“Statists constantly accuse anarchists of being naive, or utopian, or infantile, because we so often question the value of playing the game and working within the system. But if this is supposed to be a strategy based on the empirical prospects for success — and not just on some kind of felt need to come off as properly Serious and Grown Up to the right sort of people — then let’s look at the facts, and let’s see what kind of activity actually offers proven results, and realistic hope for success in the future.” — Charles Johnson, The Rad Geek

http://www.johnjenkins.org/

It would explain quite a bit, but it’s probably a coincidence.

And frankly, you answered your own question in the last paragraph. There is a reason why education in Amerika is State-controlled. It is to suppress just the sort of knowledge you advocate.

My premises are well-developed and posted at length all over this site, and will be reposted in the future as I choose. Your challenge has been met.

Your utilitarian view of human relations would earn you a high post in the State, John. If you haven’t already, you might consider that career path.

People believe what those in power want them to believe (for the most part). Those in power benefit from high crime rates (it allows them to ask for, and receive, more power). It is thus in their interest to punish the innocent and pardon the guilty.

Actually, the state’s power could be kept in check if the public were made aware of a few simple things:

-1- Any government action which is contrary to the Constitution is ILLEGITIMATE. Statutes which are contrary to a plain-language reading of the Constitution are void. Cops who act contrary to the Constitution do so without any authority, and are thus (depending upon their actions) burglars, robbers, assailants, kidnappers, murderers, etc. (with the proviso in #2).

-2- To be legitimate, laws must be knowable. It is not legitimate for a government to significantly punish people for doing something they reasonably believed to be legal. Note that this provision applies to some extent to government personnel; if cop #1 falsifies evidence to get a warrant which is then served by cop #2, and if cop #2 has no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the warrant, cop #2′s service of the warrant does not make him a burglar. Note, however, that such “good faith” provisions may legitimately protect cops from criminal prosecution, that does not imply that searches become legitimate.

-3- The proper role of jury nullification is not so much to prevent the government from enforcing ill-advised laws, but rather to prevent the government from overstepping its legitimate bounds. For example, if the government can’t convince a jury that a search was conducted in reasonable fashion, the jury should generally refrain from construing evidence gathered therein in a manner detrimental to the person searched. If the government is prosecuting someone for a statute or law related to interstate commerce, but can’t convince a jury that a defendant’s action in a particular case materially involved interstate commerce, then it should acquit on that basis.

If more people had been taught such things, this country would be in much better shape.

2. There is no straw man. I said the same thought pattern is what guides totalitarians who force their beliefs on others. That is true, and I do find it ironic. My suggestion is not that anarchists are totalitarians, but rather that denying the possibility that one might be wrong is what leads to totalitarianism. Aside from that, how is an anarchist revolution NOT forcing your beliefs on others? Were anarchists to achieve what they want, an overthrow of the government, then many people would be harmed and certainly would not have chosen that outcome. I think you’re overlooking the natural consequences of your position.

3. As far as I know, you have never set forth your opposition to government as such (your distinction between government and state is a distinction without a difference. A smaller government is still a government) in any meaningful way that it might be refuted. Any time you want to set forth your premises, I would be glad to engage them.

4. Wasting Time. As I said, I think that arguing with true believers of all stripes is a waste of time. I think you are a true believer. I am not sure you CAN articulate all of your premises (not because you are stupid, but because most of the time we all make a great many assumptions that we become so comfortable with that we don’t even realize we hold them).

Violence is a fact of human nature that we cannot escape. The only issue is how it will be applied. I prefer a system of rules with a referee enforcing those rules. The analogy I would make is to a basketball game. Assuming that the referees call a fair game (not always a safe assumption) then the game will be more equitable than a game where people call their own fouls (anyone who has played with a guy who calls a foul every time he misses will understand), unless everyone involved is a saint (which we know is not true). In fact, even if the refs are cheating a bit, they are probably still more fair because the spectators will keep them that way.

In fact, I think this gets to the heart of what I perceive your error to be. You believe that the problem is government as such. I think the problem is incentives and, as a result, the people themselves.

Second, I believe that any statist who claims they can control the State (or prefers limits on State power) to be illogical. The State does not recognize limits and is resistant to individual preferences on how it conducts itself. However, any statist who openly admits that he desires force as the organizing principle of human relations is on firm logical ground (if not moral ground). The illogic results from the disconnect between desiring freedom but proposing force as the solution.

So, where do you stand, John? Is it so difficult to admit that you are a proponent of State force over individual freedom?

“You have in the past stated that you don’t see any reason for government to exist. That demonstrates an inability (or unwillingness) to fairly assess arguments or evidence.”

While I don’t believe this to be completely accurate, I will grant your premise. In my perfect world, there is no government. Or at the very least, there is universal political equality, so that there is government but no favoritism — a government of all. I think I have made it obvious by now that my central argument is against CENTRALIZED government, and that the practical extension of my argument is decentralization of government to its smallest possible unit. In the perfect world, this unit is the individual. In the real world, if it were the city or neighborhood or family, this would be dramatic progress toward freedom.

I acknowledge the difference between “government” and “State.” It is theoretically possible for a “government” to be under control, lawful and moral if it is founded on voluntary cooperation. What you and I live under in the USA is a “State,” not a government, where the organizing principle is force. Since the State has co-opted the government, my arguments here tend to conflate the two out of convenience. I apologize if this has led to confusion, but I thought we were all on the same page.

“Having rejected even the possibility that one might be wrong, there is no longer any point in talking.”

This certainly does not apply to me. I always hold out the hope that I am wrong. I am waiting for you to demonstrate the flaws in my logic. At the precise moment that these flaws are exposed, I will admit I am wrong. I’m sure if you read some of my posts along the way, you’d see several examples of me being enlightened by other posters here.

“I leave for other readers to examine the irony of anarchists having thoughts of totalitarians running through their heads.”

Wow, ad hominems earlier, and now strawmen. I expect better from you John. If you can’t understand how one’s logical conclusions can lead to a worldview, and how anarchists are NOT FORCING that worldview on anyone, and how totalitarians DO FORCE their worldview on everyone they can reach, and how you appear to be an apologist at best for the totalitarian system in the land in which we live, then I’m at a loss.

“Finally, this is not my space to make an argument for the existence of government. We are Radley’s guests, and we are commenting on his posts.”

Pffft. Don’t worry John, Radley will let us know if we squander too many of his 0′s and 1′s. Considering that the entire blog calls government (or the State) into question, I think all of these discussions are relevant. Clever way to try to end it though.

Your co-religionist makes my point more forcefully than I can:

Well yes, but anybody who didn’t already know that will ignore you, believing you to be off topic (if not crazy).

I don’t have to think you’re crazy to believe you are wrong, and I “didn’t already know that” because I disagree with the premise. The entire point of my comment was to sardonically demonstrate the closed-mindedness his sentence entails.

Having rejected even the possibility that one might be wrong, there is no longer any point in talking. That is the very logic that leads to the use of force to impose one’s will on others. I leave for other readers to examine the irony of anarchists having thoughts of totalitarians running through their heads.

Finally, this is not my space to make an argument for the existence of government. We are Radley’s guests, and we are commenting on his posts.

#40 Nick M.
#31 Nando
“people have a right to a speedy trial.”

I don’t think you understand that phrase. The right to a speedy trial means that the state can’t keep a person imprisoned indefinitely without a trial. It doesn’t mean that after the trial is over, a person can’t still try to prove their innocence.

You misunderstood my post. I meant the other people who would have to wait longer for their trials because the courts are tied up with appeals.

Indeed. As fast as science and technology are advancing, we can’t afford to focus too much on finality. This is especially true when it comes to the possibility of determining actual innocence. IF an innocent man is in prison and a guilty person remains free to injure others, then justice (a very subjective concept, I know) has obviously not been served. The power of the state to take an individuals freedom (or life) must be severely limited, thus I side with Osborne. Put another way, hey Alaska, if you haven’t done anything wrong, then why are you opposed to letting us have a look?

I don’t think you understand that phrase. The right to a speedy trial means that the state can’t keep a person imprisoned indefinitely without a trial. It doesn’t mean that after the trial is over, a person can’t still try to prove their innocence.

John, you’re a bright guy, no doubt. If you actually legitimately disagree in principle regarding the essence of the U.S. Constitution, this anarchist and others here are just champing at the bit to read your opinions and correct the flaws in logic.

What I suspect we would all conclude from that exercise is that while you might morally object to the codifying of force that the U.S. Constitution represents, you would argue that given human nature there simply is no other or better way to organize society.

Those of us who disagree with that opinion are trying to reduce the amount of violence in the world. My experience is that debating the details of the Constitution is akin to performing deckhand duty on the Titanic. Worse, it actually serves to increase the violence.

If a position can be demonstrated to be illogical, can it still be legitimate?

Well yes, but anybody who didn’t already know that will ignore you, believing you to be off topic (if not crazy).

Because it’s just not possible for anyone to legitimately disagree in principle.

“I believe this is wrong on two levels….”

The point is that what the agents of the state pursue is what the state pursues. The state is nothing but a group of individuals, and the actions of the state are nothing more than the sum of the actions of those individuals. What the state does is what those people do, and what those people do is not meaningfully influenced by the outsiders. Most people want the Iraq war ended for real. I suspect most people want the war on people who use some drugs ended, or partially ended. Neither of those things are happening any time soon because the agents of the state are the ones in control, not us.

It could be argued that the prosecutors really want justice, and see convictions as a vehicle towards that goal, but that same argument could apply to the people. We’ll never know what’s in the hearts of those prosecutors who convict people by any means necessary – whether they really desire justice or simply convictions to further their career is irrelevant to the innocent people they have locked in cages.

—-

“The U.S. Constitution has done as much as any other Statist fig leaf to destroy those two rights.”

Well yes, but anybody who didn’t already know that will ignore you, believing you to be off topic (if not crazy).

There should be no constitutional right to anything.

The U.S. Constitution is illegitimate. It is founded on violence.

However, there should be natural rights to all sorts of things, beginning with the right not to be threatened with violence and the right to do as one pleases as long as no direct harm to another individual is caused.

The U.S. Constitution has done as much as any other Statist fig leaf to destroy those two rights.

God this is scary stuff. Makes me wonder if I went to sleep and woke up in some alternate universe. This is certainly not the America I thought I grew up in.

Instead, I would consider the Constitution to speak to this issue only in terms of a fair and speedy trial, and it would make sense to me that that would include the ability to access evidence after the trial if it might later prove one’s innocence.

Different jurisdictions will of course make their own rules to reach (or subvert!) that end, but I would suggest something like:
1) Evidence such as DNA should be preserved until the end of the duration of the sentence if the defendant is found guilty.
2) Access to the evidence for the purpose of using new technology to establish innocence should not be denied.
3) If the defendant is proven innocent through the use of the new technology, then the government pays for the test; if not, the defendant must pay. (Imagine the financing arrangements some entrepreneurial soul might develop under this scheme!)