today are rental properties, shopping centers, condo properties, and various business and college campuses. 
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=5090.30

[srqrebel]

Thank you ticktockclok... for presenting me (and others) with the perfect pretext to expound our own views on this often misunderstood subject. I have stated some of my views on other threads, but had to cut them short to avoid straying too far off topic.

First I would like state my frustration with the oxy-moron terms "market anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist".  Those of us that embrace the concept of a true free market based civilization are not anarchists by any stretch of the imagination, and I will attempt to clearly illustrate this.

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of the word 'anarchy':

"Main Entry: an·ar·chy   
Pronunciation: \?a-n?r-k?, -?när-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
1: a: absence of government  b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority  c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2: a: absence or denial of any authority or established order  b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
3: anarchism"

In other words, complete absence of government, resulting in (an unnatural) state of disorder.  To understand this properly, one must apply the original meaning of the word "government".

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of the word 'government':

"Main Entry: gov·ern·ment 
Pronunciation: \?g?-v?r(n)-m?nt, -v?-m?nt; ?g?-b?m-?nt, -v?m-\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2: obsolete: moral conduct or behavior : discretion
3: a: the office, authority, or function of governing  b: obsolete: the term during which a governing official holds office"

(Note: These three definitions are followed by four more relating to the better known political application of the word 'government'.)

In other words, "government" is any entity that is legitimately entrusted with the duty of "governing". 

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of the word 'govern':

"Main Entry: gov·ern  
Pronunciation: \?g?-v?rn\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French governer, from Latin gubernare to steer, govern, from Greek kybernan
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1: a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially: to control and direct the making and administration of policy in  b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy
2: a: archaic: manipulate  b: to control the speed of (as a machine) especially by automatic means
3: a: to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of  b: to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over <income must govern expenditure>  c: to hold in check: restrain"

In other words, to steer and oversee the smooth operation of affairs.

If one accepts, as I do, that every conscious being is a sovereign individual, then it follows that the only valid authority is within.  There is no such thing as external authority, for each individual is sovereign.  Thus, the only legitimate governments are those entities that are directly authorized by a conscious individual to govern a specific function or functions of that individual's affairs, and are directly accountable to that individual at all times.  Examples would be accountants, secretaries, security agents, etc., basically any entity that is under contract to protect the sovereign individual's life and property, and keep specific areas of his life running smoothly.

By contrast, the political system of so-called "government" is neither legitimate nor very effective.  It is not legitimate, for it usurps bogus "external authority" over the sovereign individual, rather than operating under the valid authority of the individual himself.  It is not very effective, for it is a monopoly, and derives its sustenance by force and/ or threat of force, and as such it is neither subject to the discipline of competition nor the correcting influence of the market.  It has (virtually) no incentive to deliver values to those it claims to "serve".  This system delivers very little in terms of actual governing; instead, it dictates, and is properly referred to as 'State', NOT 'government'.  Furthermore, their so-called "regulations" are not regulations at all, but arbitrary dictates.

The ideology we so-called "market anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists" embrace is one of a smoothly regulated, well-governed civilization.  Thus, we are the exact opposite of the true anarchists, for anarchy is the absence of government.  The term I prefer is free-marketeer.  (I do not know the origin of the term, but it was first brought to my attention by Ian Bernard, host of Free Talk Live.)  The term free-marketeer accurately describes who we are, and generates curiousity among those not familiar with it; while those other terms lead people to instantly associate us with disorder and chaos, regardless of the accuracy of those perceptions, and their minds snap shut to our otherwise infectuous message of hope.

I will now attempt to provide my own rebuttals to the assertions of the antagonist quoted by ticktockclok:

I'm not even going to get into the fact that, except in Libertopia where they have flying ponies and lollipop trees, corporations can violate and oppress just as badly as a government can.

My first observation is that this person is already on unstable ground, for he begins his argument with a dishonest ad-hominem attack which has nothing to do with reality.

In a true free-market environment, corporations can NOT violate and oppress the way the State does.  Corporate oppression as we know it is the direct result of corporations using the strong arm of the State to get their way.  Corporate violations in our current system (i.e. environmenal damage, fraud) are encouraged by the State's lack of incentive to truly protect the people its victims.
In a free-market civilization, corporations have no oppressive State-based system of regulations arbitrary force-backed dictates at their disposal, and would be at the mercy of their customers, who ultimately exert iron-grip control over the policies of those corporations:  Those customers vote on a daily basis with their dollars and their feet.  Gone are the farcical once-a-year elections of the political system. Gone is the ever returning need for bloody revolution to reclaim a corrupt political system.  The voting occurs on a second-by-second basis by voluntary customers, aided by an ever growing body of Consumer Reports-type services, and any corporation that refuses to submit, or attempts to initiate force, will instantly get reigned in, and if it persists, will go out of business.  This is the beauty of the 'invisible' hand: It regulates with such an exquisite minute efficiency that the State cannot even begin to envision, let alone compete with.

A market is a derivative of a functioning civilization, not a replacement for it. Markets can only exist within a structured framework. A lot of libertarians take that for granted. Over-regulating the market will suppress economic activity (e.g. France), but underregulation can be worse (N.B. the financial and industrial powerhouse that is Somalia).

The fact is, the free market, unfettered by the chains of abitrary force-backed dictates, automatically forms the most structured framework known to man.  Once established, it is indestructable.

Somalia is was an example of anarchy.  (Statists are once again starting to assert control of Somalia on a fragmented basis.) 
Any society that exists under the dictates of a State is being granted a bare minimum of an infrastructure.  Generally, the more authoritarian the State, the more bare-bones the infrastructure, and the more depressed the economy.  If the State is abolished too quickly (i.e. violent overthrow), and is not immediately replaced by a new State, it is now stuck with both a depressed economy and little or no infrastructure.  That is not fertile ground for a free-market economy to develop.  Hypothetically, if left alone, a free-market economy would develop, though very slowly at first.  In reality, the people get frustrated with the lack of infrastructure and demand a return to the "comforts" of a State, since it is the only alternative they know.
The solution to this problem is to transition to a market-based economy in an orderly fashion.  There are several ways to accomplish this, the most obvious being to sell off services that are currently provided by the State to responsible entrepreneurs as they become available, while simultaneously reducing the tax burden to allow consumers to redirect their money freely into the market as they see fit.

By way of analogy: Libertarians see the government like a cage around a bird. In reality, it is like a tank around a fish.

Seriously, what is the difference as it relates to this discussion?  The State is like both.  Using the fishtank analogy, free-marketeers advocate releasing the fish into its natural habitat, illustrating that in reality the tank serves no purpose but to enslave.

Besides, societies as a whole might decide that unfettered growth is not something they want for reasons of long-term sustainability, different priorities, morality, or as a hedge against misfortune. (Examples of each: Not fishing to below a minimum breeding population, funding for the Apollo program which was socially important but economically negative, abolishing slavery, publicly funding health care because one day you might need it.)

In a true free market, unfettered by the irrational dictates of a State, entrepreneurs would be profit motivated to create solutions to popular problems (real or perceived) at breakneck speed (before a competitor cashes in on the obvious opportunity).

On government as an agent of change:

If you don't trust your representatives, run for office. To avoid the political realm is to abdicate responsibility of your civilization to others. If you don't share their beliefs, the best way to confront them with your own beliefs is to threaten to replace them.

Indeed, as free-marketeers our eyes need to remain firmly fixed on the goal of bringing about a free market based civilization ASAP.  This means developing and utilizing the most effective strategies possible, whether within or without the current system.

If we can relax the destructive grip of the State on the sovereign individual from within the system itself (i.e. here in NH homeschooling, Real ID, etc.), thereby unshackling the sovereign individual bit by bit, yet we refuse to do so in order to keep ourselves "clean" of the evils of the system, we are guilty by way of negligence toward ourselves first, as well as our children and grandchildren.  To know how to effectively intervene, yet refuse to do so on the basis of "principle", constitutes betrayal of our central principle of freedom in our lifetime; once that is betrayed, it is mere hypocrisy to hide behind loyalty to (lesser) principles.

[Braddogg]

I'll check out the Molyneux articles.

Ugh, yeah, most economics teachers are, er, economically retarded.  I'm told that Harry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is a good primer on economics.  It's sitting on my bookshelf, it's next on the reading list for me.

On Google/Wire-tapping/Search w/o Warrant: "What have you got to hide?"

"Can I see your diary?  Why not, got something to hide?"

On freedom: "Why do you want freedom just for freedom's sake?"

"I want freedom for happiness's sake, not for its own sake.  And if you don't want your freedom, let me know, I've got a spare room and some dishes that need cleaning, a lawn that needs mowing, some cotton that needs picking . . . ."

On government:  "You can't live without government."

"Prove it."

I'd probably show the person TOLFA, which is the best way to introduce anyone to market anarchism.

Have you seen the Philosophy of Liberty flash film?  www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Keep up the good work.  It's a real slog sometimes, especially in the formal, state-run education gulag system.  And honestly, it's not that much better at most of the private colleges, either.

[ticktockclok]

Thanks everyone. I don't think this guy has a response.

I had a question though, how do you get to the point that you can stand up for yourself, in speaking against the state. For example, we were watching Cinderella Man in the economics class. The movie is in the Great Depression times, and when we were watching people collect welfare, the teacher paused the movie to tell us how bad it was in those times, and how FDR helped us out. Then my friend whispered in my ear, telling me "See, this is why we need government." I really couldn't think of much to say. I'm wondering if you have to practice debate, or if being able to speak just comes in time.

Later in the class, the teacher used this movie as an example of "why a completely free market can't work, and we need government control". I knew something was fishy in this explanation; I guessed that it wasn't completely free market pre-Depression either.

Are there any examples of completely free markets that I could use?

Thanks again.

[TylerM]

Ja, start with the cause of the depression.

Market collapse brought on by our favorite entity interfering. The State, and more specifically, Federal Reserve inc. The Depression was caused y the system of credit and meddling with the market by the Fed, which triggered a major sell off. Now, it should have bounced back, instead the Feds fraked around with the interest rates and caused a market collapse. I suspect this was on purpose, but I'll leave the conspiracy theories to Alex Jones.

I'm not the best debater myself, especially with some people I know who have a personality that makes me want to abandon my ZAP and ram a spike through their temple. Errr, sorry about that. But, really, it takes time and practice. Accumulating as much knowledge on the subject as you can can make you more confidant and always be on the offense during a debate with someone, but be cool. A confidant outlook can cause most people to stand down when you can recall good evidence and quotes are a must, IMO. Read up on the great champions of your cause and the statesmen of early US. That's the best way to make a point is letting someone else speak through you. Most of my discussions have paraphrases from all sorts of sources (and name dropping is a tactic to use).

But what ever you do, never just BS your way through an argument. Someone will catch you at it and ruin your credibility.

[srqrebel]

I had a question though, how do you get to the point that you can stand up for yourself, in speaking against the state. For example, we were watching Cinderella Man in the economics class. The movie is in the Great Depression times, and when we were watching people collect welfare, the teacher paused the movie to tell us how bad it was in those times, and how FDR helped us out. Then my friend whispered in my ear, telling me "See, this is why we need government." I really couldn't think of much to say. I'm wondering if you have to practice debate, or if being able to speak just comes in time.

Reading a lot, carefully thinking things through before taking a position on an issue, and loyalty to honesty even when it means admitting you are wrong, are all key to coming across confidently in a debate.

When I was your age, I tended to be quite naive and easily persuaded by every plausible argument I heard.  What brought me to a position of power and confidence in debates (over the years), is the fact that I always strive to maintain a loyalty to fully-integrated honesty when it comes to my personal belief system, which allows my belief system to evolve into an ever more solid integration with reality.  By fully-integrated honesty I mean constantly monitoring my premises to ensure that each premise integrates seamlessly with the rest of my premises, as well as with my personal observations.  Each time I encounter a premise that contradicts another premise or observation, I agressively check those premises until I uncover the irrational premise, and discard it.  Thus, I carefully develop my own beliefs over the course of my life, and with each adjustment they become ever more solidly integrated with reality.

That stands in sharp contrast to the belief systems of most people I encounter.  It appears to me that most people accept spoon-fed "truths" from others (i.e. parents, teachers, clergy, media, peers, etc.).  When they encounter  discrepancies in those "truths", they take the easy way out by rationalizing to cover up the discrepancies, rather than exerting the mental effort required to uncover and discard the irrational premises.  Thus, their externally-derived belief systems stagnate, and they tend to hide behind any number of fallacies or avoid debates entirely in order to not expose their vulnerabilities.  By contrast, a person who is loyal to fully-integrated honesty seeks to have his vulnerabilities exposed every chance he gets, because it is a golden opportunity to refine his beliefs.

This is a major reason why some folks shun debates and others seek them out.

[ticktockclok]

I had a question though, how do you get to the point that you can stand up for yourself, in speaking against the state. For example, we were watching Cinderella Man in the economics class. The movie is in the Great Depression times, and when we were watching people collect welfare, the teacher paused the movie to tell us how bad it was in those times, and how FDR helped us out. Then my friend whispered in my ear, telling me "See, this is why we need government." I really couldn't think of much to say. I'm wondering if you have to practice debate, or if being able to speak just comes in time.

Reading a lot, carefully thinking things through before taking a position on an issue, and loyalty to honesty even when it means admitting you are wrong, are all key to coming across confidently in a debate.

When I was your age, I tended to be quite naive and easily persuaded by every plausible argument I heard.  What brought me to a position of power and confidence in debates (over the years), is the fact that I always strive to maintain a loyalty to fully-integrated honesty when it comes to my personal belief system, which allows my belief system to evolve into an ever more solid integration with reality.  By fully-integrated honesty I mean constantly monitoring my premises to ensure that each premise integrates seamlessly with the rest of my premises, as well as with my personal observations.  Each time I encounter a premise that contradicts another premise or observation, I agressively check those premises until I uncover the irrational premise, and discard it.  Thus, I carefully develop my own beliefs over the course of my life, and with each adjustment they become ever more solidly integrated with reality.

That stands in sharp contrast to the belief systems of most people I encounter.  It appears to me that most people accept spoon-fed "truths" from others (i.e. parents, teachers, clergy, media, peers, etc.).  When they encounter  discrepancies in those "truths", they take the easy way out by rationalizing to cover up the discrepancies, rather than exerting the mental effort required to uncover and discard the irrational premises.  Thus, their externally-derived belief systems stagnate, and they tend to hide behind any number of fallacies or avoid debates entirely in order to not expose their vulnerabilities.  By contrast, a person who is loyal to fully-integrated honesty seeks to have his vulnerabilities exposed every chance he gets, because it is a golden opportunity to refine his beliefs.

This is a major reason why some folks shun debates and others seek them out.

I think I would have been one of those spoon-fed people if one teacher didn't send me off the wall in hatred of the public education system. I guess the only missing key for me is reading a lot. The public education system was the first thing that made me blow up, and I'm very comfortable debating with anyone about that. On the other topics, I guess its just that I don't know as much. Thanks.

On another topic, the guy I referred to in the other post has no reply, but just more questions to find holes in anarchism. Here they are:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try to imagine an individual born with spastic cerebral palsy. This person has such a severe disability that s/he will never be competitively employable the right part-time job is possible with the right accommodations/technology. Furthermore, this person will only be able to participate in education through specialized (read expensive) instruction combined with dedicated (low sales volume) technology.

How can providing services to this person ever be profitable?
How is this person better off without a State?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't think of much of answer to this, just that the market will find a way without government interference, and that non-profit organizations will still exist.