from fruitcake

What do Liberals and Wall Street Banksters BOTH have in common:

3) they believe only they should have the authority to decide this

that is absurd - what source of proof do you have for such a ridiculous statement?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

The concept of a meme is silly.

Human cultures and smaller groups compete with one another. Groups with good ideas thrive. Other groups copy success, or have trouble competing.

I can see where the language might be irritating, but the notion that groups that do well do well is more a tautology than controversial.

Of course, libertarians don't generally do particularly well.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm not a relativist. If something is right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong, in all times and in all cultures. Slavery is wrong, Misogyny is wrong. Racism is wrong. Period. At all times and all places.

I'm no relativist, either. What I am, however, is a realist.

Matt put it pretty well, back when I was still asleep. There are universal bads, sure. But I defy you to find a single element of a single universal true good path (other than "don't do bad" -- which is the sum total of anarchist philosophy). Because there isn't one.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'll start by objecting to the 'medieval' label. From a broad long term perspective, I see human values evolving from hunter gatherer to agricultural age to industrial age to perhaps information age phases. My various perspectives are many things, but medieval is not one of them.

I'm sure it seems that way to you. Most likely Philip IV would have objected to the label as well, had he understood the negative connotations it carries.

I do tend to believe that anarchism will have difficulty competing and cooperating. The system of thought doesn't recognize that man is a social animal. Some anarchists at least seem to deny that acting as part of a group is human.

Well, the 'anarchism' that you just made up right now is certainly a bizarre beast. I've never seen its sort before, or even heard of a person who proposes it as a reasonable worldview -- much less actually ascribes to it himself.

What's it called again when a person makes up a false position, attributes it to someone they are debating, and then argues with the made-up position instead of the person? I'm sure there was a name for that...

Originally Posted by Odin

Well, my thinking is that the state is not a bad thing in and of itself, it's the natural outgrowth of a complex society. What is bad is not the state itself but an authoritarian, secretive state that in unaccountable and unrestrained.

I agree. I think government needs to be transformed, not abolished. I am not clear in my own head about exactly what it would look like, but clearly the status quo is unsustainable.

Justin keeps joking about HM and "statism" being dinosaurs. Well, if that's the case (and it certainly might be), I would say that pure anarchy is a unicorn -- a cute creature with many noble qualities, but in the end, imaginary.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The fact that you think so is the major delusion under which you labor -- and, on a wider scale, symptomatic of the most serious sociopolitical problem that personkind has to face.

Conviction that There Is An Answer leads people to try to change the nature of humankind to fit the answers they fabricate.

Well, you're really blowing things out of proportion here in my opinion. All I'm saying is that the fact that some people are scumbuckets isn't something we have to throw up our hands and do nothing about, and no human society -- either pre-state or state-governed -- ever has done that. It's a fact that all human societies have done something about it, and that something has always been coercive. This is not an attempt to "change the nature of humankind." On the contrary, it's an accommodation to that nature, a recognition that people vary in their motivations, and that while some will respond to sweet reason and enlightened self-interest, others require the touch of the lash.

You, not I, are the one trying to pretend that human nature is other than it is.

It renders them -- and ultimately, the societies they form -- to be increasingly less reflective of the realities in which they swim, and thus increasingly less capable of thriving (or even, of surviving in the face of adversity).

Now this is just silly. Human societies have survived in the face of adversity, and thrived, with their coercive systems in place, since the evolution of our species. Before that, even, since H. erectus had social structures in place very similar to those of the earliest H. sapiens communities. For that matter, all social primates have community structures like that. The state is an evolution of those social structures to keep order in a large-scale community where not everyone knows everyone else. All of its features can be found in embryo in precivilized communities, although they had no states as such.

Perhaps human beings (maybe even all people) need religion. But even if that is the case, religions, too, can be more or less conducive to the thriving of society. The myth of "Answers" is, from that standpoint, an unhealthy one.

That standpoint is, however, dealing with a completely different meaning of the word "answers" than I was using. I don't mean anything big and cosmic here. I just mean use of appropriate tools for appropriate circumstances. If you're going to deal with sleazebags, you need some form of coercion. If your community is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, then you can use informal governing structures and apply coercion to the community's sleazebags without need of a state. If it's bigger than that, you have to formalize things, and the result is a state. If you don't want to have a state, but also don't want to fragment into small communities and forego all the advances of civilization, then some other means of handling society's sleazebags has to replace the ones currently employed by the state. This is not a religious nor a quasi-religious question, but an entirely practical one.

What's your answer to that question? Not Answer -- just answer, small "a."

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I am getting a sense that some here are attempting to set up libertarianism as something unique and special, that rules for judging libertarianism are somehow different from judging conservatism or fascism. I see it as just another set of ideas which might or might not bring about a culture more favorable to those who advocate it.

You seem to believe the 300 million odd people would be better off living under and with your memes. In this, you seem no different from most others that advocate continuation and extension of their political ideas.

Yes, indeed. And I have also heard the claim that conservatism is "non-ideological." I guess it depends on how one defines an "ideology," doesn't it?

Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:

1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Belief, Affection, Conviction, Faith, and Recognition -- sure, but Ideology -- NOT!! Right.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Proof (that is, in the absolute, mathematical sense) is an impossible standard in questions of sociology. What we are left with is deductions from axioms. That, I can provide (in fact, I have in bits and pieces over the last couple days):

Identity: Society consists of, and stems from the interactions of persons.
Axiom: The scope of possible actions available to personhood is unlimited.
Axiom: The scope of varying circumstances of comingling between persons is unlimited.
Identity: "Interactions" are actions while comingling.
Deduction 1: The scope of interactions of persons is unlimited.
Deduction 2: The scope of society is unlimited.

Axiom: A system corresponds to a bounded set.
Corollary: No system can correspond to an unlimited set.

Final deduction: No social system can correspond to society.

Parenthetical: The state of non-correspondence is 'discord'.
Corollary (parenthetical): All social systems are discordant with society.

I don't subscribe to your axioms, so your argument is moot as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm no relativist, either. What I am, however, is a realist.

Matt put it pretty well, back when I was still asleep. There are universal bads, sure. But I defy you to find a single element of a single universal true good path (other than "don't do bad" -- which is the sum total of anarchist philosophy). Because there isn't one.

The categorical imperative. The Golden Rule. The Great Commandment. All basically variations on "treat people as decently as you would want to be treated yourself."

If that's anarchist philosophy, that's marvelous. I'm all for it, but where's the beef?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Proof (that is, in the absolute, mathematical sense) is an impossible standard in questions of sociology. What we are left with is deductions from axioms.

Actually "deductions from axioms" IS proof in the absolute, mathematical sense. That's how mathematics operates: it poses arbitrary premises a priori and then reasons from these premises using rigorous rules. Adopt a different set of axioms, and you end up with a different mathematics.

But of course mathematics is a purely mental exercise having no necessary relevance to the real world. In the real world, deduction from axioms isn't appropriate. One still reasons, but from observations of reality, and all conclusions are subject to verification by further observation. There is no such thing in any real-world study as an "axiom," and we may question how well your own so-called axioms match observed reality.

Identity: Society consists of, and stems from the interactions of persons.

This is a definition rather than an axiom and I believe it is self-evident.

Axiom: The scope of possible actions available to personhood is unlimited.

This is observably false. The scope of possible actions available is subject to very many limits. For example, I cannot flap my arms and fly like a bird. I cannot subsist indefinitely without food or water. I cannot go alone, armed with a couple of pistols, and assault a U.S. Army base and expect to survive. The scope of possible actions may be very large, but it is neither infinite nor unlimited.

Axiom: The scope of varying circumstances of comingling between persons is unlimited.

This is also observably false, for reasons which follow from the above; in addition, for purposes of keeping social order the scope of interaction is actually more restricted than it might be for other purposes. Only two things really matter for that purposes: vectors of potential conflict, and the possible need for coordination of joint endeavors. Of those, the first is both the more important and the more limited. The list of possible conflicts between people is quite short: conflicts over property, over mates, over ideas, over personal dislikes. The list of unacceptable expressions of conflict is also short: violence, trespass, theft, fraud.

Identity: "Interactions" are actions while comingling.

Again, a definition; again, I believe this is agreeable.

Deduction 1: The scope of interactions of persons is unlimited.

As a deduction from observably false premises, this is false.

Deduction 2: The scope of society is unlimited.

Ditto.

Axiom: A system corresponds to a bounded set.

Unlike the others, this actually is an axiom, since it's referring to a mathematical system.

Corollary: No system can correspond to an unlimited set.

Agreed.

Final deduction: No social system can correspond to society.

It's unclear what you mean by "correspond to." A social system can certainly correspond to the needs of society for social order, which is NOT an unlimited set.

But I think I've taken this far enough. Since you're attributing qualities of infinity and incomprehensibility to something that is actually finite and comprehensible, it's clear the system you are promoting does not correspond to society -- at least, not to real societies.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is observably false. The scope of possible actions available is subject to very many limits. For example, I cannot flap my arms and fly like a bird. I cannot subsist indefinitely without food or water. I cannot go alone, armed with a couple of pistols, and assault a U.S. Army base and expect to survive. The scope of possible actions may be very large, but it is neither infinite nor unlimited.

Infinite doesn't mean everything... Just as the infinite set of all whole numbers is larger than the infinite set of all even numbers, so is the infinite set of all organism experience potentials greater than the infinite set of all human experience potentials. The fact that flying like a bird is not inside the set of potential human experiences doesn't prove human experience is a finite sum.

There is no natural limit to unique human experiences. We will not reach a point in the future when they have all been used up and subsequent individuals end up living lives identical to the pre-established set of existences.

Originally Posted by independent

Infinite doesn't mean everything

No, but the fact remains that the set of all possible human actions is not infinite, unless one splits essentially similar actions into minutely differing ones so as to achieve that. And even then, quantum mechanics argues that the potentials, although very large, are still not infinite.

As a practical matter, Justin's attempt at state-nullification through nihilism fails in the face of the fact that possible individual actions, for practical state-related purposes, are really quite small in number.

At best, he was arguing that no model of society can perfectly match the reality of society. That's true, but it's also true of all scientific models of anything (a perfect model is impossible), and no more indicative of practical infeasibility of government than it is of the practical infeasibility of technology.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the word Justin used was not "infinite" but "unlimited." If there are things that people can't do, then their actions are not "unlimited," even if they were infinite in number -- which they aren't.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I agree. I think government needs to be transformed, not abolished. I am not clear in my own head about exactly what it would look like, but clearly the status quo is unsustainable.

Justin keeps joking about HM and "statism" being dinosaurs. Well, if that's the case (and it certainly might be), I would say that pure anarchy is a unicorn -- a cute creature with many noble qualities, but in the end, imaginary.

I don't understand the analogy. There are examples of anarchism throughout history. What is imagined about it? Are you referring to the idea that long-term anarchism in the relatively near-future is impossible, or that things will not work as anarchists envision? Why do you think this?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, but the fact remains that the set of all possible human actions is not infinite, unless one splits essentially similar actions into minutely differing ones so as to achieve that. And even then, quantum mechanics argues that the potentials, although very large, are still not infinite.

If the set of human actions and experiences is finite, we will come to a point in time where it has all been accomplished and every individual experience has been played out multiple times by different individuals. What you're describing is a deterministic universe, something that was actually refuted by quantum mechanics.

As a practical matter, Justin's attempt at state-nullification through nihilism fails in the face of the fact that possible individual actions, for practical state-related purposes, are really quite small in number.

At best, he was arguing that no model of society can perfectly match the reality of society. That's true, but it's also true of all scientific models of anything (a perfect model is impossible), and no more indicative of practical infeasibility of government than it is of the practical infeasibility of technology.

As a practical matter, we have become the world's leader at starting wars and throwing people in jail. Our treatment of military and civilian prisoners is best compared with 3rd world military dictatorships. Our tax agents carry guns to enforce regressive payments. Monied interests with an aristocratic streak have captured the entire financial, legislative, and regulatory systems.

Defending that or attacking it with an obsession on theoretical extremes is a waste of time in either direction: but it does particularly scare me how boomers can justify these atrocities because they're afraid of unicorns taking over.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The categorical imperative. The Golden Rule. The Great Commandment. All basically variations on "treat people as decently as you would want to be treated yourself."

If that's anarchist philosophy, that's marvelous. I'm all for it, but where's the beef?

The State doesn't really give a damn about what's ethical or not -- hell, the State is unethical. Progressive and conservative philosophy often fails to recognize this perceived tendency as something that is the essence of government. (I think minarchists 'get it,' but don't take this conclusion to its logical endpoint.) I ask simply, is it okay for human beings to be ruled?

from Matt

I ask simply, is it okay for human beings to be ruled?

You have ask a question before your question can be honestly answered. Those would be "by who?"

Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Government with the consent of the governed. That is the fundamental basis of the American governmental system. No system is ever going to please 100% of the people in a nation. But most are pleased and it takes care of most of those peoples needs. And any system would have to meet that test.

Originally Posted by independent

If the set of human actions and experiences is finite, we will come to a point in time where it has all been accomplished and every individual experience has been played out multiple times by different individuals. What you're describing is a deterministic universe, something that was actually refuted by quantum mechanics.

It was my understanding that we were dealing with the range of possible actions by one individual at any one moment in time. If you want to talk about the possible actions engaged in by anyone and everyone over the whole course of future history, you will be introducing a different subject.

As a practical matter, we have become the world's leader at starting wars and throwing people in jail.

Hell, yeah. And if you want to talk about warmongering or about unjust imprisonment or about stupid laws that abet same, go ahead and you and I are more likely to agree. But that isn't all that the state -- even our state -- does.

Anarchist arguments along those lines -- "Look at all these bad things the government does/has done" -- remind me of certain religious fanatics who, because their bodily urges tempt them into lustful/selfish/otherwise undesirable behavior, want to starve/torture/mutilate/otherwise abolish the body. The state is a human construct. Like all human constructs, it is subject to abuse or misuse or wrong use. That's a problem and at times it's been a very serious one, but we can't address it by trying to abolish the state, unless we also want to abolish civilization. Because the state is the adaptation of pre-state methods of keeping order, applied to societies in which everyone doesn't know everyone else. It's a necessity of civilized life.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

The State doesn't really give a damn about what's ethical or not -- hell, the State is unethical. Progressive and conservative philosophy often fails to recognize this perceived tendency as something that is the essence of government.

The state is not always unethical, only sometimes.

I ask simply, is it okay for human beings to be ruled?

It is not only okay, but mandatory, unless they are living in isolation with no impact on one another. As long as people are living in a community, their actions must be kept within limits, and that implies that people are ruled.

I realize that you have in the past employed a different meaning of the word "ruled," one that is harsher and more pejorative. In that other sense, the answer is no -- but in the sense expressed in the above paragraph it's yes. And in a society where everyone doesn't know everyone else, rule requires a state.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It was my understanding that we were dealing with the range of possible actions by one individual at any one moment in time.

That's funny you would think that, when what I said was:

The scope of possible actions available to personhood is unlimited.
(note the bolded part in particular)

You have spent today, apparently, railing against your misreading of what I said. Given the above clarification, would you like to take another go at arguing your position?

----
(from an earlier of your posts)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What's your answer to that question? Not Answer -- just answer, small "a.

I've already given my answer to the question the time it arose for me a couple years back. In some detail, even. Shall I repeat it? Or will a link suffice?(hint: paragraph 3)

The fact that you -- among others -- consider it to be inadequate indicates that, your declaration to the contrary, you are looking for an Answer.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't subscribe to your axioms, so your argument is moot as far as I'm concerned.

Which ones in particular do you assert are false, and why?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's funny you would think that, when what I said was:

The scope of possible actions available to personhood is unlimited.
(note the bolded part in particular)

You have spent today, apparently, railing against your misreading of what I said. Given the above clarification, would you like to take another go at arguing your position?

It makes little difference. The reading I gave it was the makes-sense one, given that you were arguing from the individual to the general. In that sense, it is false. In the vaguer, more general sense you seem to be giving it above, it's still false, but it also would not serve your purpose even if true.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reading I gave it was the makes-sense one, given that you were arguing from the individual to the general.

Make-sense, if your intention is to translate my point into gibberish. I suppose that's what you mean?

In the vaguer, more general sense you seem to be giving it above, it's still false, but it also would not serve your purpose even if true.

Funny. So you deny what independant beat me to pointing out (you, with your beliefs on probability and psi??), that the alternative to unlimited possibility is determinism? Because it's really only determinism (again, hat tip for giving me the word that I think I was looking for without knowing it) that can legitimately justify any kind of worldview than the fundamentally-local...

I'd ask rather, how would you (since you're the one who seems to think it can be made to work) propose to make a system which would do anything but act against an a-deterministic reality?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Make-sense, if your intention is to translate my point into gibberish. I suppose that's what you mean?

No, to prevent it from being gibberish. It's not my fault that you write in verbal mush. Probably that's a symptom of trying to defend the indefensible.

So you deny what independant beat me to pointing out (you, with your beliefs on probability and psi??), that the alternative to unlimited possibility is determinism?

Absolutely. There is no such dichotomy. If you have a choice between two possible actions -- just TWO -- then you have a non-deterministic system. But it certainly isn't "unlimited possibility."

Only if you have literally only ONE choice of action do you have determinism. Infinite possibility is by no means required.

I'd ask rather, how would you (since you're the one who seems to think it can be made to work) propose to make a system which would do anything but act against an a-deterministic reality?

You're back to the verbal mush, Justin. I have no clue what "act against an a-deterministic reality" is supposed to mean. I can certainly tell you how a social system can control the behavior of scuzzbuckets. That's what we were talking about, after all.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Hell, yeah. And if you want to talk about warmongering or about unjust imprisonment or about stupid laws that abet same, go ahead and you and I are more likely to agree. But that isn't all that the state -- even our state -- does.

Anarchist arguments along those lines -- "Look at all these bad things the government does/has done" -- remind me of certain religious fanatics who, because their bodily urges tempt them into lustful/selfish/otherwise undesirable behavior, want to starve/torture/mutilate/otherwise abolish the body.

Think about the behavior of government cops. Think about the amount of police abuse that goes unreported. Think about the State's wars, where powerful men sit in their comfy chairs while ruining the lives of the young. The drug war. The war in Iraq. Vietnam. Think about how the government privileges certain individuals over others and creates self-perpetuating class divisions. Think about how we are spied on, kept "in line," and how peaceful activity is thwarted by the paranoia of elites. Think about how the peculiarities of the State are a manifestation of patriarchy, how it reinforces male supremacy, and guides our culture according to its rules. Etc. Etc. Etc. It's true that some states are more benign than others, but it appears that a lot of the negatives we associate with statism are built into the fabric of governance, especially in the modern world. Certainly any self-respecting liberal should oppose most, if not all of the things I listed above.

And I think one the strategic reasons for anarchists to continually point these things out is not only to show that piecemeal reform isn't enough, but to open people's eyes to the horrors of statism. The point then, isn't really to say, "Look at all the bad things the State does! Let's abolish it!" (such reasoning clearly, for those immersed in the ideology of the State, misses a key step) but to suggest that an alternative is, at the very least, worth mere consideration. And this thing called anarchism, quite frankly, hasn't been given it's due by most of these liberals, which is strange because most strains of anarchism propose more of the things that true liberals hold dear. (I know I thought it was a silly, pie-in-the-sky thing for quite some time.) Instead, they tend to make up baseless and unthoughtful caricatures about anarchism and anarchists and then attack their own creations, don't attempt to think their objections through, act dismissive, condescending, or alarmist, and so on. Which is unfair because most anarchists that I know are nice and thoughtful people, and they, and their ideas, deserve to be taken seriously.

The state is a human construct. Like all human constructs, it is subject to abuse or misuse or wrong use. That's a problem and at times it's been a very serious one, but we can't address it by trying to abolish the state, unless we also want to abolish civilization. Because the state is the adaptation of pre-state methods of keeping order, applied to societies in which everyone doesn't know everyone else. It's a necessity of civilized life.

Maybe the State is such an adaptation for the purpose of keeping order. (In many senses, I think it is, depending on what we mean by adaptation and order.) But how does it follow that a State is necessary for civilized life? Why do you preclude all other possbilities? The State won out, to be sure, but that doesn't mean it's best for humans.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

The State doesn't really give a damn about what's ethical or not -- hell, the State is unethical.

Much of how it currently functions is most certainly unethical.

Progressive and conservative philosophy often fails to recognize this perceived tendency as something that is the essence of government. (I think minarchists 'get it,' but don't take this conclusion to its logical endpoint.) I ask simply, is it okay for human beings to be ruled?

By principle, yes. The challenge, from my perspective, is finding principles which allow maximum freedom while still maintaining order.