About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was wondering if there was a name for a logical fallacy where someone tries to validate a proposition by defining a term in a way that is indistinguishable from what they are trying to argue against?

For example I'm having a discussion with an anarchist where I asked him to please define anarchy. He merely stated it was polycentric law. I asked him what he means more precisely and he said it just means multiple laws from multiple sources. But I pointed out the United States legal code has multiple laws from multiple sources and that his definition of anarchy is indistinguishable from U.S. law. But he is saying the U.S. is not a form of anarchy.

Any thoughts? From the non-anarchists please. This is Q&A not dissent.

Post 1

Monday, April 14, 2008 - 4:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John A.,

My guess is that "polycentric law" means an absence of geographical monopolies by governments. Each person decides what laws apply to him/her, which is the set of laws one's "defense agency" upholds. One can come under a different set of laws simply by subscribing to a different "defense agency."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law

Under governments what laws apply to you is determined by where you live or travel. You can change the set of laws that apply to you mainly only by moving to a geographical area ruled by a different government.

If you think the person is vague now, press him/her on non-trivial dispute resolution and enforcement (murder, gangs, and so on).


Post 2

Monday, April 14, 2008 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is just a basic fallacy of definition. Your buddy's definition is to broad. It includes more than he intends.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/define_index.htm .


Jordan

Post 3

Monday, April 14, 2008 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The anarchist definition is not a definition. It is too broad. If polycentric law is the essence of anarchism there can be no anarchism - you might as well use decentralization. The question for the anarchist is: what are the essential referents that require a definition for anarchism?

Two words can mean the same thing, yet the point of having two separate words is to make a distinction allowing for subtle differences. I might be wrong on this point.

Post 4

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the responses. I believe as Jordan says it's just a fallacy of the definition or more specifically an over-broad definition. What he means by polycentric law though I care not to guess and I demanded he express himself clearly and with a definition that is distinguishable from what we normally consider jurisprudence to mean. So far he is unable to provide a definition without citing examples like "Icelandic law" and "private arbitration", neither of which is a definition and neither of those examples are commonly considered to mean anarchy.

Post 5

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 4:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do you want to help your buddy with his definition -- because I think there're legit definitions of "anarchism" -- or would you rather have him struggle through it unaided?

Jordan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, April 25, 2008 - 2:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John:   

     I'd say that the REAL prob is that your buddy doesn't have a clue about what it means to 'define' anything. --- Ask him what he means if he asks others to 'define' something; odds are, he doesn't ask this, ergo...it's just an ambigous and unclear word to him merely used to replace other ambigous ones. Better yet: ask him to define 'human.'

     If he has no clue, 'arguing' logically might be pointless.

LLAP
J:D


Post 7

Monday, April 28, 2008 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It appears that he isn't defining anarchy by its essential characteristic, the lack of a claimed and generally enforced monopoly on the use of retalitory force (in short, a state).  Of course, Rand wrote that states and gangs would inevitably and quickly reappear, making anarchism a floating abstraction.  I disagree, but this isn't Dissent.

Polycentric law is usually used to mean that the law is not territorially based.  It does not nessecarily imply anarchism.  I think that the term is often used by utilitarian anarcho-capitalists, a la David Friedman, however.  That could be where he got it.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.