The dispute between statists and anarchists is often so fierce that few ever stop to determine where the burden of proof actually falls. How should society be set up? Should people be free? Should people be ruled? Is government necessary? How would anarchy solve societal problems?
It's easy to get bogged down with lifeboat situations and impossible hypotheticals (especially given that anarchists are eager to explain their position and spread the word), but who has the burden of proof?
What are the claims? What are the facts?
The anarchist claims that no one has the moral authority to rob, kidnap, rape, enslave, assault or murder other people. The anarchist's evidence is the fact that it's praxeologically impossible to consent to having one's own bodily integrity violated without consent. The anarchist says, "I own my body, therefore no one should violate my bodily integrity without my consent." Recognizing that all individuals own their own bodies, the anarchist acknowledges the universality of this duty of non-aggression.
The anarchist enjoys hypothesizing how things might work absent a group of individuals with a monopoly on violence but doesn't pretend to definitively know the specifics of how everything would work in their absence. The anarchist recognizes that life is too complex and has too many variables for any one person to decide how others should live absent violence. The anarchist's whole position is that people should live however they want as long as they don't harm or trespass against the property or bodies of others.
This is a reasonable enough position. What about the statist?
The statist claims that "government" exists as more than just men and women forcing people to pay them. The statist claims that these men and women govern by consent of the governed even though "the governed" are punished with violence for disobeying said governance. The statist uses the words "government", "state", "land", "people" and "society" interchangeably. The statist claims that the constitution, statutes, codes and regulations apply to everyone for no other reason than that they exist on a certain landmass. The statist claims that some men and women need to have a monopoly on violence. The statist claims that these men and women should have the moral authority to get away with theft, assault, kidnapping and murder if it's for "a good cause". The statist claims that "the lesser evil" is actually "the greater good". The statist claims that individuals have a duty to obey the men and women calling themselves government. The statist claims that this duty is immutable but that the property rights individuals have over their own bodies are not.
Unlike the anarchist who can demonstrate a praxeological proof for why it is universally immoral to violate the non-aggression principle, the statist has no evidence of their claims whatsoever. Instead of providing evidence, the statist gets emotional. Instead of providing evidence, the statist moves the goalpost. Instead of providing evidence, the statist makes accusations. Instead of providing evidence, the statist fear mongers. Instead of providing evidence, the statist ridicules, mocks and gaslights. Instead of providing evidence, the statist makes death threats.
The statist ignores the fact that "the state" is nothing but a group of men and women who force people to pay them. The statist ignores the fact that expropriation in the name of property protection is a performative contradiction. The statist ignores the fact that there can't be citizens absent reciprocal obligations of duty and protection. The statist ignores the fact that there can't be a state without citizens. The statist makes blunt assertions and defers to bullying because the statist has no evidence of his claims and isn't being logically consistent or intellectually honest.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask a statist for their evidence that the constitution applies to you and you'll see exactly what I mean. It will most likely go something like this actual conversation:
Me: "What evidence do you have that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You can leave if you don't like it."
Me: "I can leave if I don't like the fact that you have no evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You can leave if you don't like government."
Me: "How do my feelings about government have anything to do with whether or not you have evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "But you can leave."
Me: "Are you saying that I need to leave in order for you to present evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "It applies to you because you haven't left."
Me: "How so? What's the evidence?"
Statist: "You haven't left."
Me: "You already said that. How does my physical location prove that the constitution applies to me? What's the evidence? Are you saying that my physical location only exists because of the constitution?
Statist: "Wow. You're willing to openly defy the government?"
Me: "I'm just asking a question. Is it your position that feigned bewilderment and non-sequiturs are valid substitutes for evidence of your claim that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You can post online, right?"
Me: "How does my ability to post content on the Internet prove that the constitution applies to me? Isn't that just another non-sequitur?"
Statist: "You're only able to post online because the government stopped other governments from bombing you."
Me: "When did that happen, exactly? Even if that was true, how would that prove that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "It just does! Everyone knows that!"
Me: "Didn't 'everyone' know that the Earth was flat once too? If the evidence is so obvious to everyone, where and what is it?"
Statist: "Why don't you just move to Somalia?"
Me: "Is that where you keep your evidence that the constitution applies to me? If not, I'm pretty sure we already covered this."
Statist: "You can either have the government or you can sail off into the ocean."
Me: "Is that like how pirates make their prisoners walk the plank? How do false dichotomies prove that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You're clearly not interested in rational discussion."
Me: "What qualifies as a rational discussion? Making claims with no supporting evidence then deferring to a string of logical fallacies when called out on it? Is that what I would need to do in order for you to be able to present evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "We'll see how tough you are when you're in handcuffs."
Me: "Why would you need to put me in handcuffs to prove that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "I'm done. You'll get what you have coming."
Me: "Of course you are. Why provide evidence of your claims when you can just make threats?
So given that statists are essentially claiming that the men and women calling themselves government own everyone else, it can safely be said that theirs is the most extraordinary of claims requiring the greatest burden of proof. If statists reject freedom and anarchism out of fear that destruction and chaos would occur in the hypothetical absence of universal plunder, they must also reject the reality of universal plunder and "government" for the same reason.
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
But who decides the morality in a anarchist culture? You have laid out some some values by which you say an anarchist lives by, and which a statist lives by, but how it this morality decided? Further how does that culture grow without authority?
I guess my question is what are the guiding forces of anarchy that separate it from chaos?
As for burden of proof, this is the ultimate question of the clashing of any two or more cultures. You are describing an area where anarchy and statism are incompatible. Statism draw some lines to create rules in order to work as a system and anarchy as you describe it has much more personal barriers. At this place where the compatibility crumbles the burden of proof defaults to something more primal, and this is the violence that you speak of, who has the power to enforce their own truth?
It's clear that you don't like this position, it seems unfair and immoral. What is the solution?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"At this place where the compatibility crumbles the burden of proof defaults to something more primal, and this is the violence that you speak of, who has the power to enforce their own truth?"
Presenting violence as though it were evidence is argumentum ad baculum, which is literally a logical fallacy. How does what I like have anything to do with anything? In what way does initiating violence against people and forcing people to pay you create an order that voluntary association and exchange doesn't?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
this is all written on my phone and my autocorrect seems to be all fucked so sorry for all the typos
Im sorry, i was just trying to have a discussion to help you articulate your ideas in broader ways. I dont have a particular stance on the issue when it really comes down to it, so lets make that clear.
Your article is written in the voice of absolute truth, which at moments also finds itself in the land of hypocracy(as you describe statisms, they also lie in absolutism). All i was trying to do is point at the larger problems here, and see if your position has a solution.
All i got from the post is "Statism is immoral as it forces me into rules i dont necesarily want to follow through violence"
You claim that it is immoral and then define what you believe to be moral.
Ok so you have highlighted a morality system which you feel is superior to majority culture. How does this play out in the real world? As you describe it ends in violence. How do we create a scenareo which you get the culture that you want that doesnt end in violence?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Where exactly did I say that consensual exchange ends in violence? I was asking you how consensual exchange ends in violence. I don't see where violence logically follows from consent.
"Superior to the majority culture"
What does that even mean, exactly? Is it your claim that violence is moral if the majority say so? Wouldn't the holocaust have been moral by the standard you put forth.
Again, how do my feelings have anything to do with anything? How could there be more than one "morality system"? Under what circumstances would rape, slavery or genocide be moral of morality is subjective?
To claim that you aren't taking a stance while simultaneously putting forth a series of claims in support of your position strikes me as dishonest, as do the baked in premises in your questions. Begging the question is yet another logical fallacy.
Burden of proof is still on statists. Anarchists don't have to prove why anarchy is superior to statism (or why consent is superior to violating consent) but statists do have to prove that the state exists, that it has authority and that people have a moral obligation to obey men and women who call themselves government.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My argument is that there are other forces in the world than right and wrong, and when people can't agree on what right and wrong means, those other forces are what rule.
Do you eat meat? Have you ever killed a plant? what about that bacteria you wash down the drain when you brush your teeth? What gives you the right to do any of these things, and is it ok? Are you going to tell the dolphins that gang rape one of their own for weeks that they are wrong (it's a thing)? What about ducks and roosters where every act of sex could be seen as rape?
This may seem extreme, and beside the point but yes, there is more than one morality system on this planet and in this universe, and yes its subjective.
I think there is [subjective!] value in what you are posting about, you've outlined some really solid critiques but as it is presented, because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread).
The burden of proof argument becomes completely null unless it's acknowledged by both parties, as i'd still argue that the two groups are working from different sets of morality. You seem to argue that it doesn't matter cause the described morality "praxeologicaly absolutely the truth" and statists are violating it. As far as the described morality, the burden of proof is on you, cause i say that is absolutely an assumption.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Morality doesn't have anything to do with dolphins or plants because dolphins and plants aren't moral agents. You've moved the goalpost so far at this point that I don't think we're even in the same solar system anymore (no pun intended). Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to rape, murder, or enslave people? Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to violate the bodily integrity of others? If they are just going to use violence either way, it's not even a debate. It's your claim that the burden of proof is on the rape victim to demonstrate why they shouldn't be raped? Because I don't know about you, if someone tries to violate my bodily integrity, I'm going to give them more than a few harsh words.
If you've arrived at a moral conclusion that condones rape, you've made a mistake in your reasoning and need to start over.
"Because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread)."
What problem? I don't see a problem here. Given that we aren't talking about dolphins or plants, under what circumstances would it be okay for you as a moral agent or any other moral agent to rape or enslave someone? Do you have an answer to this that doesn't involve moving goalposts?
If humans are the same as dolphins and plants and bacteria then why are you having this conversation with me instead of having it with a dolphin, a plant or a bacteria? As much as I appreciate the discussion, your demonstrated preference betrays your claims. I'm not sure whether you're dishonest or confused but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
dude i'm not saying i think it's ok to rape, i'm pointing out that your absolute rights are fuzzier than you claim them to be. You can draw the line at humanity if you like, but if you spend any time with that definition you will find that it isn't any less messy.
My point and the "morality problem" i'm talking about is that you have to understand people and groups have different perspectives and they can be absolutely stubborn. You and I are proving that in every exchange so far. Sorry bud, i'm right, I think. So are you, you think.
I'm saying the burden of proof argument isn't good enough, it changes nothing, contributes nothing to changing culture. It's rooted in dogma that you can't recognize because it's your own. All it says is "you know what, we are right, not them!"
Maybe your point is to preach to the choir, but if you ever want to reach others who maybe don't entirely agree with you, you need to expand your argument.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No one decides morality. Morality is praxeologically discovered through the realization that it's impossible to consent to a violation of your own consent. Truth isn't subjective. No one has "their own truth" because there is only the truth. Any deviations from the truth are falsehoods by definition. By defining truth as subjective, you strip all meaning from the word.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Redefining terms and conflating ideas. Things that statist are quite fond of. You almost always have to stop and have an entirely different discussion about defining terms before you can proceed with your original topic, lol.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Damn i didn't know anarchists were so into absolutes. That is kinda the nature of language isn't it? It has to be redefined so we can be on the same page and have a conversation. I'm not a statist, if anything i'm an existential-nihilist (which would be why i'm so caught up on this notion of truth).
The word truth can be subjective. Base 10 4+4=8 truth. Base 4 4+4=20 truth.
Now in our culture if some one comes up and says 4+4=20, they will be laughed at and corrected. Maybe that person came from a culture that does regular math in base 4 though. They aren't any more wrong than you are, but the burden of proof is on them isn't it?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Changing the counting system from base 10 to base 4 only changes the symbols used; not the quantity. You can't change the territory by changing the map. Is your claim that absolutes are falsehoods? Because that would be an absolute, which by your standard would be a falsehood. Do you know what "performative contradictions" means? Because you just engaged in one by using an implied absolute to criticize absolutes. If there's no such thing as absolute truth then you've effectively rendered all language meaningless which means there's no point in even having a discussion with you
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great stuff, I'll check out the podcast!
Here's an actual conversation I had:
Me: If slavery is forcibly taking 100% of a person's earnings, at what percentage is it not slavery?
Statist: But without taxes, who would build the roads?!?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The burden of proof - in the case of action against another person - would certainly lie with the one claiming the right to act. If an individual is minding his or her own business, harming nobody and not depriving anyone of their property, and another person comes along demanding action from them, taking action against them, or attempting to take their property, then surely they must provide the justification for it. A simple thought exercise would go like this:
Person 1: "Give me your spear."
Person 2: "Why?"
Person 1: "Because you need to give it to me."
Person 2: "Why?"
If ownership of the spear is established, then the reason why Person 1 wants or needs Person 2's spear would need to be explained if the object is to persuade Person 2 into giving up the spear. The same applies in this scenario:
Person 1: "Give me your spear or I will hurt you and take it."
Person 2: "Why do you have a right to hurt me and take my spear if I don't want you to have it?"
The burden of proof hasn't changed. Person 2 doesn't need to explain why Person 1 should not hurt him and take what does not belong to Person 1.
For a statist to argue that the state has a right to make demands, to force people to act, and to prevent people from acting, they must provide the proof for how the state actually acquired this power. The burden has always been on them and yet, they have so far been unable to provide any proof other than some sort of special pleading fallacy, usually in the form of an implied/coerced "contract" that would otherwise be laughed at in the real world in personal and business relationships.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If it's not special pleading then it's argumentum ad baculum; you're absolutely right. How could there be a contract if there's no capacity to not agree to the contract without it resulting in violence being used against you? Would they say that there's a contract between a mugger and his victim? How about between a rapist and his victim? Doubtfully. Excellent points man
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Any type of system that a statist advocates that involves some form of "democracy" or "representation" rather than outright violence (might makes right), is a system that at some point must have been voted on unanimously by its members. In order to have a democratic election, you must first have agreement on the democratic process itself. The regression never holds to any actual unanimous consensual agreements.
So, basically, there is no proof of any consent to be governed if you as an individual have not consented to it. There's simply no getting around that fact...except to effectively say, "Comply or die," or "Love it or leave it" if you're allowing them to escape. Both are equally morally repugnant and logically inept arguments.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As always, the burden of proof is on the actor asserting a claim. In the case of statists, it's entirely on them to prove that they can do any of the things they claim the authority to do, and as you've so eloquently pointed out in numerous posts, they have no evidence that they have the authority to do this sans pointing a gun at you and threatening violence.
Also, I'm never going to get tired of your "conversations with a statist" pieces. They're amusing, and I've had at least part of them many times lol
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well said. The statist doesn't know the answer and you are pissing him off. Deflection woks wonders.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've come to the conclusion that there is no answer because there is no evidence, but I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong. That being said, I've still never received said evidence - not from tax agents, not from senators, not from anyone.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"The statist ignores the fact that expropriation in the name of property protection is a performative contradiction."
I am so stealing that. Excellent piece, Jared.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent work, my friend. I very much enjoy your argument placing the burden of proof for jurisdiction upon the state; I may even have opportunity to try it out, what with my home state of New Jersey threatening to make it illegal to drive and drink...coffee.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But without government... Who will protect you from driving while caffeinated by threatening you with theft and murder?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yup, I think you covered it all. Anarchist don't force their will onto other individuals while statist do. Good ideas don't require force.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's looking more and more like the war will be won, one dank meme at a time. Rewiring the minds of the masses to think critically and reform their thought process from one adept at the requisite logical acrobatics of statism, into one grown capable of intellectual honesty and congruent logic, should be an integral part of this movement, and ostensibly may be readily accomplished using sound-bites and memes as seeds.
Tiny morsels of thought that command attention and contemplation, given a presupposed conclusion, should ultimately spark an inception-level mass awakening, bearing the fruits of freedom by the bushel.
Great article. I admire your dedication, and ability to patiently articulate the irrefutable truths that illustrate the unimpeachable first-principles of Voluntaryism. In an age where good ideas can be spread with love just as fast as bad ideas are spread with force, it's great to see what is good being given such a clear and charismatic voice.
Keep up the good work, brother.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I appreciate the vote of confidence James. Thanks for the kind words man
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But how else are you going to give people freedom if they don't want it?
Also, who will build the roads?!?!?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Another challenging task in discussion with statists is getting them to explain how they collectively can delegate to others rights they themselves never had.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
By challenging, you must mean impossible. ;-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In the immediate moment of debate yes...the best hope is that some seed of logic and rational thought lodges in the folds of their inconsistencies and irrational beliefs only to germinate when they least expect it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The state has no burden of proof at all, but only violence. If not for the police and military, nobody would pay taxes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Totally. You are spot on. And we think so much alike, I'm starting to follow you! :D
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Love your conversation with the Statist.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit