Ivan was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in front of his webcam, sponsored by Bang's Root Beer, when a call came in. He put a quarter in the mic to activate it. It was Joel Davis. “Bad news, Ivan. We got a situation.” Ivan's mic didn't register. The quarters he had received for his monthly credit were no longer recognised. Following the proxy war between Bang's Root Beer and Monster Energy Ltd. the United Dominion of Costco launched its Total Non Aggression Principle of Annihiliation. The Human Resources Department at Bang's Root Beer Headquarters, responsible for verifying monthly credits, had been wiped out.
@@actaeonpress You missing me on Telegram or is this a play on "white man come home" *plays some schizo esoteric hilterist/hyperborea inner earth over zoomie rap music* jokes?
I am tired of libertarians and their bad talking points. I can understand people, who became libertarian at the beginning of their political and philosophical developement, many did, but at some point you have to grow up. The libertarian utopia is just as childish and unrealistic as the communist one.
Over 70% of land in my state is public, which attracts a lot of outdoorsmen and people who are generally conservationists. We have very healthy forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife because we want to keep our lands public. I don’t think the libertarian claim that private land = well maintained land is a strong argument.
I disagree with libertarianism, but I don't think this is a compelling example. Libertarians believe that a corporation should be able to own land. And the public land you're speaking of is owned by a pseudo-corporation, the single entity that is your state. They just happen to also believe that it is an illegitimate corporation, that is only able to maintain that ownership via criminal violence.
Although this was an interesting conversation, I'm highly dissatisfied with my performance here. I can and should be able to do much better. A persistent issue here was the temptation to respond to specific points Joel made (e.g. the situation in China, R&D funding under private as opposed to government auspices, etc.) instead of providing proper focus to general principles, which makes my remarks look more disjointed than they really are. This is going to be an issue each and every time that Joel and I have a conversation like this because I actually have a pretty serious methodological disagreement with Joel about the proper way to interpret historical data. Whenever Joel brings up a specific historical example to illustrate a point, I'm virtually always going to disagree with the framing of the example. The main issue is that I don't agree that historical data can be used to either empirically confirm or disconfirm general economic principles. A general economic law like, "If the quantity of money is increased, prices will also increase, _ceteris paribus"_ is, in my view, true _a priori_ and can never be empirically falsified, even in principle. One reason for this concerns the _ceteris paribus_ clause in the statement. That statement points to a relationship existing between two phenomena (the quantity of money and prices), but attempts to isolate the relationship in its pure form without confounding variables. But because history is not a laboratory, there will always be countless confounding variables present in every concrete historical event. Even if Joel is able to point to a historical example of a government printing money which was not followed by a general rise in prices, I do not agree that this would refute the principle that money printing, _ceteris paribus,_ causes price increases. Secondly, and much more importantly, _I don't believe that empirical evidence can have any meaning apart from theory._ To take an extreme example, suppose that you had literally no theoretical views whatsoever about which sorts of events were causally related to which other sorts of events. You then notice that prices are increasing, and you set yourself the task of trying to explain this. How would you proceed? _How even could you proceed?_ It would not help you to simply gather empirical data, because without some theory which causally relates the data, you would not know which data are relevant to the explanation you seek and which are not. _Unless you had prior theoretical reasons to believe that increases in the quantity of money are causally related to inflation, it would not even occur to you to go and look at what the central bank is doing._ I therefore consider the empiricist demand to "let the facts speak for themselves" to be incoherent. There are no facts without theory. Of course, Joel also has his own theory about how to interpret and analyze economic events (at least implicitly), but it's very different from my theory. Indeed, he may not even recognize his approach as a theory, in the sense of something pre-empirical that is used to make sense of empirical data. I suspect that he considers himself to just be looking at history impartially, without preconceptions, and drawing conclusions. If so, I don't agree that he's really doing this -- or, indeed, that this is possible to do at all. This is obviously going to have extremely far-reaching consequences for how Joel and I interpret historical events and for what kinds of lessons we think should be drawn from history. The fault is entirely my own, of course, for failing to call attention to this methodological difference and for instead engaging in the game of tit-for-tat historical references. That obviously tended to derail the conversation. Eric, you tried, for much of the discussion, to rein us in and make us keep our attention on general principles. That was yeoman's work. Thank you for your effort. I should have done better. And Jesus, what the hell was wrong with my mic? I had no idea it was that bad! I'm so sorry about that!
perhaps aarvoll should allow for a more formalized debate? One with far more planning and notes that each side can use, perhaps a sort of poor man's firing line?
@@parchment543 - No, this isn’t Aarvoll’s fault at all. There are days when I’m articulate and able to speak smoothly and effectively, and days when I’m just off. This was one of my “off” days. That’s no one’s fault but mine. I look through this discussion, and it’s glaringly obvious to me that there are so many things I could have said or put better. For instance, I could have explained how the inflationary monetary policies of the state tend to discourage prudence and promote short-termism among the populace. This is a clear instance where the state’s interests directly conflict with the aim of creating a virtuous populace. Even when I discussed the welfare example, I didn’t make the point particularly clearly. A massive missed opportunity. Mea culpa. I would not at all be against Aarvoll trying to do a Bill Buckley impression, though. 😉
I've actually never heard talking points from a libertarian perspective this persuasive, so I think you did great. I get the urge to learn more. Would you recommend some readings related to libertarianism and economics? Thanks.
@@actaeonpress - If some people think that, that's fine. I'm only saying that my performance there wasn't up to my own standard. I'm definitely capable of better.
A confederation would be appropriate for a large scale libertarian state. Ability to build an army at will, etc. and each individual locality and still be part of the libertarian society
I think the main problem here is that Ivan is arguing from a point which assumes the state is evil (of course, this is the libertarian position). It is something like a reversal of Hobbes, that the state is going to come and ruin the easy life in the cities. But this is not a theory of state, only a particular type of state, and what may be seen as a state in decline. The first liberals had legitimate concerns because the declining monarchies really were infringing on the rights, betraying the general will, and destroying cities. But this was already an anti-state, a state which was depoliticising - that is, turning away from the role of the state as a decision-making body of law and restraint. Where the modern state becomes a destructive force is where it enters into economy and value-making politics, but this is precisely due to its thinking technologically and economically. Where the state becomes absolute and turns against its own people there is a condition like that of civil war, and this is due not to any classical conception of the state but the fact that a new order more powerful than the state has taken over, caused a permanent crisis. Or simply, the statesmen can no longer find a solution. A state responds to the necessity of an era, its spatial and theological order, and in this sense it can be the exact opposite of an absolute state - airy and light, as with the Ancient Greek states. Often the great states stand in reserve, and back up the 'general will', or stand apart from it to give it higher form, greater shape. It is the overextension into the public realm which intensifies a distinction between the state bureaucracy and private interest. And this is primarily what libertarians are arguing against without knowing it, they are really opposed to the bureaucracy, the inability of the state to carry out political decisions resolutely and calmly - in a separate sphere from everyday life and economy.
I don’t assume that the state is evil. I start from a particular understanding of what man is and what society is and then deduce from that the state is evil. I see society as an emergent phenomenon. It grows and emerges out of the actions of the individuals making it up. That doesn’t mean that society isn’t “real” in some sense, but it does mean that its existence is ultimately a by-product of the interaction of a number of goal-seeking actors. There is such a thing as “French society,” but not without a set of flesh-and-blood Frenchman to make it up. To deny this is to say that, for example, Babylonian society still exists. Man has a biological, animal nature, but he also has something which, as far as we know thus far, is unique to him among all the creatures of the universe: his capacity for symbolic representation. In addition to this, men have potentialities which can only be realized through either the fulfillment of those biological needs, the expression of that symbolic capacity through various kinds of interaction with other men, or some combination thereof. To create the conditions for the realization of his potentialities, man needs to organize a social system around some notion of property. Property both mediates his interaction with the external non-human world and allows him to coordinate his actions with other men harmoniously. Property/legal systems are also symbolic structures, and thus in themselves reflect the unique nature of man. Harmonious coordination between men is essential because man’s potentialities are not unitary. Some men have talents and capabilities that others do not have. Life-paths which are appropriate to some are not appropriate to others. A man with an IQ of 100 would not be a good nuclear physicist, nor would a man with a preference for routine and the familiar be a good artist. Similarly, a man with an IQ of 170 is likely to be miserable working in a pin factory, and an eccentric chap would likely feel suffocated if he were forced to be a bureaucrat. For each man to best develop his talents, he must ascertain what he cares about, decide on courses of action, and be exposed to feedback from others about the consequences of his actions, which would allow him to modify his behavior accordingly. Given that societies are vast networks and that men are different, some mechanism is needed to arrange this network and coordinate men’s actions such that as many of them as possible may realize as many of their potentialities as possible. A state cannot do this effectively because centralized nodes can’t process information as efficiently as decentralized networks can. If they try to, they make mistakes. Any state claiming to be acting in the common good is therefore virtually guaranteed to be lying because what is good for every piece of a massive network can’t be meaningfully ascertained from a central location. And so, the question arises: _Why would those in charge of the state tell such an obvious lie as that they are working toward (or can even ascertain) the common good?_ The only answer that suggests itself to me is: _Because those people are up to no good._
You know what, I did equalize it, and it took a while, but then I grabbed the original file to upload by mistake. My bad, I do try to fix those things.
Genuinely the most interesting and balanced Libertarian I've ever heard, especially with the backing of a mind like Aarvol's, but bar for libertarians is a low one. I feel like everything I've come to understand and learn from Aarvol left me wondering if he's playing only the devil's advocate here when pressing Joel. I would had assumed violence at least in it's implication and potential is what creates a guardian, and is not therefore inherently bad karma, or maybe I'm just missing something here, forgive me I've only just started reading Plato. Great mediation of the debate aspects though.
Ivan did a great job. I wish he’d look at Paul Emile-Depudt arguments for Panarchism to avoid the implication of forcing libertarianism onto ppl who don’t want it. It is indeed impossible for the economic interest of a nation be discerned by any committee of experts. And even if an AI with God-teir intellect were actually able to, I think the answer it would give is free will for individual actors anyway. If God indeed exists, after all, isn’t that the answer He seems to have arrived at? Don’t meddle. Let individuals make choices, learn from mistakes, adapt, and evolve. Cooperate, coordinate, etc. voluntarily.
What Libertarians never seem to acknowledge is that the rise of states is inevitable. In a situation of true anarchy, groups would arise that would become states. The only way to have a persistent Libertarian situation is to have a state enforcing the Libertarian situation.
When they step outside the more nitty gritty, nerdy arguments, and the convo shifts towards the big picture, it's honestly hard to appreciate Ivan's opposition to states. I can't figure out Libertarianism except by imagining it to be a certain type of autism.
1:47:00 Locke inspired a belief in the founding fathers that the right to pursue the ownership of property is an inalienable right. This definition of the state as the proverbial man with a gun that's being discussed is completely untenable. Besides the use of force, internally and externally, the state is obligated to instantiate and safeguard the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property and moreover must provide basic services such as water and waste management, provision of utilities, maintain infrastructure, and arbitrate internal disputes. Any organization that provides those services is, in effect, a state body, or rather an incorporation of the state. The particular style of taxation is the only thing that might differentiate a "private utility". As to the implicit immorality of a state body I completely disagree. There could be no social moral framework without an initial dominance over the land and the existence of a population. It is an entirely natural process that arises to accommodate a large population of any density. The government is not the entire social framework. I would argue that the movement and production of food and goods are private activities. The reason I say this is because they draw a significant proportion of their utility from their novelty and should be subject to the whim of the market.
Joel doesn’t realise that much of the moral degradation he decries is caused by state-growth. When the state assumed care for widows, orphans, and the poor, it made the Church and local charities useless. When it decided it would educate the children and provide for the elderly, it made the family and community structures obsolete. When the state decided it would provide for single mothers, it encouraged the dissolution of the patriarchal family. The history of state growth is the gradual hollowing-out of Church, family, and community, since the social services they provided are now assumed by the centralised state power.
@@ericorwoll just because this wasn't a formal debate doesn't mean that informal debates don't exist. clearly a debate but kinda dumb one because this was a 2on1
