Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Nozickean argument against anarcho-capitalism

Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 2:29:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A while ago I was reading Robert Nozick's really good "Anarchy State and Utopia", and in one chapter he gives an argument that anarcho-capitalism is impossible. I want to expand upon that argument and make a moral argument against anarcho-capitalism, and anarchism in general.

First, we take as given the existence of private-defense-agencies. Someone has to provide defense to communities and persons against theft and murder from other communities, and someone has to provide justice and enforcement of justice within that community, and in a pure free market, these services would be provided by private defense agencies, for a fee of course.

Of course, what is to stop one community from hiring a private defense agency to act as an offensive force to steal from another community on the former's behalf?

It is for this reason that the utility provided by private defense agencies is a relative good, and not an absolute good. Therefore, there are increasing returns to scale to the good of private defense agencies because as more persons use one private defense agency, we'll call "X", X becomes more powerful relative to other private defense agencies, and the utility provided by X increases. This will occur until the market reaches equilibrium, which is one and only one private defense agency.

If the market equilibrium is one private defense agency, then it is inevitable that there will be one dominant private defense agency in one geographic area.

But what is the difference between a monopolistic private defense agency and a state? I submit that there is no difference.

So, we can say that states are inevitable.

We then have a powerful moral argument against anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, by virtue of it being an "ism", is a statement of how the world should be, namely that states should not exist and that all relationships, commercial or otherwise, should be voluntary. However, "should" implies "can", ie if we ought to do X, then we are able to do X.

If it is the case that we cannot have a stateless society, then it is not teh case that we should have a stateless society.

If it is not the case that we should have a stateless society, then anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy is false.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:31:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
An old argument, but a great one. It's the perennial, "But what's to stop private organizations from becoming a worse tyranny than the liberally democratic state was?"

To which there doesn't seem to be satisfactory answer beyond optimism.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:36:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This whole argument is so stupid, because it's all hypothetical pragmatism. You're just positing/assuming a bunch of initial conditions that make it easy for you to dismiss counterarguments. You get to assume stuff about how individuals behave, how anarchism would be structured, how defense would be handled, how those entities behave, how they're structured, how groups interact, what the philosophical conditions of an anarchic society would be, etc. I mean, if you just assume from the beginning "people are violent and evil, and will hire other violent and evil people to pillage and destroy the town over", then everything we do sounds bad. But, newsflash, bro--geopolitics isn't actually like playing RISK, and people aren't just like "ooga booga, u got moneyz, we subcontract our collective belligerence to a company which somehow has the resources to loot and destroy with impunity and without regard to potential costs".

Point is, the whole idea of anarchism is that society isn't planned. It doesn't have a set structure, communities aren't homogeneous and cookie-cutter, human behavior isn't automatically set to kill/rape/loot... The particular outcomes and forms of life in a world without governments aren't important. That's why division of labor exists--so we don't have to sit around and pretend like we have some utopic plan for how society ought to operate. All that we have to do is demonstrate that anarchism is preferable to statism, which requires convincing people that it's structurally superior, which involves philosophical persuasion, incentive structures, etc. Methodology is just as important, if not more so, than outcomes. So, you don't just get to fiat an anarchic world built to specifications--the question of how we get there/prepare people for statelessness is what's most important.

And your whole "people will be @ssholes to each other, and we should be scared/suspicious/ready to fight all of our shady neighbors" sure as hell isn't helping that mission. Fear of the Other is one of the main obstacles to overcoming statism. Honestly, I think in-grouping/exclusion is one of the things that leads to statism in the first place. But that means that our work is cut out for us--not that anarchism is a pipe dream.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:40:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:36:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
This whole argument is so stupid, because it's all hypothetical pragmatism. You're just positing/assuming a bunch of initial conditions that make it easy for you to dismiss counterarguments. You get to assume stuff about how individuals behave, how anarchism would be structured, how defense would be handled, how those entities behave, how they're structured, how groups interact, what the philosophical conditions of an anarchic society would be, etc. I mean, if you just assume from the beginning "people are violent and evil, and will hire other violent and evil people to pillage and destroy the town over", then everything we do sounds bad. But, newsflash, bro--geopolitics isn't actually like playing RISK, and people aren't just like "ooga booga, u got moneyz, we subcontract our collective belligerence to a company which somehow has the resources to loot and destroy with impunity and without regard to potential costs".

Point is, the whole idea of anarchism is that society isn't planned. It doesn't have a set structure, communities aren't homogeneous and cookie-cutter, human behavior isn't automatically set to kill/rape/loot... The particular outcomes and forms of life in a world without governments aren't important. That's why division of labor exists--so we don't have to sit around and pretend like we have some utopic plan for how society ought to operate. All that we have to do is demonstrate that anarchism is preferable to statism, which requires convincing people that it's structurally superior, which involves philosophical persuasion, incentive structures, etc. Methodology is just as important, if not more so, than outcomes. So, you don't just get to fiat an anarchic world built to specifications--the question of how we get there/prepare people for statelessness is what's most important.

And your whole "people will be @ssholes to each other, and we should be scared/suspicious/ready to fight all of our shady neighbors" sure as hell isn't helping that mission. Fear of the Other is one of the main obstacles to overcoming statism. Honestly, I think in-grouping/exclusion is one of the things that leads to statism in the first place. But that means that our work is cut out for us--not that anarchism is a pipe dream.

Yeah, but bro, it's not anarchism generally, it's the anarcho-capitalist subset, which does make those sorts of claims with respect to human nature, markets, etc.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

I mean, look. The main question is "are we so uncreative that we cannot imagine a politics outside the form of a state?" Or, more succinctly, "is it necessary to happy living to have a central power giving orders all the time?" Based on efficiency comparisons between centralized and decentralized power structures, I'd say no. So, you default to anarchism a priori, even if you think there's a risk of failure. Cuz, if you want risk-free politics, then you're screwed, even with states. Unless you want to assert that "failed states" aren't a thing.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:40:42 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:36:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
This whole argument is so stupid, because it's all hypothetical pragmatism. You're just positing/assuming a bunch of initial conditions that make it easy for you to dismiss counterarguments. You get to assume stuff about how individuals behave, how anarchism would be structured, how defense would be handled, how those entities behave, how they're structured, how groups interact, what the philosophical conditions of an anarchic society would be, etc. I mean, if you just assume from the beginning "people are violent and evil, and will hire other violent and evil people to pillage and destroy the town over", then everything we do sounds bad. But, newsflash, bro--geopolitics isn't actually like playing RISK, and people aren't just like "ooga booga, u got moneyz, we subcontract our collective belligerence to a company which somehow has the resources to loot and destroy with impunity and without regard to potential costs".

Point is, the whole idea of anarchism is that society isn't planned. It doesn't have a set structure, communities aren't homogeneous and cookie-cutter, human behavior isn't automatically set to kill/rape/loot... The particular outcomes and forms of life in a world without governments aren't important. That's why division of labor exists--so we don't have to sit around and pretend like we have some utopic plan for how society ought to operate. All that we have to do is demonstrate that anarchism is preferable to statism, which requires convincing people that it's structurally superior, which involves philosophical persuasion, incentive structures, etc. Methodology is just as important, if not more so, than outcomes. So, you don't just get to fiat an anarchic world built to specifications--the question of how we get there/prepare people for statelessness is what's most important.

And your whole "people will be @ssholes to each other, and we should be scared/suspicious/ready to fight all of our shady neighbors" sure as hell isn't helping that mission. Fear of the Other is one of the main obstacles to overcoming statism. Honestly, I think in-grouping/exclusion is one of the things that leads to statism in the first place. But that means that our work is cut out for us--not that anarchism is a pipe dream.

Yeah, but bro, it's not anarchism generally, it's the anarcho-capitalist subset, which does make those sorts of claims with respect to human nature, markets, etc.

"They" don't do that. Some of them do, but they're just as stupid for convoying with statists down the red herring highway. I think a lot of literature on anarchism (see: Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory) is methodologically unsound because, rather than pointing out why statists' approach is wrong, they just sit around and answer to the indefinite-yet-increasing quantity of questions/hypothetical bullsh*t without giving a second thought to the way political theory is being done. Some of the stuff is in my sig, so you can read that (so I don't have to say it an infinite number of times).
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:46:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:40:42 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:36:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
This whole argument is so stupid, because it's all hypothetical pragmatism. You're just positing/assuming a bunch of initial conditions that make it easy for you to dismiss counterarguments. You get to assume stuff about how individuals behave, how anarchism would be structured, how defense would be handled, how those entities behave, how they're structured, how groups interact, what the philosophical conditions of an anarchic society would be, etc. I mean, if you just assume from the beginning "people are violent and evil, and will hire other violent and evil people to pillage and destroy the town over", then everything we do sounds bad. But, newsflash, bro--geopolitics isn't actually like playing RISK, and people aren't just like "ooga booga, u got moneyz, we subcontract our collective belligerence to a company which somehow has the resources to loot and destroy with impunity and without regard to potential costs".

Point is, the whole idea of anarchism is that society isn't planned. It doesn't have a set structure, communities aren't homogeneous and cookie-cutter, human behavior isn't automatically set to kill/rape/loot... The particular outcomes and forms of life in a world without governments aren't important. That's why division of labor exists--so we don't have to sit around and pretend like we have some utopic plan for how society ought to operate. All that we have to do is demonstrate that anarchism is preferable to statism, which requires convincing people that it's structurally superior, which involves philosophical persuasion, incentive structures, etc. Methodology is just as important, if not more so, than outcomes. So, you don't just get to fiat an anarchic world built to specifications--the question of how we get there/prepare people for statelessness is what's most important.

And your whole "people will be @ssholes to each other, and we should be scared/suspicious/ready to fight all of our shady neighbors" sure as hell isn't helping that mission. Fear of the Other is one of the main obstacles to overcoming statism. Honestly, I think in-grouping/exclusion is one of the things that leads to statism in the first place. But that means that our work is cut out for us--not that anarchism is a pipe dream.

Yeah, but bro, it's not anarchism generally, it's the anarcho-capitalist subset, which does make those sorts of claims with respect to human nature, markets, etc.

"They" don't do that. Some of them do, but they're just as stupid for convoying with statists down the red herring highway. I think a lot of literature on anarchism (see: Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory) is methodologically unsound because, rather than pointing out why statists' approach is wrong, they just sit around and answer to the indefinite-yet-increasing quantity of questions/hypothetical bullsh*t without giving a second thought to the way political theory is being done. Some of the stuff is in my sig, so you can read that (so I don't have to say it an infinite number of times).

I think enough do that one can say anarcho-capitalists do (in a qualifiedly generalized way). Maybe there should be another term, like capitalist-anarcho, for someone whose an anarchist first, and tends to, empirically, favor capitalism - people who want anarchism, and have preferences for how that would play out, whereas anarcho-capitalists believe in anarchy because they think they're right about capitalism.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:00:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:51:41 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:46:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:40:42 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
Yeah, but bro, it's not anarchism generally, it's the anarcho-capitalist subset, which does make those sorts of claims with respect to human nature, markets, etc.

"They" don't do that. Some of them do, but they're just as stupid for convoying with statists down the red herring highway. I think a lot of literature on anarchism (see: Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory) is methodologically unsound because, rather than pointing out why statists' approach is wrong, they just sit around and answer to the indefinite-yet-increasing quantity of questions/hypothetical bullsh*t without giving a second thought to the way political theory is being done. Some of the stuff is in my sig, so you can read that (so I don't have to say it an infinite number of times).

I think enough do that one can say anarcho-capitalists do (in a qualifiedly generalized way). Maybe there should be another term, like capitalist-anarcho, for someone whose an anarchist first, and tends to, empirically, favor capitalism - people who want anarchism, and have preferences for how that would play out, whereas anarcho-capitalists believe in anarchy because they think they're right about capitalism.

Okay? My point is that, if their methodology is wrong, they're doing stateless politics a disservice. I've learned that a lot of the Mises Institute crowd is kind of this way.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:05:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:00:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:51:41 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:46:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:40:42 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
Yeah, but bro, it's not anarchism generally, it's the anarcho-capitalist subset, which does make those sorts of claims with respect to human nature, markets, etc.

"They" don't do that. Some of them do, but they're just as stupid for convoying with statists down the red herring highway. I think a lot of literature on anarchism (see: Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory) is methodologically unsound because, rather than pointing out why statists' approach is wrong, they just sit around and answer to the indefinite-yet-increasing quantity of questions/hypothetical bullsh*t without giving a second thought to the way political theory is being done. Some of the stuff is in my sig, so you can read that (so I don't have to say it an infinite number of times).

I think enough do that one can say anarcho-capitalists do (in a qualifiedly generalized way). Maybe there should be another term, like capitalist-anarcho, for someone whose an anarchist first, and tends to, empirically, favor capitalism - people who want anarchism, and have preferences for how that would play out, whereas anarcho-capitalists believe in anarchy because they think they're right about capitalism.

Okay? My point is that, if their methodology is wrong, they're doing stateless politics a disservice. I've learned that a lot of the Mises Institute crowd is kind of this way.

That's true, but doesn't diminish Nozick's critique? At best it reforms it to those he's condemning being a different kind of wrong.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:08:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:05:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:00:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:51:41 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:46:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:40:42 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
Yeah, but bro, it's not anarchism generally, it's the anarcho-capitalist subset, which does make those sorts of claims with respect to human nature, markets, etc.

"They" don't do that. Some of them do, but they're just as stupid for convoying with statists down the red herring highway. I think a lot of literature on anarchism (see: Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory) is methodologically unsound because, rather than pointing out why statists' approach is wrong, they just sit around and answer to the indefinite-yet-increasing quantity of questions/hypothetical bullsh*t without giving a second thought to the way political theory is being done. Some of the stuff is in my sig, so you can read that (so I don't have to say it an infinite number of times).

I think enough do that one can say anarcho-capitalists do (in a qualifiedly generalized way). Maybe there should be another term, like capitalist-anarcho, for someone whose an anarchist first, and tends to, empirically, favor capitalism - people who want anarchism, and have preferences for how that would play out, whereas anarcho-capitalists believe in anarchy because they think they're right about capitalism.

Okay? My point is that, if their methodology is wrong, they're doing stateless politics a disservice. I've learned that a lot of the Mises Institute crowd is kind of this way.

That's true, but doesn't diminish Nozick's critique? At best it reforms it to those he's condemning being a different kind of wrong.

I don't think Nozick's critique applies or is relevant, because his methodology sucks. Bad approach. Doing it wrong. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:10:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:08:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:05:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:00:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:51:41 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:46:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:40:42 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
Yeah, but bro, it's not anarchism generally, it's the anarcho-capitalist subset, which does make those sorts of claims with respect to human nature, markets, etc.

"They" don't do that. Some of them do, but they're just as stupid for convoying with statists down the red herring highway. I think a lot of literature on anarchism (see: Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory) is methodologically unsound because, rather than pointing out why statists' approach is wrong, they just sit around and answer to the indefinite-yet-increasing quantity of questions/hypothetical bullsh*t without giving a second thought to the way political theory is being done. Some of the stuff is in my sig, so you can read that (so I don't have to say it an infinite number of times).

I think enough do that one can say anarcho-capitalists do (in a qualifiedly generalized way). Maybe there should be another term, like capitalist-anarcho, for someone whose an anarchist first, and tends to, empirically, favor capitalism - people who want anarchism, and have preferences for how that would play out, whereas anarcho-capitalists believe in anarchy because they think they're right about capitalism.

Okay? My point is that, if their methodology is wrong, they're doing stateless politics a disservice. I've learned that a lot of the Mises Institute crowd is kind of this way.

That's true, but doesn't diminish Nozick's critique? At best it reforms it to those he's condemning being a different kind of wrong.

I don't think Nozick's critique applies or is relevant, because his methodology sucks. Bad approach. Doing it wrong. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.

But isn't he buying into the premises of those he's critiquing in order to illustrate why their wrong? He might be wrong too, but his point still stands.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:15:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:10:48 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:08:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:05:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
That's true, but doesn't diminish Nozick's critique? At best it reforms it to those he's condemning being a different kind of wrong.

I don't think Nozick's critique applies or is relevant, because his methodology sucks. Bad approach. Doing it wrong. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.

But isn't he buying into the premises of those he's critiquing in order to illustrate why their wrong? He might be wrong too, but his point still stands.

I guess it would be a feedback loop, then. I don't know where it starts, but it's basically "some anarchists argue wrongly, other people critique the argument without critiquing the methodology, anarchists respond while trapped in the same approach, ad infinitum." That's why I prefer not to indulge these kinds of "what if X, how do we do X, people are X" kinds of discourses. They poison the well against philosophical anarchism, and give rise to the fearful stereotypes of bombs, warlords, and chaos. Like I said, I had this argument with Ren and drafterman already, and you can find some of the stuff in my sig.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:18:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:15:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:10:48 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:08:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:05:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
That's true, but doesn't diminish Nozick's critique? At best it reforms it to those he's condemning being a different kind of wrong.

I don't think Nozick's critique applies or is relevant, because his methodology sucks. Bad approach. Doing it wrong. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.

But isn't he buying into the premises of those he's critiquing in order to illustrate why their wrong? He might be wrong too, but his point still stands.

I guess it would be a feedback loop, then. I don't know where it starts, but it's basically "some anarchists argue wrongly, other people critique the argument without critiquing the methodology, anarchists respond while trapped in the same approach, ad infinitum." That's why I prefer not to indulge these kinds of "what if X, how do we do X, people are X" kinds of discourses. They poison the well against philosophical anarchism, and give rise to the fearful stereotypes of bombs, warlords, and chaos. Like I said, I had this argument with Ren and drafterman already, and you can find some of the stuff in my sig.

I agree with you to the extent that what I think you're saying is important, viz. critiquing the methodology. However, I'd rather have that and Nozick's internal criticisms, if you will, as not everyone will be swayed by the methodological arguments.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:22:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean, look. These arguments eventually just become grammatical.

Problem-->Solution-->Problem w/ Solution-->S(P(S))-->P(S(P(S)))--> ad infinitum

If you let people start playing hypothetical games in which they ask "how does anarchy do X", or "what if this happened", you falsely assume the role of the central planner who has to solve everything and provide a guarantee of zero risk to avoid discursive failure. And you give advantage to the statists, because they can just invent increasingly outlandish, tangential scenarios that eventually force you to throw up your hands at how ridiculous it is. But then they cherry-pick that and say "HA, gotcha! Anarchism is infeasible because this crazy imaginary world disproves everything!" It's already happened with a few people on this site before. The most memorable was with Ore_Ele, and it had something to do with Ragnar_Rahl refusing to purchase insurance, being ultra-rich, buying off the entire social web, murdering everyone and destroying everything with giant swords or something, and basically getting off scot-free. It was really goddamn weird, but serves as a useful limit case for the derpitude of hypothetical discourses about planning unplanned societies.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:24:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:18:20 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:15:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:10:48 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:08:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:05:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
That's true, but doesn't diminish Nozick's critique? At best it reforms it to those he's condemning being a different kind of wrong.

I don't think Nozick's critique applies or is relevant, because his methodology sucks. Bad approach. Doing it wrong. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.

But isn't he buying into the premises of those he's critiquing in order to illustrate why their wrong? He might be wrong too, but his point still stands.

I guess it would be a feedback loop, then. I don't know where it starts, but it's basically "some anarchists argue wrongly, other people critique the argument without critiquing the methodology, anarchists respond while trapped in the same approach, ad infinitum." That's why I prefer not to indulge these kinds of "what if X, how do we do X, people are X" kinds of discourses. They poison the well against philosophical anarchism, and give rise to the fearful stereotypes of bombs, warlords, and chaos. Like I said, I had this argument with Ren and drafterman already, and you can find some of the stuff in my sig.

I agree with you to the extent that what I think you're saying is important, viz. critiquing the methodology. However, I'd rather have that and Nozick's internal criticisms, if you will, as not everyone will be swayed by the methodological arguments.

Trust me. In my experience, persuading them to adopt a new approach/methodology, or at least to abandon their current, useless one, has always been the most fruitful approach.