BlueMountains28 is a YouTube user and apparent e-stalker who posts random and often incoherent appeals to anarchists, usually in attempts to defame Ryan Faulk under the guise of “saving anarchism.” Recently, he (BM28, that is, and the “he” is an assumption) posted the following comment on my channel:
Security firms will destroy society.
view_play_list?p=9A7EFF4766AE4D25
The string of letters and numbers is the second part of a YouTube URL, pointing to this playlist. In the description, BM28 writes (enumeration mine; explanation forthcoming):
Armed militias will use coercion to fight over resources and exploit others [1]. Services that contain coercion need to be collectivized in order to prevent special interests from using force to dominate others for their own benefit, such as in protection rackets [2]. Wealthy landlords raised private armies that ripped society apart in 19th century Mexico and feudal Japan [3]. Anarchists will need to use other models that combine collectivism and voluntary participation in order to prevent this [4]. PS Private security firms may play a supporting role, such as in local neighborhood patrols or temporarily stabilizing war torn societies like Sierra Leone, but they will be a disaster if they become the dominant means of organizing armed security [5].
Before going another step into this, let’s consider the above paragraph.
[1], [2] and [5] are bald assertions — nothing more, nothing less.
[3] is what I call hand-waving, because it makes vague references under the guise of supporting an argument, but the references don’t actually support anything. Further, his choice of the phrase “ripped society apart” suggests to me a fondness of theatrics over substance.
[4] is not a solution. BM28 insists that it is but, as I am about to show, gives us no reason to accept his claim. On the contrary, counterexamples to his doomsday prediction abound, and what he proposes as a solution to the tyranny of “private militias” is actually vulnerable to the very problem he invokes. Further, BM28’s own words will demonstrate his sheer lack of concern with furthering a coherent argument. What his concern actually is, I’m not altogether certain, but it isn’t reasoned discourse or truth.
Now, with that out of the way, here is what I posted in response to BM28’s little rant:
How exactly is this a solution? Collectives are still comprised of individuals, and individuals still have volition. Decrying the evil motivations of men and positing a group of these same men as the solution is utter nonsense.
BM28 then claimed that I committed the fallacy the composition:
You are committing the fallacy of composition. Please see my channel’s comments for more details.
Why was he insistent that this discussion move to his channel? Stay tuned. Anyway, I read the following on his page:
(2) LibertyIsNotAGiven [sic], you don’t have to agree with people that provide constructive feedback. You just need to be open minded enough to recognize their issues are real.
You are committing the fallacy of composition by claiming the group is no more than the individuals that exist within it and is therefore irrelevant. That is like arguing a piece of chalk is no more than the isolated atoms that compose it and thus will always be invisible. This is a fallacy commonly made by libertarians.
That is, of course, silliness. I responded by telling BM28 that, no, there is no composition fallacy, because I did not claim individuals must act one way as individuals and only that way in every other circumstance. What I claimed was that individuals, regardless of circumstances, have volition. This is precisely what I said in my original response to his diatribe. I also pointed out that, in order for BM28 to get around this criticism, he would have to claim that a piece of chalk ceases to be comprised of atoms simply by way of becoming chalk. Reductio ad absurdum. Case closed.
Well, not exactly. You see, BM28 had his channel set up initially such that all comments must be approved before being posted. Unable to handle the agony of defeat, he never approved my response to his “fallacy” claim. Later, he turned off the approval setting, but at least two other comments of mine have mysteriously vanished from his page. Since then, he has claimed that my posts must have run afoul of YouTube’s “spam filter.” Even if that is true, it doesn’t explain why the first post was never approved in the first place, nor does it explain how BM28 knew to post this…:
Here is the definition. *In a composition fallacy, it is claimed that what is true of the parts is also true for the whole.*
I propose collectivizing the financing, public participation and implementation in order to form community level floating agencies. That would make it more difficult for specific individuals to use coercion against other individuals for their own benefit.
You don’t have to agree with my proposals but please do recognize how serious of an issue this is. Historically, wealthy landlords and powerful warlords have raised private armies that have torn apart their societies.
…on my channel, after failing to approve my comments on his. Hmm. What are you hiding from, BM28?
Hilariously, he later (and repeatedly) accused me of being “narrow” and of trying to “suppress” this profound truth of his. What a crackpot.
In any case, notice above what is the first of many BM28 attempts to spin the discussion away from what I actually said to him in favor of making it seem as though I’m refusing to even consider the “problem” he claims to have identified. Unfortunately for him, I never dismissed his “problem.” Rather, I tried without success to get him to explain how his proposal actually solves anything. Ostensibly it doesn’t, and there’s nothing to change my mind because BM28 won’t elaborate. He has a nagging habit of just saying things and believing they are true simply by way of heartfelt assertion, but reality doesn’t work like that.
Perhaps inevitably, the discussion to date has deteriorated into BM28 insulting me and making numerous desperate attempts to straw-man me as thoroughly as possible so as to bury my points in bullshit. The actual issues I raised with this individual were as follows:
- Define “private militias.” Don’t just point to some historical artifact like “Feudal Japan” or “19th Century Mexico” and call it beholden to “private militias” ad hoc. Actually define the term.
- Define “individual coercion.”
- Explain how collectivism solves the alleged problems with “private militias.” Don’t just point to some circumstance that you hope to come about once the problem is solved. Actually explain how your proposal will solve the problem.
- Define “collective decision-making” and explain how this solves the alleged problems.
- Explain how “administrative oversight” will be implemented, who the overseers will be, and who will overseer the overseers, while still maintaining some approximate compatibility with “anarchism.”
BM28 has failed on all counts except the first one. He did eventually make an attempt to define “private militias,” after much hand-waving and evasion. The definition he offered is as follows:
They are paramilitary organizations that are funded by private interests, such as wealthy landlords and drug traffickers, that act on the private interests’ behalf. They often consist of the landlords’ rural workers or a class of professional warriors. Mexico in the former and Japan’s Samurai in the latter.
On its face, that isn’t a bad definition. The problems creep in with his lame examples. For example, Mexico’s drug traffickers were kept in business by governments, and the Samurai of Japan were beholden to the nobility, who were in turn beholden to emperors and other figures of power. Furthermore, the raising of these “private” armies, to whatever extent that may have occurred, depended exclusively on collectivism. It could not have come about in any other manner. So even if one believes in the magical world of volition-less humans that exists in BM28’s mind, his proposal empirically fails by way of the very history he deigns to cite in support of it.
He hasn’t addressed this glaring hole in his “argument,” and I suspect he can’t, which explains why he has chosen instead to proceed down the path of insults and straw-men.
Caught in the downward spiral of his own epic failure, BM28 tried to rescue himself by saying:
My comments were very detailed. Open minded viewers should refer to my three comments on the next page of this board that start off with these passages.
What is a private militia?
How would collectivizing features of armed security reduce the abuse of coercion? Name some examples.Most people would be able to say *Maybe private militias have a troubled past and the solutions may not be that simple. I am not sure but it is something to look into.* LibertyIsNotGiven can’t do that because he is just too narrow. It’s sad.
I replied:
1. You defined “private militias” whilst raising concerns over “the individual use of coercion” (another nebulous concept you never defined), then you invoked a manner [of] coercion that can only be enacted on a collective scale. Can you say “self-defeating?” Because you defeat yourself at every turn.
2. You never explained how your proposal would actually stop the hypothetical problem you raised, and this is actually irrelevant since the solution is vulnerable to same problem you cited to begin with.
3. You named “19th century Mexico, Feudal Japan, Afghanistan and Columbia.” This tells us NOTHING. Refer to the definition of “detailed” again. I could just as easily assert that medieval Iceland proves “private militias” viable and able to sustain a society for centuries. By your own logic, the argument should end there and any disagreement is automatically “dismissal” or “suppression.” Shall I accept your concession now?
“LibertyIsNotGiven can’t do that because he is just too narrow.” – LibertyIsNotGiven has handed your ass to you on a platter. Your hand-waving, straw-men and insults in place of actually responding to what I’ve said say more about your motivations and character than I could ever hope to.
Due to his failure on these and other counts, his only recourse is to claim that I am “too narrow,” whatever that means.
In a true admission of ineptitude, BM28 then took three separate quotes of mine, from completely different contexts, then spliced them together and pitted them against one another as follows:
I did respond to your initial counter arguments. That is why you have to lie in the comments below.
*I never said that a militia need necessarily be propped up by its resident state….Both backed by their respective states. Already been here. Yawn…..I said they are propped up by their respective states*
I am willing to discuss these issues with people that are a lot more open minded and a lot more honest. You are full of it.
At first, I wasn’t sure what he was talking about. Then I looked back and realized what he’d done. The actual comments he is quoting from (or quote-mining) here are as follows:
So you’re confusing civil war with private militias? That’s pathetic. Also, I never said that a militia need necessarily be propped up by its resident state. Outside influences work just as well. In any case, these warlords require a rather large collective of followers to do their nefarious deeds, and your proposal, as I’ve noted repeatedly, offers no solution to this. Rather, I think your proposal would make the problem worse by offering every incentive to buck the “system.”
…and:
I never said they were “due to the state.” I said they are propped up by their respective states, and other ways maybe [vise] versa. It’s a symbiotic arrangement, but I can’t really elaborate since you’re so afraid of providing details.
…and:
Both [are] backed by their respective states. Already been here. Yawn again. I’ll give you partial credit for actually trying to name a specific entity in one of the two examples this time, however.
Ain’t BM28 a shifty little critter? What happened here is, he quote-mined part of one comment where I was discussing “private militias” in general and spliced it in with two other comments, wherein I was discussing the “examples” he provided. He dropped my context and assigned his own in order to completely misrepresent what I said. If BM28 isn’t a young-earth creationist, he should be.
So let’s be clear about this. Feudal Japan, 19th Century Mexico, et. al. were beholden to and in proverbial cahoots with various governmental entities, as I stated to BM28 several times. I never, never, never said that this must be true in all cases. Any statements of “mine” to the contrary do not exist outside of BM28’s overactive imagination.
As further evidence of his utter dishonesty, he has proudly displayed his quote-mining efforts in the description of his channel, attributing to me the butchered, snipped and sliced segments of ideas taken totally out of context. In case he takes it down, I took a screenshot:
This guy ( left a comment on my YouTube trash blog a while back, and I recently stumbled across his hilarious public flagellation of a shit-for-brains neo-con. Enjoy.