Welcome to Keith's night. Don't try it on anyone.
This is for those who believe that libertarian anarchism is a
ridiculous. Nonsensical, utopian, pipe
dream. That's never going to be
achieved. I'm curious whether or not this
person would say that they support murder or not.
Because I mean if you're against murder, I mean, what do you
think we're going to live in a world without murder?
Well, no, you can still embrace the principle even without
knowing that all billions of people will never engage in it.
You still stayed on the principle that whether or not a
murderous world will ever be achieved you still are in
principle against acts of murder unjustly.
Taking the life of another person.
Do you support slavery? I would ask this person.
Do you support forced labor? What you think we're going to
live in a world where no one in the world ever forces anyone to
do anything against their will you're a utopian ridiculous
nonsensical person who should not be part of Bait, well, the
same thing applies for rape as well.
But we're never going to live in a world without rape.
So why be against rape? Well, the same logic applies.
We're never going to live in a world without government.
Okay, mr. Psychic, who knows what billions
of people will do hundreds of years from now.
I'm still going to stand on the ground of the non-aggression
Principle as a way of, as the only morally Justified way of
people functioning in society, the same thing applies to theft.
So how How is it that they can have all these principles there
against slavery? Murder, rape, theft assault.
But when we say, we support the non-aggression principle and
don't believe the state should be held to any separate
standards were called utopian ridiculous.
Far out, thinkers who are totally extreme and out of the
ordinary. When in reality to be an
anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not
justified and that states necessarily employee aggression.
And Therefore, that states, and the aggression, they necessarily
employ are unjustified. It's just an ethical view, just
as anti murder anti-theft anti-rape antiassault
anti-slavery. We just take these things to
their logical. Conclusion, accordingly.
Anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either aggression
is Justified or be States in particular minimal states.
Do not necessarily employee aggression.
That right one for someone says, well, there's been no working,
Anarchy, blah, blah, blah, blah. I mean, first of all, that's
that's sort of ridiculous in so far as even if there was no such
thing as Anarchy, that had ever been proven to be stable in the
past. So what?
So what I mean, how ridiculously conservative can you be and say,
well, until it's proven. I'm not going to believe it.
Until it's proven. I'm not going to believe it.
Right. I mean, that's just ridiculous.
I mean, if that was the case, we'd still be in the caves,
right? Every single Advance, whether it
is an Ethics, or a knowledge or technology, or sociology, or
whatever, any sort of Advance is, it has an untested aspect to
it? I mean, this obviously is not
somebody who's ever had any exposure to our Interaction with
Venture capitalists or all about you, put this huge value in.
Then the more unproven it is, the more value there is
potentially in it. And so, even if a, is somebody
going to say, well, you can't show me a thing that it's sort
of seventeenth-century, you can't show me a society that has
ever gotten rid of slavery. So you're getting rid of slavery
is you should never think that it's a good thing, like you
should never assume that it's a good thing.
And so that's just not, that's just not, that's not true at
all. That's that's a valid approach.
So even if there was no such thing, historically, as or in
the, in the sort of present situation as Anarchy, that was
stable and worked then. It would not be a valid
objection. However, of course there are,
you know, multi Hundred Year examples of societies that
existed without governments such as Iceland and shorter periods
of time in Pennsylvania and so on and so tons of examples of
societies that have existed without a government.
And of course, I would say that this gentleman his own life in
his own life, he exist without a government, but even more
fundamentally, there are lots of other examples about how a lack
of centralized Instead of reading instability breeds
stability. So, for instance, in the realm
of price, we all know that socialist calculation as proven
by Von mises was, is an impossible situation.
You can ever have a central planner who is ever able to
validly allocate the prices for things because without a free
market, there's no way of knowing localized requirements
and general, consumer demand for products.
Price is an enormous computer printout of need and desire.
And so the problem is socialist calculation, of course, is that
you can never get a central planner who's able to create any
kind of stability when you whenever you have Central
planning extraordinary, losses starvation's lineups, hungers
incredible instability results. And so there's an example where
government produces vast amounts of instability.
And in the free market, there is no Central Agency for setting
price, right? The only thing that sets prices
in each individual's the aggregation of each Was demand
and of course willing to willingness to actually part
with with money or two to get a particular good.
And we find that prices turn out to be.
Remarkably stable overall. And I'm talking about sort of,
in the prior to the introduction of centralized coercive control
of, and privatize control of currency.
Right? So, you know, a loaf of bread
cost about the same in 1900 as it cost in 1800, although, of
course standard of living has gone up considerably because
wages have like tripled. But, you know, there's an
example of an extraordinary amount of stability coming out
of a free mind, more or less, a free market approach to to the
question of price. And so, from that standpoint,
it's important to understand that a lack of centralized.
Coercion does breed extraordinary stability, right?
So if you remember what cell phones were like early on, you
could barely get a signal without standing with like tin
foil. Wrapped around your head
appointing your phone directly at the satellite and tracking.
As it went past, making sure there were no trees in the way
and there's been no centralized coercion saying now, all of
these cell phone companies, they have to offer.
All of these cross-marketing cross-promotional benefits so
that they each charge each other and give you service just about
anywhere in the world, whether it's cell phone service.
Nobody's given them any directive to.
But of course, your cell phone service has stabilized
enormously since this sort of staff was introduced.
So there's there's another example of how a lack of
centralized coercion breeds, an extraordinary, kind of
stability, and you could sort of go on and on about this kind of
stuff, right? I mean that there were no
agencies that regulated, the widths of railroad tracks, yet.
Every railroad manufacturer On Any Given continent always
worked with the same width, right?
There was no one that said, well, they have to be at a know
like two feet apart and it has to be regulated that way never
happened, right? But you get this extraordinary.
LT. Right.
No one says that everyone has to handle TCP IP packets in the
same way, but all isps and now networks do.
The handle them in the same way because of course the price of
deviating from a standard that everyone else accepts even in
the absence of central regulation is far too costly.
The fallacy of non anticipation consists of supposing that
everything worth doing or saying, has already been done or
said any new idea is rejected on the grounds that if it were any
good, it would already be part of current wisdom.
Proposals are rejected because they have not been anticipated.
If tobacco is really so harmful. How come people didn't Bennett
years ago. They didn't know nowadays more
people live long enough to experience the adverse.
And we now have more techniques for measuring such things.
The central Assumption of the fallacy is unwarranted.
Progress is made on several fronts, including the scientific
and the social new ideas are constantly being adopted.
And there is no justification for supposing that our ancestors
would have found them all the presumption that they did
intrudes, irrelevant material into the argument.
Why is though the sages of old probably were Were we can no
more presume in them. The totality of wisdom, then we
can assume complete stupidity if Breakfast Television is all that
good. Why is it taking so long for it
to appear? Because we didn't realize that
people wanted even more Pap with their morning milk.
It is not just products and processes which are
revolutionized by invention. The same is true of changes in
our living patterns. People didn't need these long
Christmas holiday years ago. Why should they now?
They probably did need them years ago.
They just couldn't afford them. The same fallacy would have
supported and no doubt did the continuance of child Labour in
mines and factories. The fallacy of non anticipation
is a great comfort to those who while possessing a conservative
disposition cannot actually think of any arguments against
the changes, which are put forward, mister.
Chairman, this proposal has been kicked around for more than 20
years. If there were any Merit to the
idea at all. It would have been implemented
long before. Now the beauty of this is that
your current rejection will serve as extra evidence against
it in the future. Perhaps, the reasons for path
projection were equally frivolous.
To give added effect to the fallacy.
You can enumerate. Some of the Phantom Legions who
could have taken up the idea, but did not their numbers appear
to be ranged against the idea, like yourself, even though they
might simply never have thought of it.
Are we to assume that we are cleverer than the thousands of
the very learned and competent people over the years who could
have acted on a proposal such as this but wisely refrained from
doing so. Any more than Beethoven was
cleverer than the millions who could have written his
Symphonies, but did not do. So, you will finding fallacy
extraordinarily useful in resisting Trends towards
emancipation. After all, if there were any
marriage and having women and children participate in
decisions, what did not have been discovered long ago.
The same approach will help you to stand up against independent
holidays, dining out, taking exercise.
Highs or eating courgettes. If there were any connection
between drinking eight pints of beer a day and obesity, don't
you think that countless beer drinkers would have seen it by
now? Why should they?
They can't even see that toes?