When individuals argue, all participants learn. In fact, I believe that discussion-ism is a better way of learning. Discoursing is my avocation and also my top priority. I am a professor based in Mumbai and I apply “socratic method” in my vocational life. It has helped me to smoothen deductive-reasoning skills and develop an academic culture of “critical consciousness“. This step has professionally invited a disorganized cybernetics/feedback, but nevertheless I am enjoying.
In this article, I have applied “platonic method” to explore statists’ “bounded rationalism“. I have posted original screenshots of my WhatsApp discussion with one of my favorite student, here. He is intending to join politics, in future. He follows socialism, without understanding the economics of it. But, however, in the end, we cherish our differences together. I wasn’t stunned reviewing his argumentation skills, because even before him I have faced such “ad nauseam” argumentation on facebook. He is “better” than all statists that I have encountered till date, because he stays “curious”. Curiosity is the best teacher, I think. He looks forward to learn, question and “think”, without breaking the flow. That is impressive, according to me. Otherwise, many statists are also ultracrepidarianists. Statists’ coherent skills are dependent upon emotions, straw man argumentation and ad hominem, nonetheless. To explain them “what is liberty?” is like explaining a pigeon the game of chess. No offence. I was a hardcore “marxist”, in my past, and today I am an anarchist. I read economics, debated politics and questioned sociology, and transformed my ideology from authoritarianism to liberty.
To begin with, in the following picture, he attempts to define “civil society” in his own way.
The definition is contradictory, though. In my opinion, when there is suppression of liberty and oppression of voluntaryism, a civil society isn’t free. No matter how strongly the demagogues and euphemism are applied, but it doesn’t “alter” the axiomatic fact. The truth is the existence of civil society is dependent upon catallactic order, whereas he supports collective force i.e. imposed order.
Coming to his next sentence on “criminal aggressors”, I believe that he believes that “taxation is for greater good“. In my opinion, taxation is legal robbery. In my previous article on analogy between tax and rape, I have justified that taxation is an illiberal process. Rather than asking me “but, without government, who’ll build the roads?“, why stop yourself from learning the theories of anarchism?
“Forcing people to be generous isn’t humanitarian, effective, compassionate or moral. Only acts that are truly voluntary for all concerned can be truly compassionate.” – Harry Browne
Before telling me that “anarchism is an utopian idea”, how about refuting me by factually proving that statism isn’t a horrendous idea? In the last few sentences, he fears the rule of mobocracy. Good. Isn’t democracy a rule of the mobs? My previous article “the hooey of democracy at work” is worth reading and has caused “cognitive dissonance” to many statists in the past. Overall, his debating skill here is inured with argumentum ad baculum.
This is the next shot in which he comes down to Argumentum ad Somalium.
Somalia is an international victim of anachronism than anarchism. Since ‘Operation Restore Hope’, Somalia stands as an anomaly. One must read Robert Murphy’s article on “Anarchy in Somalia“, before falling for any other media propaganda. I gibe that Somalis don’t understand anarchism, but does it justify that you have a moral authority to judge their relativism? Other than Somalia, there are few more successful examples of anarchic communities in 21st century. Rojava is latest. Just because media, government and professors don’t tell you about it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. You know, in the age of misinformation, ignorance is still a choice. Well, I can bet that statists have lot to learn before concluding their own so-called “political science”.
Coming to his text i.e. “We own the society”, I have not received any reply on how “abstractive” society can be metaphysically owned. Other than that, he is yet to understand how government acts as a leviathan agent. I tried stopping myself, then. Government is force, pure and simple. There’s no way to sugar-coat that. And because government is force, it will attract the worst elements of society – people who want to use government to avoid having to earn their living and to avoid having to persuade others to accept their ideas voluntarily. Now, does it make sense?
His next point on “subsidies” was horrendous too. Well, the communitarians may say you’ve been enjoying too much individual freedom, and that you must give up some of that for the benefit of the community. But they really mean that they want more power over your life – to force you to subsidize, obey and conform to their choices.
Last but not least, haters gonna hate. Statists gonna state.