יום רביעי, 17 ביולי 2019

Horrifying Delusions of Yaron Brook Exposed

I wanted to believe that Ayn Rand fans are good thinkers, and that the difference in positions between us Anarchists and them, stem just from some misunderstandings due to some very strong, yet faulty arguments for a state. Such faulty but strong arguments against anarchy could for example be based on a deep sicio and geo-political observations, or maybe special concerns like how to keep the ecological/biological balance in different regions where it’s necessary to prevent the bringing of certain animals or foods.

But then I bumped into a video Yaron has posted (“Horrifying Reality of Anarchist Society Exposed - Debate”) which is an excerpt from a debate he had with a Polish anarchist. I think this was the worst debate I’ve ever watched. I think Yaron is of the worst statists out there. At least in terms of being able to come up with an argument against anarchy. It was so bad that I didn’t know if a summary and analysis is required, as Yaron’s part could be summarized in three rhetorical tools: not even an argument (something that sounds like an argument, but itsn’t), appeals to the stick, and strawman arguments.

Ok, this wasn’t even a debate, as Yaron did not present syllogistic arguments to explain how he knows what he claims he knows. If I’d ask any imbecile on the street, who didn’t finish high school, why he thinks anarchy is bad, I would get far more syllogism and logic than what Yaron has given in his “debate” with Łukasz Dominiak. Yaron’s lack of syllogism and reasoning from first principles, is a shame on anyone involved with the Ayn Rand institute, and if before I knew what I now know, I would consider these people to be a positive influence, maybe taking people from 10% to 90% politically aware, I now suspect they’re not taking people an inch forward in terms of sharp thinking.

Here are a bunch of stupid things Yaron have spewed in his debate, and I tell you, if he had presented an argument to support these statements, I’d list it here and respond to it, but he didn’t.

“Some anarcho-capitalists are pro child sex as long as it’s consentual, and some DRO’s will support that”

It’s true, some anarchists are sick in the head. In fact, there are many sick peope in the world, and if all the people in the world would become anarchists tomorrow, there would be a whole lot of sick anarchists. But they would still be a negligible minority. If they’d be scattered around the world, they wouldn’t amount to be considered a profitable market sector and no DRO would offer them protection. If they start their own DRO, it wouldn’t have enough economical power to stand against the rest of the DROs. If they all move to live in one country or city, it would be a horrible economic failure of a city and they wouldn’t last very long without support and trade with the outer world. Not to mention how easy it would be to take over that country or city.

“Anarchism will legitimize that -- Negation of individual rights”

No it won’t. Anarchism is the understanding that there’s no moral justification for a ruling class, and it has nothing to do with comparing one bad thing (ruling class) with another bad thing (child sex). Anarchism doesn’t say that a ruling class is the worst type of crime of all. Maybe before you debate against Anarchism you should inquire what it is and isn’t.

“Leads to massive injustices”

Massive? This is the most ridiculous and obvious contradiction statists are holding in their heads - If most people are for injustice, then any government by the people would be unjust as the people who make it and vote for it.

“Most anarchists are moral subjectivists, don’t believe in individual rights”

Ok, so I went ahead and posted a simple poll (“Morality is…”) on anarchist and minarchist facebook groups. In the anarchist group we had 27 votes for Objective, and 11 for Subjective. In the minarchist group we had 107 for Subjective and 50 for Objective. That is 70% of the Anarchists are Objectivists, and 68% of the Minarchists are Subjectivists.

Minarchists, 68% of them are Moral Subjectivists


Anarchists, 70% of them are Moral Objectivists

“Rational people disagree… but authority is objective…”

Either Yaron is confusing a ruling class with objective morality, or he refers to the argument raised by Jan Helfeld that “under anarchy, there would be so many laws, that it would be impossible to know if you’re breaking one or not”. I encourage you to read my answer to Jan on the matter.

“Compete with the state = Stolen concept = go to war with the state, no individual rights to use force against people for what you think what justice is”

Here Yaron suggests that the state’s law is superior to people’s morality. So, if you’re just following orders, you’re of the good guys, not the bad guys.

“There must be “CLEAR” law and definitions…”

Yes, this is an appeal to the Jan Helfeld argument about not knowing which rule to follow.

“In anarchy there’s no agency to enforce individual rights”

This again is a misrepresentation of what Anarchy is. It’s a lack of a belief in a ruling class, not a lack of collaboration and organization.

“Can’t have competition on use of force, as competition requires no use of force.”

When two restaurants compete, they do best when they focus on providing the best food and service. They still need someone to guard the area, so no one breaks in at night or robs the cash register at day. So they contract with security agencies, which compete on providing the best and most affordable security services to their clients. They don’t use force against each other, because that is an awful waste of resources, and it repels potential customers. Well, maybe if it’s a security agency run by and for pedophile - they do, but then it’s not about competing, it’s about saving children.

“Individual rights man made concept”

Didn’t you complain a moment ago about anarchists, allegedly being moral subjectivists? And now this statement? Can you make up your mind already?

“Once you understand the absolute nature of human rights you understand that a monopoly is needed in the application of”

Not an argument


“The guy with the biggest gun takes over everybody else”

Not an argument. Really. I can give dozens of examples where this doesn’t happen, for example between animals, or between different states, but another reason it won’t happen is that people have different values and needs, and thus, would choose to contract with different DROs. If the argument is that DROs would use force against each other, then I’d refer you to my answer to Jan Helfeld (linked above) on the exact same argument. In short, it’s a stupid stupid business decision to go to war with your business competitors, especially for a DRO when the customers are anarchists and don’t want and wouldn’t support a monopoly on DR services. Usually, people who make such stupid decisions don’t get to run big business to begin with.

“A minority with big enough guns”

Yaron, you’ve just described a ruling class.

“In history, minorities inflicted most harm (nazis in the beginning, communists)”

Yeah, very specific type of minorities: ruling classes, the ones you endorse and we condemn.

“In anarchy I’ll always be in mids of war between agencies (wherever I go), constant state of war”

More and more of the same claim, not backed up by an actualy argument, and contradicts every basic understanding of economy and cpompetition. A simple look at the values and needs of the market, and at the cost of war, would demolish this stupid ad baculum.

“Gangs in LA or No-go-zones with sharia law”

Yaron brings real state failures to protect, as examples to how bad anarchy could be.

"Pedophile protection organizations"

I list this twice because he brings this up twice in the debate. Because it’s not how based in first principles your argument is, it’s just about how scary it is, with what tonation and facial expression you say it, and how many times you repeat it.

“You want Anarchy, go to Somalia”

You want to not be raped? Stay in the kitchen. So much logic.

“It’s been tried many many times”

And most times, there were too few anarchists, and statists came and destroyed it. Are you saying “Anarchy is a failure, because I will destroy it!”? Again, great logic and reasoning.

So that’s it, that’s all the nonsense that I’ve picked up from Yaron on that debate, and it quite suffices for me to conclude I heard enough of him. No respect to arguments and logic, a total disrespect to our intelligence, and a complete blind faith in statism.

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה