The Burden of Proof, and Aaron Kinney's Political Deconversion
After numerous lengthy discussions with Francois Tremblay and Andrew Greve, and after listening to many of Stefan Molyneux's Podcasts, I have come to the conclusion that there is no longer any reason for me to hold on to the idea of a government as a necessary and/or positive force in society. Force, or coercion, is never positive, and the government is no exception.
While I have just announced my deconversion to anarcho-capitalism, I think I will still refer to myself as a libertarian most of the time. I consider libertarianism as compatible with anarcho-capitalism, with anarchy being the final result of the application of libertarian principles of less government and unfettered free markets. Stefan seems to agree with me on this one, as he uses the terms libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in his Podcasts almost interchangeably.
Now let's get to the main point of this post: the Burden of Proof. Anarchy is a negative concept. In the same way that atheism means "without theism," anarchy means "without government."
Most atheists are familiar with the burden of proof. The burden of proof states that the positive claim inherently has the burden of proving itself, not the negative claim. This principle applies not only to religious claims, but all claims, including claims about government.
The Burden of Proof is a big advantage to atheism for reasons that I don't want to detail here (got to stay on topic). And of course, the Burden of Proof is also a big advantage to anarchy. Anarchists aren't burdened to prove that government is not (socially) necessary any more than atheists are burdened to prove that God is not (logically) necessary.
The Burden of Proof lies with the one who claims that government is a necessary or positive force in society, and good luck to them. Using the tools and concepts found in Stefan's Podcasts, this blog, and Francois' new site Simply Anarchy, the anarchist can defeat or refute any argument in favor of a government. Like theism, there is simply no argument to justify the necessity of a God or state. You cannot justify government or God any more than you can justify the initiation of coercive force on another person.
I'm not so sure that anarchists employ the Burden of Proof as much as they should. While it is a popular atheistic tool, I don't get the feeling that it is as popular a tool among anarchists, as I don't see it mentioned in any anarchist writings that I've come across. Conversely, I can hardly read a single atheistic essay or book without coming across the Burden of Proof concept.
I think it's time for anarchists to use the Burden of Proof more often, as it is, in my opinion, the most powerful weapon against both God and government. In fact, the first post I ever wrote on my Kill The Afterlife blog was about the Burden of Proof. And accordingly, my first post on this blog as a fresh deconvert into anarcho-capitalism is also about the Burden of Proof. You have to start at the foundation if you want to argue effectively, and the foundation is the Burden of Proof, and who is shouldering that burden.
Let me now be perfectly clear: The statists are shouldering the Burden of Proof, and they simply cannot meet its demands.
12 comments:
I'm right there with you, Aaron. My political idealogy was informed by my Christianity, and so during the process of beoming atheist, my political views were left somewhat dangling in the wind. My uncle is a libertarian, and I was peripherally aware of that view, but really never was touched by it much.
Between this blog, and Stefan's podcasts (absolutely wonderful), I have to say I'm coming around. I'm applying the same basic standard that I used when I began to test out atheism. Listen to the arguments, see if they make sense. So far, it's doing so in spades.
I'm also very glad that my wife is making the same transition- I subscribed her iPod to Stefan's feed, and casually mentioned that it "might be something interesting to listen to." After a few days, she started asking me more about "that libertarian guy" and commenting on how much sense he made.
So, yeah, not to take the focus off you or anything, but I figured now's as good a time as ever to raise my pint in agreement.
Wow. Molyneux is really making inroads ! Good going Zach. ;)
Thats great to hear Zach. I wasnt "trying" to become an anarchist, in fact, Francois will probably tell you how I was so resitant to it. But I have to be intellectually honest with myself, and I cannot deny what simply makes too much logical sense. The arguments are too compelling. And once I began placing the burden of proof where it belongs (on the statist's shoulders), I saw just how futile it is to attempt to justify ANY coercive force, much less a coercive and monopolistic force like a government.
Everyone loves Stefan it seems, and with good reason!
I think Stefan should be syndicated on radio stations across the world. Maybe we should write to ClearChannel... ya think they would help us out? (LMFAO!)
Yea, but I admit I also pestered you for a while... LOL
Yes, Stefan should definitely be somewhere. He is one powerful bastard.
Aaron, two questions then:
1st) How do you deal with greed and the obvious (to me) inevitability of decay of anarchy into a feudal system?
2nd) If you promote non-participation in government and advocate a no coercion philosophy, how do you ever expect to actually achieve anything?
"1st) How do you deal with greed and the obvious (to me) inevitability of decay of anarchy into a feudal system?"
I've read a lot of arguments against market anarchy while making my articles lists for simplyanarchy.com, but I've never read THAT. What "obvious inevitability of decay" are you talking about, and how is it supposed to happen ?
Hey lbbp, good to see you!
You said:
1st) How do you deal with greed and the obvious (to me) inevitability of decay of anarchy into a feudal system?
It may be obvious to you, but it isnt exactly to me. Can you explain how you see an anarchy descending into a feudal system?
2nd) If you promote non-participation in government and advocate a no coercion philosophy, how do you ever expect to actually achieve anything?
I have the perfect answer for you: By using these logically and morally superior arguments to convince more people to refuse to participate in government. Government, especially democracies, require participation and moral support from the citizens for their legitimacy and effectiveness. To prove this point, some democratic countries even invalidate an election if less than a given % of people vote (like 50%). Not to mention all the vote campaigns, like Puff Daddys "vote or die" campaign. He was basically saying "give the governemnt legitimacy or suffer violent consequences!"
The more and more people that refuse to participate in a democracy, the less legitimacy the democracy has, and the less power it has.
To remove government, nonparticipation in voting and other government activities, while arguing for an anarchist system, is key.
Good to talk to you also Aaron!
As to the first question, I will admit to a certain amount of pessimism. Throughout history humanity has devised many systems of government. On paper some of them appear promising, socialism and communism both have Utopian aspirations, and here in the US, our capitalistic democracy is the oldest currently active government in the world. The problems though have always come down to greed. In the soviet union they didn't really practice Marxist communism as written, they instead practiced a corrupt system that used communism as a device to keep a small group in power, while the majority lived in poverty. The only forms of socialism that have been tried are those coupled to an emperor, and I don't expect that to change. Our own capitalistic democracy is constantly being undermined by a wealthy minority, so we rarely exhibit true democracy.
In short history has been plagued by idealistic visions of government being undermined by a wealthy and powerful minority.
So, why should free market anarchy be any different?
In a truly free market there would be nothing to prevent the wealthiest minority from forming unbreakable monopolies. There is no inherent market force to compel monopolies to disassemble themselves. Quite the contrary in fact, the monopoly is the ultimate prize of the free market. If you have 100% market share you win right? If you have a monopoly then you can charge whatever you want. The natural expectation for a free market is for a very small number of companies to gobble up all of the competition thus leaving a very limited range of choices to consumers. These monopolies will then be able to do anything they want to maintain their monopoly including coercion, subversion, espionage, murder, whatever. If the company that has a monopoly on crime prevention starts committing crimes, who is going to stop them? The other big companies will then have to form their own protection agencies and eventually you will end up with the corporate equivalent of feudal fiefdoms, and the common folk are going to be caught in between, left out of the fort, or thrown into battle as cannon fodder, just like they always have.
As to the second question, although I understand your reasoning I think it is doomed to failure for the same reasons as stated above. Those that are in control now are not going to let go of power simply because there is a lack of interest. If enough people fail to vote then they will simply change the rules for their own benefit. Since, the non-participation opposition is, well, not participating, then there will really be no opposition and nothing will change except that individuals will have even less control over the government they live under.
Anyway, you get the idea. The point is that no utopian ideal will ever be achieved because there will always be someone subverting the system for their personal gain. Thus, in my opinion, the only way to achieve positive social change and strive for enlightenment, is to encourage participation in as close to a true democratic government as possible. One that is limited in scope and one that has strong limitations on the control that can be exerted by corporations or very wealthy individuals.
Hey lbbp,
I totally see where you are coming from, as just six months ago I was almost exactly where you are now. Im enjoying the dialogue!
You said:
As to the first question, I will admit to a certain amount of pessimism. Throughout history humanity has devised many systems of government. On paper some of them appear promising, socialism and communism both have Utopian aspirations, and here in the US, our capitalistic democracy is the oldest currently active government in the world. The problems though have always come down to greed. In the soviet union they didn't really practice Marxist communism as written, they instead practiced a corrupt system that used communism as a device to keep a small group in power, while the majority lived in poverty. The only forms of socialism that have been tried are those coupled to an emperor, and I don't expect that to change. Our own capitalistic democracy is constantly being undermined by a wealthy minority, so we rarely exhibit true democracy.
And the solution is anarchism. In that last paragraph, you keep on talking about power and greed that everyone is reaching for. Well, thats because in all those exaples you gave, there was always a monopolistic, coercive state, and people within that state apparatus were fighting for more and more power.
But in an anarchy, there would be no state, no monopolostic coercive force that anyone could harness or use to gain more power.
Remember, that anarchism is political atheism. Anarchism will remove the ability for people to gain power through a coercive state apparatus in the same way that atheism will remove the abbility for people to gain power through a coercive religious apparatus. In an atheistic world, there is no preacher and no church. And in an anarchistic world, there is no ruler, and no state.
In short history has been plagued by idealistic visions of government being undermined by a wealthy and powerful minority.
You are absolutely correct. And anarchy is the answer! Why? Because it will solve the problem of an idealistic vision of government being undermined by the wealthy and powerful that you describe. How? Because in an anarchy, the idealistic vision of government that you mention will be necessarily removed from society completely.
So, why should free market anarchy be any different?
Because there would be no government for the wealthy to use in the first place. free market anarchy is a self-stabilizing system in the same way that a free market economy is self-stabilizing. Having unfettered competition makes monopolies almost impossible in both economic and political spheres.
In a truly free market there would be nothing to prevent the wealthiest minority from forming unbreakable monopolies.
That is not true, for there would be no way to enforce the monopoly. And monopolies are inherently unstable, because the lack of competition makes them sloppy and inefficient and less likely to satisfy their customers demands, which makes the market ripe for a competitor to jump in.
There is no inherent market force to compel monopolies to disassemble themselves.
There doesnt need to be. As long as others can join in the game to compete (which they could in an anarchy), then thats all that matters.
Quite the contrary in fact, the monopoly is the ultimate prize of the free market. If you have 100% market share you win right?
No. You can never win that way. Even if that can be considered a victory, which I think it cannot, the victory wont last long. Monopolies are inherently more vulnerable because the lack of competition makes them less efficient and less successful, as I stated earlier.
If you have a monopoly then you can charge whatever you want.
You dont need a monopoly to charge whatever you want. In a free market anarchy, anyone can charge whatever they want whenever they want. But consumers can also buy from whoever they want, whenever they want. And to top it off, if consumers arent happy with the market choices (especially in a monopoly), then they can start their own company to compete and offer the services that the market demands at the prices that the market demands.
Bottom line: in a free market, if you start fucking with the prices without paying attention to the supply and demand and market price conditions at the time, your business wont be around long. If you charge to little, you make no profit, and if you charge too much, you will make no profit.
The natural expectation for a free market is for a very small number of companies to gobble up all of the competition thus leaving a very limited range of choices to consumers.
That is not true. What you described is only the natural expectation of individual companies, not the "nature" of the free market system itself. The free market system, by design, makes companies more and more vulnerable as they get less and less competitive. This provides a bigger and bigger window for new startup competitors to jump in the market.
These monopolies will then be able to do anything they want to maintain their monopoly including coercion, subversion, espionage, murder, whatever. If the company that has a monopoly on crime prevention starts committing crimes, who is going to stop them? The other big companies will then have to form their own protection agencies and eventually you will end up with the corporate equivalent of feudal fiefdoms, and the common folk are going to be caught in between, left out of the fort, or thrown into battle as cannon fodder, just like they always have.
By this point you are only attacking the strawman you set up. And again, in an anarchistic free market, a monopoly is more vulnerable than in any other system. And the more anti-competitive the monopoly gets, the worse off its survival chances are.
Remember, that in an anarchy, nothing can stop another person or group of people from joining the market and forming their own company to compete with the monopolistic company. When governments exist, they dont allow other entities to compete with them in providing the same services.
As to the second question, although I understand your reasoning I think it is doomed to failure for the same reasons as stated above. Those that are in control now are not going to let go of power simply because there is a lack of interest. If enough people fail to vote then they will simply change the rules for their own benefit.
And if they do so, then they lose their pseudo-legitimacy and make themselves even more vulnerable to being cast aside. What power does government have if nobody participates in it? If nobody votes or joins the military or enforces the silly rules they make? Nonparticipation is the best available method for change.
What would you recommend, lbbp? Violence? Coercion? I would hope not.
Since, the non-participation opposition is, well, not participating, then there will really be no opposition and nothing will change except that individuals will have even less control over the government they live under.
Not true. The government will be the one with less control, because nobody will act out on its "rules." No military recruits, no taxes, nobody to keep the government machine running. Shit man, already the army is desperately short of the recruits it needs. You seen operation yellow elephant lately? Lbbp, ALREADY, we are seeing the same principle applied on a much smaller scale now. There is little support for Iraq II, and as a result, the military cant get enough recruits, and now the Bush Admin, the Iraq campaign, and the American government looks much less legitimate in peoples eyes as a result. That scenario is proof that "disengagement in government activities = loss of government legitimacy = loss of government power".
Anyway, you get the idea. The point is that no utopian ideal will ever be achieved because there will always be someone subverting the system for their personal gain.
And how exactly would an anarchistic system be subverted? But more importantly, what "system" do you think would exist in an anarchy, where the operative phrase (anarchy) is a negative one that denotes the absence of a "system" in the same way that atheism denotes the absence of a religion?
It seems to me here like you are trying to equate anarchy with an exploitable governemntal apparatus in the same way that Christians try to claim that atheism is, itself, a religion ;)
Thus, in my opinion, the only way to achieve positive social change and strive for enlightenment, is to encourage participation in as close to a true democratic government as possible.
So lbbp, if you are a true democrat, would you say that it is ok for the government to force everyone in America to do the following things if 51% of the population voted them into law?:
1) Pray to Jesus Christ every morning in every school and workplace.
2) Make atheists wear a yellow "A" badge on all their shirts and coats and such?
Now, if you think it is ok for the government to force those two example laws onto everyone if 51% of the population votes them in, then you are a democrat and you believe in a "true democratic government." But if you do NOT think those examples are ok, then how do you reconcile your opposition to those laws if you think a true democratic government is the ideal?
One that is limited in scope and one that has strong limitations on the control that can be exerted by corporations or very wealthy individuals.
When you say limited in scope, what do you mean? You mean limit the "true democratic governments" power, correct? But what if 51% of the people vote to increase the governments power to take 99% of your income and choose what you eat and where you work? Wouldnt you support that as the will of a true democratic society?
When you say "limited in scope" you seem to imply that the government should be limited in scope regardless of what the people vote. But that wouldnt be a true democracy now would it? A true democracy would be one where anything that 51% of the people vote for becomes law, even if its slavery for all midgets or mandatory execution for homosexuals, or yellow patches for atheists, right?
Lbbp, one more thing: the burden of proof. I want to know what you think of my burden of proof argument regarding anarchy. Do you agree or disagree that, like Christians and theists, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts a state/government? Do you agree that anarchy, like atheism, does not have to carry the burden of proof?
In regards to who should bear the burden of proof, I would have to say that I disagree with you. As you mention, the burden of proof must fall on the one making the more extraordinary claim. In the case of theism vs. atheism, you and I both agree that there is significant physical evidence directly contradicting the scriptural account of existence. Given a lack of physical evidence in support of god, and given the evidence against scripture, it is a logical conclusion that the burden of proof falls on religion.
In the case against government, it might be possible to take a similar argument, i.e. government has consistently been shown to be a flawed system and there is no evidence to suggest it will get any better, therefore the burden of proof falls on the statist's shoulders to justify it's continuation. However, where I think this logic goes astray, and supports my main point above, is that it fails to account for the endless parade of individuals that have found ways to subvert societal systems. Your vision of anarchy is not a simple matter of convincing people that they can live without government, it is asking society to make a monumental leap of social enlightenment. It would require 100% compliance, by ALL people, or else risk the same subversion as any other system. When was the last time you were able to find even two people that agreed 100% on how society should be run?
Humanity can be loosely divided into four basic types of people; sheep, sheep herders, wolves, and individualists. The great majority of mankind wants to be sheep. They want to be taken care of, provided for, and protected. They want to be led around by anyone that will relieve them of the necessity of thinking. That's why religion is so popular. In religion you don't have to think about what is right or wrong, someone else does that for you. In allowing another to think for them, they relinquish their individuality. Even in a free market anarchy, people will instinctively gravitate towards the herders who will then be free to manipulate the system to maintain their authority. Meanwhile, the wolves will be circling around looking for an opportunity to pray on the weakest sheep, and the individualists will be tut-tutting about how stupid the sheep are.
The cycle of sheep, herders, and wolves has been true from the beginnings of civilization and will continue for the foreseeable future. Governments aren't going away anytome soon in a world that still has religion. The burden of proof therefore falls on anyone that claims to have a system that will overcome this innate human weakness.
Given that religion is not going to disappear in my lifetime or my daughters, I think it is better to participate in a flawed system, then it is to sit by and watch things get worse for my children and grand children. Apathy on the part of the sheep, gives the herders more power, and the wolves more opportunities. The only ones that can make any positive difference are the individualists, but they can't do it if they don't participate. It's not that I really disagree with the concept of capitalistic anarchy, it's just that I don't see it as a practical alternative as long as people still believe in imaginary friends in the sky. You mentioned the example of the falling volunteerism for the military. I guarantee that that would change in a heart beat if the US were to experience another 9/11 caliber terrorist attack. People are fickle. Just because they are loosing interest in George's ill conceived crusade does not mean that they are getting any smarter, it just means they are loosing interest, and would rather play HALO 2 on their X-Box then get shot at for real.
By the way, what did you think of my God or Not site? Have you had a chance to check it out?
Lbbp,
If you disagree with me about anarchy and the burden of proof, then why do you think the BoP is different for anarchy than for atheism?
And why did you change the BoP to mean that which is the more extraordinary claim? The BoP applies to the "positive" claim rather than the negative one, last time I checked.
But even if you are using the "more extraordinary" argument, then the burden still lies with the one who asserts the need for a government, for adding the government to the equation is adding another layer of complexity to it, and therefore the pro-state claim is the "more extraordinary" claim.
Post a Comment