This post by Digbydrone, Tristero, basically exhausts the entire taxonomic range of logical fallacy, although it does provide an object lesson in the proper use of the phrase, "begs the question." The observation that present conditions exist, ergo they exist doesn't even count as philosophy when you're stoned. I know whereof I speak.
Tristero doesn't appear to know what libertarianism is, having confused it with some kind of bowdlerized anarchism. Libertarians come in many varieties and differ in their beliefs about the proper scope of a constitutionally limited government, but libertarians believe in a constitutionally limited government. Libertarianism is a governing philosophy, and although it claims that the best possible mechanism for good governance is a system in which authority is strictly delimited and deliberately confined to certain, very particular uses, it is no less a theory of government than totalitarian Maoism. Even the most extreme minarchist ultimately requires a governing agency for the maintenance of property "rights." Scratch a libertarian, and you will always find a statist with a confused and naive superstition about the self-limiting nature of power.
As for debunking this Island-of-Doc-Moreau anarcho-libertarian argument-against-the-state, our friend Tristero might have stuck to an appeal to tradition, which, although a fine logical fallacy in its own right, is a lot less egregiously retarded than his weirdly metaphoric attempt to make government into an analogue of breathing. That's right: a hierarchical subset of post-agricultural, socio-cultural organization is the same as a basic biological necessity. Now, obviously people can survive without government--marooned on a desert island, or treking the wilderness, or living in neolithic isolation somewhere--at least for some modest period of time, which calls the comparison into question. Equally obviously, all terrestrial vertebrates, along with acquatic mammals and reptiles, breathe, and yet most, if not all, seem to do just fine without a bicameral legislature. I am not saying this to be snide, either. Even if we stipulate that government is necessary, inevitable, and universal, it is still not the same as breathing. Its necessity, inevitability, and universality (which, by the way, I emphatically do not stipulate) arise from totally different circumstances and conditions. Even if we stipulate that humans are so-called social animals, that our social organizations are fundamental and innate to our species, as genetically inherent in their way as the organization of a colony of eusocial insects, still it would not be the same as breathing. (And, by the way, Wislon and Hölldobler will explain to you that eusocial colony behavior is not genetically predetermined either.)
Anyway, Tristero isn't smart or serious enough to spend much more time on, but let's back up over the corpse once more before fleeing the scene.
Every society, no matter how small, has rules, ie, a government.Governments promulgate and enforce rules, yes, but rules are not synonymous with government. Plenty of organizations and social units have rules and are not governments. Oh, what's an easy example? How about fucking families? How about offices? How about consensus-based vegan food cooperatives? How about string quartets? Does the violist jail the second violinist for missing the downbeat? Again, I'm not asking just to be facetious, but to point out that a consequence cannot be used in isolation to prove a cause. The existence of rules implies government; it correlates with government; but it is not the same as government.
Tristero's two arguments are: 1.) It is impossible not to have government; 2.) If we did not have government, things would be bad. They render each other incoherent. If government is literally inevitable ("unavoidable" is his word), then a counterfactual conditional about its absence is totally meaningless. If, on the other hand, it is possible, merely undesirable, not to have government, then government is not, in fact, inevitable. Emergent properties are not fundamental conditions, even though they may appear as such.
via Montag, who emailed me the link