Argument #1:
P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) The tax funded welfare system is an initiation of force.
C1) Therefore, the tax funded welfare system is inherently illegitimate.
Argument #2:
P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Obstructing the freedom of movement is an initiation of force.
P3) Enforcing national borders is the obstruction of the freedom of movement.
C1) Therefore, enforcing national borders is inherently illegitimate.
Conclusion:
If Arguments #1 and #2 are true, then we are justified in dismantling the tax funded Welfare System, and the abolishment of national borders.
The Two Wrongs Make A Right Fallacy
Speaker A: Enforcing national borders is inherently illegitimate, because it obstructs the freedom of movement through the initiation of force.
Stefan Molyneux: Immigrants benefit from the tax funded Welfare System, which is an initiation of force too!
If Stefan believes in the maxim "the initiation of force is illegitimate," then his unstated premise is that the initiation of force is justified, as long as the other party is a potential benefactor from an initiation of force.
Let's attempt to work with this unstated premise:
P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is a potential benefactor from an initiation of force.
P2) The tax funded welfare system is an initiation of force.
P3) Kabib wants to enter the United States with the intent of subsisting on the tax funded Welfare System.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against Kabib is justified.
We could also do things like:
P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is a potential benefactor from an initiation of force.
P2) John robbed a bank so he can buy his grandmother a new dish washer.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against John's grandmother is justified.
A caveat in the above case may be factors such as John's grandmother's knowledge and willingness to accept benefit from her grandson's theft, but as applied to Stefan Molyneux's argument for the enforcement of national borders, these factors are not considered, unless national border enforcement as proposed by Stefan analogously discriminates based on intent to benefit from the tax funded welfare state, on an individual-by-individual basis rather then statistical generalizations.
We can also do this variation:
P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is statistically likely to initiate force, vote for the initiation force, or benefit from the initiation of force.
P2) Hispanic people are statistically more likely to commit crime, vote for tax funded welfare, and benefit from those welfare programs.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against Hispanics is justified.
Slavery Is Wrong
The argument to end slavery was predicated on consistent Ethical Principles. There were people who argued against abolition on utilitarian and practical grounds, but these consequentialist arguments failed to overwhelm the Ethical Principle which said that enslaving another human being was inherently illegitimate, regardless of the potential negative consequences of freeing slaves.
An argument against abolition could be devised using Stefan's premise:
P1) The initiation of force is justified when the other party is statistically likely to initiate force, vote for the initiation force, or benefit from the initiation of force.
P2) Freed slaves will commit more crime, vote left, and use the tax funded Welfare System disproportionately.
C1) Therefore, the initiation of force against slaves is justified.
In fact, mass imprisonment, deportation, even genocide against certain ethnic groups could theoretically be justified by using Stefan's premises and reasoning in an argument. A Reductio Ad Absurdum argument can therefore easily be used to refute the validity of Stefan's premise.
Towards A Consistent Ethics
Just as the abolishment of slavery was necessary on the grounds that the enslavement of another human is inherently illegitimate, regardless of potential negative practical consequences, so too is the abolishment of national borders and the tax funded welfare state necessary, regardless of potential negative consequences.
Just as Anarcho-Communists seek to achieve a Stateless Utopia by first establishing a Totalitarian Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Stefan Molyneux seeks to achieve Anarcho-Capitalism by first using the violent coercive power of the state to initiate force against people who could potentially initiate force or benefit from the initiation of force in the future. It is probable, therefore, that both strategies will have a similar result.
For consistent results, the better solution is to consistently adhere to Ethical Principles:
Argument #1:
P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Slavery is the initiation of force.
C1) Therefore, slavery is inherently illegitimate.
Argument #2:
P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Robbing a bank is an initiation of force.
C1) Robbing banks is inherently illegitimate.
Argument #3:
P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) The tax funded welfare system is an initiation of force.
C1) Therefore, the tax funded welfare system is inherently illegitimate.
Argument #4:
P1) The initiation of force is inherently illegitimate.
P2) Obstructing the freedom of movement is an initiation of force.
P3) Enforcing national borders is the obstruction of the freedom of movement.
C1) Therefore, enforcing national borders is inherently illegitimate.
If Arguments #1, #2, #3, and #4 are true, then we are justified in abolishing slavery, theft, taxation, and national borders. If the initiation of force is justified when the other party is a potential beneficiary from an initiation of force, then slavery, theft, taxation, and national borders all become justifiable, as do more extreme initiations of force such as ethnic cleansing, mass deportation, mass imprisonment, and even genocides. It is therefore best to adhere to Ethic Principles rather then admit deviations based on potential practical and consequentialist concerns that may or may not come to fruition, and which are typically based on the human desire for control, rooted in the human propensity for fear.
The Victim Mentality
The greatest trick of any State whose power is rooted in a monopoly on violence and coercion, is to convince it's subjects that the enemy is elsewhere, and thus to legitimize it's existence. The human propensity for fear, is coupled with the human propensity to turn to violence out of fear. When we convince ourselves that we are the victim, we justify our fears and our recourse to violence becomes rational.
The real enemy is that we have placed at the center of society a gun, resulting in frantic and panicked competition for who gets to wield it, and whose reason for wielding it is the most justified.
Instead of legitimizing and protecting the tax funded welfare system and the nation-state by demonizing other cultures and ethnicities, rousing up fears, conjuring up dire negative consequences, we must be brave enough to stand firmly upon our principles and not waver from them until we can walk the entire Earth in freedom. Until we have freed the entire Earth from tyranny. Until all are free to exchange, cooperate, and move about without fear of institutionalized coercion and violence.
The cartels and territorial gangs that masquerade as Nation-State governments "of the people, and for the people" must be replaced by truly voluntary, non-coercive Governance-Service-Providers. The use of violence and State coercion to erect walls around the existent territorial tax farms only serves to work against the ultimate goal of all who love liberty: We are fighting for a free planet, not a free country.
- KG
Photo by Lina Trochez on Unsplash
Argument 2, Pt 2
If you have private property, then to varying degrees limiting access / freedom of movement is you right, and defending that is self defense.
Now, whether a govern-cement "owns" that property is up for debate.
Its like a city, the city owns downtown, definitely. The city owns the suburbs, pretty much, the city owns the rural sections, maybe. And so, any laws the city has are in effect in those areas. And so, limiting access / freedom of movement is well within their rights.
So, you will have to work out group private property rights, and then work out from there.
Its easy to say that in the middle of N. Dakota there are places man hasn't even been, so someone claiming that has their property is bullocks. But, this is one extreme, and dense cities are the other. Where do you draw the line?
Correct, the particulars are around private vs communal property. It is possible for a group of people to draw up a contract to collectively own a patch of land and limit access voluntarily. In such cases it would be trespassing to enter their property uninvited or against their will.
However, I don't agree that a Nation-State can decide for 3 million people via a majority vote not to let people cross borders. Individuals have property rights, groups can voluntarily own property, but a government shouldn't get to collectively own a territory and decide for everyone who lives within it's boundaries who it is going to let in and who it isn't.
So for me, national borders comes down to a question of should governments have collective ownership of a territory or not. My answer obviously is no. This leaves no borders except the border around every individual's rights to life, liberty, and property, including groups of individuals who want to draw up an actual physical contract to collectively own property such as patches of land.
Thanks for the reply, and share and resteem this post if you can!
Interesting times. This IS a MASS AWAKENING.
Your arguments are well and clearly stated. However, you're ignoring the issue of strategy that Stefan repeatedly referenced in his debate with Adam Kokesh. Your arguments will be useless in a nation that becomes beholden to votes dependent upon big government and you can't simply wish away that government. You need to win over a majority of the voting base in regards to private property rights and small government before you can address the issue of enforcing a national border. Europe stands as an example. As applied to the issue of initiation of force, a national border i.e. the U.S. border with Mexico is self-defense against those who would vote to have the U.S. government initiate force on their behalf.
I respect your opinion, and I would never dream of supporting violence against you because of your opinion. Do you afford me the same respect? Do I have the freedom to disagree with you? (because I do, for various reasons) But, do you afford me the respect to withhold my economic consent, so I can use my hard earned money to pursue the means of protecting my own property rights the way I think is best, without you imposing your will on me? Can I disagree with you on strategy without a gun to my head forcing me to pay for your strategy?
What do these borders surround anyway? A geographical area over which the US government has a monopoly on the use of violence? A tax farm that sucks the vitality out of it's human livestock? You want to protect that? You want to build a wall around that? And you want to participate in the same system that puts a gun to your head and takes money out of your wallet to pay for a welfare state and all the things you disagree with? You think that's the tool that's going to solve the problem? Come on man.
Immigrants are going to come over and violate or property rights and vote for the government to force us to pay for things we don't want, so your idea is to vote for the government to force other people to pay for things they don't want and violate their property rights? What kind of logic is that?
I would never dream of supporting violence against you for your opinion, but please allow me the same respect. If you want national borders enforced, write a check. $20 billion a year is the upkeep of national borders. Or get together with a group of like-minded people to buy up land and enforce borders around your own property, but please, please don't support violence against me if I don't want a bill for it too. Please don't support me getting thrown in jail if I don't write a check for it too. Please allow me the dignity and the freedom to pursue what I think is right, and just, and virtuous, and protect my own property in the way I see fit. Please allow me the freedom to disagree.
Playing the victim undercuts the quality of your argument. If you have a magic wand that will abolish the welfare state, please wave it. I'll be eternally grateful. If you don't have such a wand, as I suspect you don't, please do me the courtesy of refraining from the implication that I am putting a gun to your head when I am in fact attempting to dispel the mob that's yelling to have the trigger pulled.
In no way have I affected or plan to usurp your ability to disagree with me. Jumping to that sort of woe is me rhetoric is cheap and unbecoming of someone who would defend their individual rights. You barely addressed the merits of my counter-argument and, even so, smothered your own counter in poor conflation and passive-aggressive detritus.
Unless you plan to go to war, which you seem to rightly abhor, you'll have to argue and vote the Welfare State away and until that comes to pass you'll need a border to prevent foreign ideologies from conquering your own. You will not be able to do that in any successful manner if the membership of your ideology is outnumbered and thereby outvoted. Pulling the victim card is the same bull shit that's used to import votes that would have you jailed or killed for your views on government. It's shameful that you would stoop to such a tactic when you clearly have the ability to form an effective argument. It would seem, however, you lack the balls to fight for your ideology and such a lacking characteristic is what's allowed the government to grow to its current state of power. In your words: Come on man! Can't you see that living in your fantasy is what's enabled the government to perpetrate its violence to the degree that it has? You can't simply wish the problem away. You have to MAKE it go away. You have to DO something to manifest the intention and meaning behind your argument.
My argument will remain, until compelling evidence to the contrary is provided, that compelling the financial interests that the U.S. government is beholden to in a direction that will lead away from the initiation of force and to personal property rights is the most effective way to manifest the intentions you espouse. If you don't pay taxes, the government can jail you. Is that morally wrong? Yes. However, morality will not stop you from being jailed. Taxation must be dealt with at the source and you can only do that through voting or war. As I detest war, I choose to vote.
Instead of wallowing in your victimization, perhaps you could take your talents which are clear enough in your writing and work towards convincing people to dismantle the welfare state so that your ideal existence can actually exist to a sustainable degree. Doesn't that sound more productive than being a passive aggressive little bitch?
For the record: My appreciation for your article is unaltered. I enjoyed disagreeing with you. Keep it up! Just don't play the victim
I disagree with the logic that we need to violate people's property rights in order to protect people's property rights. I disagree with the tax farm, and I disagree with the violence inherent in the nation-state. I therefore do not wish to protect it by compelling everyone within it to pay for the enforcement of borders around it.
It is much harder to get rid of statist solutions to social problems, then it is to add a new statist solution to social problems, even if those social problems are themselves caused by previous statist solutions.
I think we both agree on this fact. The difference is, you use it argue that our only viable solution to our current social problem is another statist solution, whereas I use it to argue that another statist solution only perpetuates the increase of statism as it too will be more difficult to get rid of once in place.
If I am against the existence of a geographical area which gives a group of people a monopoly on violence and gives it's tax livestock the ability to vote for different ways to use it's violence monopoly to fund various programs, then it follows that I am not going to support another statist program, and especially not one designed to build a wall around the tax farm I don't think should exist.
My stance entails the end of Nation-States, which is unimaginable to most, but it is the only ethical path forward, and so I think it is inevitable. I think we get there only be refusing to participate in the current violence based system. I don't think we can use the violence based system to solve the problems it is causing.
I, therefore, would like to ask you to please afford me the respect of not being forced to pay for your government program. I would like the freedom to spend my money on ways of protecting my property and rights that I find to be right, true, just, and virtuous.
Please do not support violence against me if I don't want to fund your opinion. That's all I'm asking.
This is top notch. Thank you.
Thanks for reading, share and resteem if you can!
We all deserve our freedom. Thanks for this piece.
Amazing post, good job and good luck.
Thanks, share and resteem if you can!
Ok, you're welcome.
This is revitalizing
Wow, what an awesome elaboration! Well done.
Thank you! Please share and retweet if you can! Trying to get as many eyes on it as possible.
Just resteemed. You also earned a new follower, as I love reading from people who use sound logic!
Thanks man!
interesting post cukub
I completely agree on abolishing all the things here but the problem comes when one of them is not abolished
The initiation of force proposed by stephan (close the borders) looks to me more like a preventive self-defense
If it is legal to initiate force to the people that are close to you it needs to be legal to keep people away from you too
The ideal case is to have no borders and no welfare but having both looks more sustainable than only one
Amen brother. Until the welfare state has been removed, unfettered immigration will increase the property violations inflicted by the state.
Closing the borders is self defense.
>Rejection of First Element due to pre-existing standards that you likely personally agree with, and have not thought about or considered, due to their relative unimportance in your life or moral code.P1) The initiation of force is legitimate.
P2)Thus slavery, murder, enforcement of borders, controlled breeding, imprisonment without crime, and the nullification of a being's will is legitimate.
C1) Thus, farming, a concept which encompasses all of these aspects, is legitimate. It is ok to initiate force on animals if you want to, or think that it is useful. Any excuse can be utilized.
C2) Humans are animals.
Stefan Molyneux IS a COMPLETE LOSER. I am going to make a video and DESTROY him for his use of ad hominem attacks as evidence and all his other shitty verbal bullshittery tactics. You see the truth stands on its on two feet as you well know by now. The poor bastard is delusional.. Everything you wrote is 100% OBVIOUS (not being mean , a braindead zombie might click with part of it and then wake up so it is worthwhile work) to SOMEONE WHO IS AWAKE. Stephen is either PAID Gov't fuck bag or closed minded ego maniac. The earth is flat, or at least NOT a ball. Watch Eric Dubay history of Flat Earth and test your self if you can allow yourself to view the EVIDENCE with an OPEN MIND. I am resteeming because I agree 100% with EVERY SINGLE WORD! PEACE!!! I'll be back to push some more TRUTH!!! Dave Hicks
I resteemed and upvoted your post and after consideration, I am spamming you with someone who needs somelight shined on his blog and work and ethics and passion. His name is Glen, if you want me too remove this link please just reply to me to let me know and I will take down immediately. I just know glen from youtube, and I do not think he has been doing so great financially since speaking the truth. THANKS and I hope I did not offend you. PEACE
https://steemit.com/@sovereigntyintl