What Nonsense?

What Nonsense?

Freedom is indeed personal. But is it indeed true that my very act of defending a concept achieves the very opposite of what I intend? What of the cost of remaining silent?

How then would I explain to those who are ignorant, that anarchists do not practice the business of preaching foolish and wild acts? The apolitical philosophy has nothing in common with violence or a state of chaos. The state of existence to which I hold can never come about without it first entering the heads of the common mind. I cannot allow myself to be defenseless to misconceptions without first arming myself to the teeth with logic.

So in accepting that my ideal cannot come to pass, I accept that people who are nothing more than nihilists will be called anarchists. I accept that people would call me a fool whether or not I can dance circles of logic around their blustering protest. Fate dictates that every new idea be blasphemy. Then when change begins to take place, the sins of the previous order are blamed at our footsteps. This is old news.

So yes, I believe in the necessity for a displacement of our current system of injustice. So long as man rules man there will never be peace. I believe in humans and their worth over the empty words and laws which man has currently made and will eventually make. I would call for a complete disintegration of the principle for authority. If for this you condemn me, continue to call me a fool. I never said that I believed we will change our ways. I only believe that we must for the very notion of liberty to exist. Until then, I let my thoughts pour.

Lysander Spooner's Dilemma

If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice. If there be no such natural principle as honesty, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor can ever exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist[…] - Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law," Section V

Onus probandi

Logic dictates that the burden of proof must be placed on any positive claim. Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. “The necessity of proof lies with he who complains.” A common misconception is that the anarchist (whether or not they are a collectivist or individualist) has the burden of proof.

However; both statists and anarchists make positive assertions about social organization. Both parties agree that markets should exist. The statist is forced to make an extra burden of proof. That social organization needs to be constructed on such a massive scale.

The statist is incapable of shedding this extra burden once they admit they make a positive claim. In this, we naturally win.

Let’s move on.

Geometric Argument

Let us assume there are three people on a deserted island. A third person happens to have access to a larger portion of resources. A majority rule is enacted and the two work together to reallocate the third lucky person’s extra resources. This is taxation. Now, replace those three people, with millions of people and you see where I’m going. Now that is what I consider organized crime of a massive scale.

Freedom's Imperative
by Jim Davies

Proving that Market Anarchy is the only justifiable organizational system by demonstrating that self-ownership is axiomatically true and that Market Anarchy is the only organizational system built on that premise.

The Problem of Collectivist Obligation

(1) One or more of three possibilities must be obtain:

* Morality does not exist.
* Morality is determined by the individual (realism, subjectivism, etc).
* Morality is determined by the collective (autocracy, utilitarianism, etc).

(2) Morality necessarily exists, because:

* Morality is axiomatic (cannot be denied without direct contradiction).
* Morality is a necessary fact for all moral agents.

(3) Either morality is determined by the individual moral agent, or the collective, or both. (from 1 and 2)

(4) Collectivist obligation is inter-subjective relative to the collectivist belief system.

(5) Any moral obligation towards the collective would have to be demonstrated objectively (i.e. as a fact that exists independently from the group).

(6) It is impossible to go from inter-subjective propositions to objective propositions, as any given sum or network of inter-subjective propositions must still remain grounded to the belief system.

(7) It is impossible to justify the passage from collectivist obligation to moral obligation. (from 4, 5 and 6)

(8) Morality cannot be determined by the collective. (from 7)

(9) Morality can only be determined by the individual moral agent. (from 3 and 8)

Hence:

Moral Argument

A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons). Can also be called "universality." Argument made by Murray Rothbard in his book The Ethics of Liberty.

Gun control is invalid because it sets one principle for one group (state exploiters)- you can have guns- and another principle for the rest of us- you can't have guns. Taxation is invalid because theft remains criminal in all other instances. If it is just for some people to steal in the name of the "common good", then it should be good for everyone. And so on.