Originally Posted by Matt1989

1) Human beings have a right to not be aggressed against. (N.b. A right is something that must be respected regardless of the consequences of respecting it; otherwise they are just utilities. If we have a right to not be aggressed against, then we can't justify any aggression on the grounds that future violations will probably occur in the absence of such aggression, as this would be factoring in the consequences.)

This is precisely the sort of thing I mean when I talk about moral assertions which are made as if they were independent of the real world. There are, and can be, no rights of any kind which must be respected regardless of consequences. A right is a freedom (either in the sense of freedom to or freedom from) which we judge to be morally right, and for the reasons I already stated, morality can never be independent of the consequences of actions. Morality, in final analysis, IS a utility, or at least, cannot be separated from the concept of utility.

In this case, you attempt to avoid the error in your argument by substituting the word "violations," in added bold above, for the word "aggression" which actually belongs there. If human beings have a right not to be aggressed against, then an action which results in more aggression if refrained from than if engaged in is obligatory, even if that act is aggression. For example: If I know, with absolute certainty, that a certain individual is going to go on to murder a million people, and I am able to prevent this by killing that person, and there is no other way for me to prevent this, then I am obligated to kill that person.

Now in terms of individual morality that's a bad argument, but one must understand why it is: because we can never know with absolute certainty that someone will commit this crime, and also because we can never know with certainty that killing him is the only way to prevent it. It is a bad argument for these reasons, and only for these reasons. It remains the case that if we could know these things, then it would be right to kill him, because the consequences of not doing so would implicate one in all the murders that the man would commit. It can never be the case that an action that results in greater harm is the right action, regardless of its nature.

And that brings us to the state, which cannot know such things on an individual basis any better than you or I can, but CAN know them on a statistical, en masse basis. That is: by enforcing law, by threatening all citizens with punishment if the law is broken, the state cannot know on any individual basis that this threat is either necessary or sufficient to deter crime. With respect to violence, each person falls into one of three categories: the unconditionally peaceful, who will not commit violent acts regardless of the threat; the unconditionally violent, who WILL commit violent acts regardless of the threat; and the conditionally violent, who WOULD commit violent acts in the absence of the threat. The state cannot know a priori into which category you fall. But it can know that issuing the threat, and being prepared to carry it out, will reduce violence nonetheless. If you are unconditionally peaceful, the threat will not affect your behavior. If you are unconditionally violent, the threat won't affect your behavior but carrying it out (i.e., arresting, prosecuting, and punishing you) will, while also underscoring the reality of the threat and impressing the third category. If you are conditionally violent, then the threat will deter you so long as you believe in it, hence one benefit of carrying it out when violent acts are committed anyway.

2) The essence of the State is aggression.
3) The State should be abolished.

First of all I disagree with your statement numbered 2. Aggression is one characteristic of the state, but it is overstating the case to say that aggression is the state's "essence." The state's essence is governance, meaning resolution of conflicts and making and implementing collective decisions. Aggression is a necessary means to those ends. But perhaps that distinction, though valid, is not particularly meaningful in the present context.

Your statement numbered 3 still does not follow, for the reason outlined above: it can never be the case that an action which results in greater harm is the right action. Abolition of the state would result in a vast increase in aggression, and therefore an argument that the state should be abolished because it is aggressive cannot be valid.

This follows. If the State is conceptually aggressive, and aggression is not a mere feature of the State, then the need to get rid of aggression come what may commits us to getting rid of the State

There is not, and cannot be, a need to get rid of aggression "come what may." Simple proof: what "may" come is an increase in aggression. If getting rid of one aggressor results in a vast increase in aggression -- which is precisely what will occur if the state is abolished -- then it is the wrong thing to do.

A final note and then I'm going to bed. As I said above, it is never the case that what is right is what cannot be. The complete eradication of aggression is something that cannot be, at least not without radical genetic engineering of the human species beyond our present capability. Therefore, the complete eradication of aggression is not right. What we can do, however, is to so arrange our actions that aggression is kept to a minimum. That is something that can be, and on the principle that "aggression is bad and to be avoided," is right. But it cannot be done by abolishing the state.

Matt

In college I majored in Political Science. I taught Government and History for over thirty years. I do not know what this means

If consent is a necessary constituent of legitimacy, and the State is conceptually incompatible with consent, then the State is illegitimate.

One of my favorite lines from the movies is when Denzel Washington plays a lawyer in PHILADELPHIA and he fears he is getting snowed by somebody trying to use fancy words and doubletalk so he says

"explain it to me like I am a five year old".

So Matt, please do. I suspect a good part of it is a rather unique redefining of the term CONSENT in the normal libertarian tradition of coming up with whole new meanings for words you thought you knew the meaning of but have to now learn all over again.

And why is not your continuing to live here of your own free will consent by you? You can leave anytime you want to. You are not being imprisoned. you were not sentenced here. You live here of your own free will. You can leave anytime you want to leave. You give your consent every day of your life.

To be frank Matt, its just a bunch of anarcho-libertarian BS designed to make you feel good about your own hypocrisy. You live in a system of your own free will, you enjoy the benefits and advantages of the system, but you rail against it and want to destroy it. Hypocrisy. Next month we honor the Puritans who had the balls to get up and leave when they did not want to give their consent to a system they strongly objected to. Learn from their example.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

But does [anarchism] have anything useful to say?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Nope

I am getting the impression that you are not going to listen to arguments based on real world application, human nature, or history? Those of us trying to understand human behavior and perhaps suggest alternatives that might improve things will find nothing useful in your approach to philosophy? We aren't supposed to? Expecting that you have anything useful to say would be irrational and counterproductive?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

We take it as a given because it already exists. We desire to modify it to distribution that is empirically better for the vast majority of people . . . How so? If I manipulate the conditions of a reaction and so obtain a higher yield, I have obtained a better outcome. I don’t have to know the detailed mechanism of the reaction to know that the outcome is better.

In that instance, yes. But what about in future instances? If you don't know the principles behind the results you're getting, then future success cannot be relied upon. This is especially true because, in the case of economics, a "better outcome" is contested ground.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

We already implemented a flatter distribution in the decades after WW II and the results were better: stronger economic growth, faster rise in incomes and living standards.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. There are numerous explanations for the post-War boom, only one of of which is high top marginal tax rates. The economy also went into a long boom after top marginal tax cuts in the early 80s. The gains were distributed differently, but tax rates were not the sole difference between those eras. There are all sorts of distinctions that could be drawn (strength of unions, monetary discipline, oil export versus import, the regulatory environment, military spending, stability of entitlement programs, etc.).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How so? If the logic of progressivism was to protect the wealthy from being lynched, then why would the wealthy oppose it?

First off there is not one single group called "the wealthy." There's always a tension between the parts of the ruling class with a sense of responsibility and those who feel entitled to their position. Many of the wealthy have consistently favored these policies. Their numbers have declined of late, but that brings me to my second factor, the perception on the part of the ruling class of the imminence of revolt. In the 1930s that sense of imminent revolution was acute and it led to notable changes in the way the state is structured. In the past few decades, this fear of revolt has been quite low.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That was not my logic, but rather a straw man you have constructed.

Perhaps, but your argument only justified taxation of the very top end of income. To do so for anyone else would require entirely different arguments (probably about the cost of providing basic legal order, which would imply some sort of modest head tax).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I did not claim this. I claimed that great wealth has both a relative value (status) and an absolute value (power). That is, by taxing the rich the only thing you are taking from them is power, which is pretty much what you advocate, although by a different mechanism.

Right, and I think your mechanism is, and has been, likely to fail.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Where do you get this idea? Until quite recently the upper middle class were always aligned politically with the very rich. Both tended to be Republicans in the low-tax 1920’s as well as the high-tax 1950’s.

I didn't say they weren't before, just that this policy tends to reinforce a perception among the upper middle class that they are more like the wealthy than the poor. Policies intended to combat intense income inequality need to drive a wedge between these groups, not unite them. Now, a very sharply progressive income tax might do that, but it won't generate comparable revenue, so it can't be implemented without first changing what the government spends money on. Ultimately, the state's policies matter more than its funding.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The New Deal policies remained in force until after Democrats screwed the pooch in the 1970’s. The economy stopped working for ordinary people and Democrats did nothing about it.

It's important that the economy did this before the Reagan-era tax cuts. Perhaps some of those other factors I listed above were more important?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

But then since any policy change that might actually do this is automatically considered off the table, how can any improvement ever happen?

This is pretty good summation of the Unraveling policy environment in a number of areas (foreign policy in particular). That this situation is breaking loose only now is one of the reasons why I favor the later proposed dates for the start of the Crisis.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I am getting the impression that you are not going to listen to arguments based on real world application, human nature, or history? Those of us trying to understand human behavior and perhaps suggest alternatives that might improve things will find nothing useful in your approach to philosophy? We aren't supposed to? Expecting that you have anything useful to say would be irrational and counterproductive?

I think Matt is simply reacting to the use of the "real world" as a bludgeon against his arguments. This fails to realize that the "real world" as you, or HM, or anyone else perceives it, is colored by value judgments all along the way. Thus, someone can simply assert their own value judgments as if they were direct observation.

FWIW, I think Matt has made an overly strong statement about property rights (I think unintentionally) which both Mike and Brian have jumped on him for.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

In college I majored in Political Science. I taught Government and History for over thirty years. I do not know what this means

Did you never in that whole time read a work challenging the notion of democratic consent?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

And why is not your continuing to live here of your own free will consent by you? You can leave anytime you want to. You are not being imprisoned. you were not sentenced here. You live here of your own free will. You can leave anytime you want to leave. You give your consent every day of your life.

A battered wife who fails to leave her husband is nonetheless a victim of abuse. An employee in a lousy job with no better prospects is still nonetheless being treated poorly. Similarly, failure to exit a country does not wipe away the state's predations. The only reason you think an anarchist's failure to leave excuses the state is because you are less acutely aware of the state as a source of authoritarianism. To put a sharp point on it, America taxes you and constrains your behavior because deep down it loves you. It only polices you because it cares.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Next month we honor the Puritans who had the balls to get up and leave when they did not want to give their consent to a system they strongly objected to. Learn from their example.

Patri Friedman (grandson of the noted economist) has been pushing precisely that.

Still, it is important to have some sympathy for those who continue to be stuck in the cycle of victimhood -- as well as scorn for those who excuse the abusers.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is precisely the sort of thing I mean when I talk about moral assertions which are made as if they were independent of the real world. There are, and can be, no rights of any kind which must be respected regardless of consequences.

If this is the case, then there are no such things as rights. Rights are side-constraints on our actions, but if they don't have to be respected, then they aren't side-constraints.

In this case, you attempt to avoid the error in your argument by substituting the word "violations," in added bold above, for the word "aggression" which actually belongs there. If human beings have a right not to be aggressed against, then an action which results in more aggression if refrained from than if engaged in is obligatory, even if that act is aggression. For example: If I know, with absolute certainty, that a certain individual is going to go on to murder a million people, and I am able to prevent this by killing that person, and there is no other way for me to prevent this, then I am obligated to kill that person.

(Well, I'm not sure this would violate anyone's rights, but we can imagine scenarios when murdering one to save 1 million might be acceptable.)

Most conceptions of rights are really only intended to apply to realistic scenarios (though someone like Kant would disagree). They are not these strange metaphysical entities, but simply moral side-constraints on our possible actions. They are supposed to be useful to us. When you go about inflating the numbers to astronomical proportions, the case for the constraint becomes far weaker.

First of all I disagree with your statement numbered 2. Aggression is one characteristic of the state, but it is overstating the case to say that aggression is the state's "essence." The state's essence is governance, meaning resolution of conflicts and making and implementing collective decisions. Aggression is a necessary means to those ends. But perhaps that distinction, though valid, is not particularly meaningful in the present context.

My point is that governance (governance by the State) is aggression. Resolution of conflicts and implementing collective decisions are things that the State normally does, but it is not inherent to the State. A priori, the State strips us of our ability to consent or refuse its rule; I think rule by monopoly force (nonconsensual rule) is sufficient for aggression against individuals.

Your statement numbered 3 still does not follow, for the reason outlined above: it can never be the case that an action which results in greater harm is the right action. Abolition of the state would result in a vast increase in aggression, and therefore an argument that the state should be abolished because it is aggressive cannot be valid.

Your reasoning here rejects the soundness of the first premise on the way to showing that the conclusion does not follow.

Oh, it's valid alright.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I am getting the impression that you are not going to listen to arguments based on real world application, human nature, or history? Those of us trying to understand human behavior and perhaps suggest alternatives that might improve things will find nothing useful in your approach to philosophy? We aren't supposed to? Expecting that you have anything useful to say would be irrational and counterproductive?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think Matt is simply reacting to the use of the "real world" as a bludgeon against his arguments. This fails to realize that the "real world" as you, or HM, or anyone else perceives it, is colored by value judgments all along the way. Thus, someone can simply assert their own value judgments as if they were direct observation.

Bingo. If you guys are going to reject the usefulness of peculiarly anarchist discussion about the history of existing states because your own values cause you seize at the mention of anarchism, then it obviously isn't of any use to you.

FWIW, I think Matt has made an overly strong statement about property rights (I think unintentionally) which both Mike and Brian have jumped on him for.

Are we talking about my statement that the "rich are the rightful owners of the property?" The sheer amount of qualifications I've made to that statement (in that post and others) leaves me baffled as to why there is an ongoing discussion about it.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt

In college I majored in Political Science. I taught Government and History for over thirty years. I do not know what this means

One of my favorite lines from the movies is when Denzel Washington plays a lawyer in PHILADELPHIA and he fears he is getting snowed by somebody trying to use fancy words and doubletalk so he says

"explain it to me like I am a five year old".

So Matt, please do. I suspect a good part of it is a rather unique redefining of the term CONSENT in the normal libertarian tradition of coming up with whole new meanings for words you thought you knew the meaning of but have to now learn all over again.

Haymarket, a five year old is not going to understand the concept of political legitimacy in a mature enough fashion to make it a worthwhile endeavor. I thought I was pretty clear when I said, "If consent is a necessary constituent of legitimacy, and the State is conceptually incompatible with consent, then the State is illegitimate." Which concept are you having trouble with? As far as I can tell, I'm not redefining consent. I see consent as having necessary components (<-- please read this) like not being under duress, having reasonable alternatives, being able to opt-out of someone's demands (thus not making it a demand at all), etc.

And why is not your continuing to live here of your own free will consent by you? You can leave anytime you want to. You are not being imprisoned. you were not sentenced here. You live here of your own free will. You can leave anytime you want to leave. You give your consent every day of your life.

Doesn't this sound bizarre to you? An anarchist consenting to rule over their person? Maybe your definition of consent is twisted, not mine.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think Matt is simply reacting to the use of the "real world" as a bludgeon against his arguments. This fails to realize that the "real world" as you, or HM, or anyone else perceives it, is colored by value judgments all along the way. Thus, someone can simply assert their own value judgments as if they were direct observation.

Perhaps. Still, I have to at least consider taking him at his word. He asserts his philosophy is not useful. He does not seem interested in talking about the consequences of putting his philosophy into action. To me, what is the point of moral philosophy if one is not going to ask whether good or evil will follow from one's theories and actions?

He has imagined a world where if everyone shared his world view there would be peace. This is no big deal. Most everyone might imagine that if everyone in the world shared their values there would be peace. Imagination is wonderful, but does not void everyone else's imaginations. I would think there ought to be some concern about whether one can get there from here.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

FWIW, I think Matt has made an overly strong statement about property rights (I think unintentionally) which both Mike and Brian have jumped on him for.

It seems intentional to me. He doesn't seem willing to moderate or budge off of it, at any rate.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

If this is the case, then there are no such things as rights.

[Shrug.] Then perhaps there are not. I would not define "rights" in such a way that that results, but if you would, then by your definition indeed they don't exist. We cannot be obligated to respect rights that result in net harm. If that means there are no rights, then there are no rights and should not be.

To me, the concept of rights is an often-useful political conceptual tool, no more. It's a shorthand for equality, because a right is a privilege extended to everyone (or nearly everyone), while a privilege is a right restricted to a relatively small sub-category. And equality itself is a means to the end of liberty, ensuring as it does that one person cannot command the obedience of another for his own selfish purposes. If a "right" is conceived of in such a way as to curtail liberty and equality rather than enhancing it, then that is not truly a right. This happens often, and will be inevitable if we start with a list of rights that is conceived of as fixed and immutable. And this we will do, if we regard rights as an end in themselves rather than what they are, a means to an end.

Most conceptions of rights are really only intended to apply to realistic scenarios (though someone like Kant would disagree). They are not these strange metaphysical entities, but simply moral side-constraints on our possible actions. They are supposed to be useful to us. When you go about inflating the numbers to astronomical proportions, the case for the constraint becomes far weaker.

Precisely my point. But you are now approaching something closer to my own conception of rights, in that they are "only intended to apply to realistic scenarios." Yet you continue to apply them and to reason from them to conclusions that are not realistic in any way.

My point is that governance (governance by the State) is aggression. Resolution of conflicts and implementing collective decisions are things that the State normally does, but it is not inherent to the State.

It's not at all clear what you mean by "not inherent." If these are things the state normally (I would say without exception, not just "normally") does, then they ARE inherent to the state. Or do you mean that the state isn't the only entity that does these things? It IS the only thing that does them on a large scale, though. And I would say the only thing that can.

A priori, the State strips us of our ability to consent or refuse its rule; I think rule by monopoly force (nonconsensual rule) is sufficient for aggression against individuals.

But again, we run into that problem: what is right cannot be what is impossible. What is unacceptable cannot be what is unavoidable. The state is unavoidable, and abolition of the state is impossible, without vastly increasing the occurrence of aggression against individuals. This is the crux of my argument, and you have not answered it except by repetition of the above.

Oh, it's valid alright.

My apologies. You're right that it is a valid bit of reasoning. However, as it is based on a false premise, while still valid, it results in a false conclusion.

Matt
1- There are no real true anarchists in our society outside of prisons and jails. There might be some wannabe's who hypocritically obey the laws, pay their taxes, and mouth off a lot about their rights. They do a fine Pinnochio imitation singing "there are no strings on me" at the same time they enjoy the benefits of society and obey its rules and regulations. I would say the second group fall more into the teabagger category than anything else. But I agree that calling yourself an anarchist sounds much more romantic and daring.

2- You should check a good dictionary sometime for what is said about CONSENT. Sure, one meaning of it is "giving your approval".... thats one meaning. But The American College Dictionary also defines it as "acquiescense" and "compliance" .

The same dictionary defines ACQUIESCENSE as "giving tacit assent" or "a silent submission". It further states that the term in law means "such neglect to take legal proceedings in opposition to a matter implies consent thereto".

Of course, the American College Dictionary probably was not written by a libertarian or anarchist attempting to carefully craft a twisted definition for their own political purposes, but it is an accepted authority just the same.


Those two words seem to hit the nail on the head for you and others of your persuasion.

Again, you are not a prisoner here.
Again, you were not sentenced here.
Again, you can leave any time you desire.
And yet again, you continue to stay all the same and enjoy the benefits of the system and society you rail against.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

2- You should check a good dictionary sometime for what is said about CONSENT. Sure, one meaning of it is "giving your approval".... thats one meaning. But The American College Dictionary also defines it as "acquiescense" and "compliance" . . . The same dictionary defines ACQUIESCENSE as "giving tacit assent" or "a silent submission".

If you use that definition of consent in this context, then all governments are founded in consent -- even totalitarian ones. After all, don't the people of North Korea give tacit assent and comply with their government's demands? I'm pretty sure you don't intend to endorse totalitarian regimes as consensual, since that's obviously not what people normally mean when they talk about consent of the governed.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Of course, the American College Dictionary probably was not written by a libertarian or anarchist attempting to carefully craft a twisted definition for their own political purposes, but it is an accepted authority just the same.

As you can see above, sloppily picking and choosing between "official" definitions of a word will get you into trouble too.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If you use that definition of consent in this context, then all governments are founded in consent -- even totalitarian ones.

They are. Jefferson was only half right. Government derives its powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. When that consent is withdrawn, the government falls. That's true whether the government is democratic or not, although it's less messy in a democracy.

On this concept of consent having to be individual rather than collective, and each individual being able to withdraw consent: this brings up once more the question I asked Matt quite a while back, to which he answered yes. "Is there a coercive mechanism in place in your conceived society to deter people from being miscreants?" If the individual may opt out, may individually and unilaterally withdraw consent, then the answer is not yes, but no -- and so there is no effective means of maintaining public order.

This is a perfect example of something that cannot and should not be a right because it will cause unacceptable harm. "Consent," therefore, in this context, cannot be individual, and must be collective.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They are. Jefferson was only half right. Government derives its powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. When that consent is withdrawn, the government falls. That's true whether the government is democratic or not, although it's less messy in a democracy.

I agree, but that's not the argument HM is making. HM is making the standard civics textbook argument that democratic government is voluntary. I'm glad that you're willing to make the far more coherent argument that government is involuntary, yet necessary.

I will say that democracy makes a closer approach to true consent than other forms of government. But we do well to remember that it's not actually consent.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is a perfect example of something that cannot and should not be a right because it will cause unacceptable harm. "Consent," therefore, in this context, cannot be individual, and must be collective.

Two issues here. First, the strength of this argument is dependent on the truth of the statement that individual consent causes unacceptable harm. Second, collective consent doesn't make any sense though except as a practical description of when social systems change.

This is illustrated by:
Q: How much of the collective must agree for there to be consent?
A: As many as the collective decides.
Q: And how does the collective agree to that?

Collective ethics are always circular. They revert to a description of what is not what should be, which makes it not an ethic.

Returning to whether individual consent causes unacceptable harm, maybe it does. If, however, social evolution mitigates those harms as it appears to, then individual consent is the ideal to which we are evolving.

If you use that definition of consent in this context, then all governments are founded in consent -- even totalitarian ones. After all, don't the people of North Korea give tacit assent and comply with their government's demands? I'm pretty sure you don't intend to endorse totalitarian regimes as consensual, since that's obviously not what people normally mean when they talk about consent of the governed.

Kurt... there are differences and it is those differences that are important, not the least being one that most totalitarian governments often engage in prevention of those not giving their consent from leaving. The Soviets and the Berlin Wall being the most obvious example. People unhappy in North Korea cannot easily leave. One cannot simply give silent approval when they are confined behind barbed wire, high stone, and well manned machine gun nests.

The anarchist in America does not have to silently endure anything like that. They can deny the state their silent approval anytime they desire by simply exercising their rights to leave. However, it is far easier, and indeed more comfortable, to sit back and rail against the government and our society while enjoying the benefits that society and its government provide for you.

I greatly admire people like the Puritans who came here because they could no longer give their consent to the government where they lived. They were brave men and women who backed up their beliefs with their actions. They made history because they acted... not because they talked or wrote or complained. They denied the state their silent approval and participation by leaving. They are people whose actions match their proclaimed beliefs. We have a name for people who fail to do that.

Even if the previously cited definition has flaws regarding totalitarian regimes as you insist, it fits to a tee right here where those restraints are not present.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

One cannot simply give silent approval when they are confined behind barbed wire, high stone, and well manned machine gun nests.

Sure they can -- in fact, they'd better if they want to survive. And that would be consent in the sense of acquiescence or submission.

Now it is true that consent (in the sense of free agreement) is impossible in that environment. But that's specifically the definition of the word consent that you have ruled out as being irrelevant to this discussion. It's dirty pool to switch back to the first definition as soon as we're talking about North Korea.

(Also: As a historical aside, Nazi Germany did not particularly restrict emigration. In fact, they rather encouraged Jews to leave. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that Jews who stayed "consented" to what later followed.)

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

The anarchist in America does not have to silently endure anything like that.

North Korea is worse. I get that. But, "we're not as bad as those guys" does not excuse one's own sins.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Even if the previously cited definition has flaws regarding totalitarian regimes as you insist, it fits to a tee right here where those restraints are not present.

You can't have it both ways. Either legitimacy stems from agreement or from acquiescence. Pick one.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Two issues here. First, the strength of this argument is dependent on the truth of the statement that individual consent causes unacceptable harm.

True, however the truth of that statement is so intuitively obvious that the burden of proof lies on those who would claim otherwise. Except, of course, in the sense of being able to emigrate freely.

Second, collective consent doesn't make any sense though except as a practical description of when social systems change.

This is illustrated by:
Q: How much of the collective must agree for there to be consent?
A: As many as the collective decides.

True only as a matter of law. As a matter of practice, the answer is, "as much of the collective as allows for social cohesion and effective support of the state." If the state is not in the process of being overthrown, or at least of being unable to maintain order, then it has quite enough popular support.

This is something that is often misunderstood by citizens of a democracy about people who live under an authoritarian government such as China's. Everyone knows about China's democracy movement and how it's often crushed by force. What most people in the west don't grok is that the democracy movement represents only a small percentage -- the well-educated percentage -- of Chinese. Most Chinese are still peasants. What does a peasant want of government? Enough to eat, social stability, and ensurance that foreign armies won't rampage around killing people. They have that. Therefore they support the government. Therefore the government can get away with stomping on the students and intellectuals who more or less don't. China's government is not held in place by force. Like all governments, it's supported by its people. Like all governments, that doesn't mean all the people, and force is used against dissidents (in ways that we would find unacceptable here -- but the American people have different expectations of our government than the Chinese do of theirs).

Returning to whether individual consent causes unacceptable harm, maybe it does. If, however, social evolution mitigates those harms as it appears to, then individual consent is the ideal to which we are evolving.

You've said this before, but I just don't see it. As I said above, people fall into three categories with respect to violence: the unconditionally peaceful, the unconditionally violent, and the conditionally violent. I don't see how individual consent can possibly work until the latter two categories completely disappear. I suppose we could have a rule that your right of consent depended on nonviolence. But wouldn't that amount to a rule that the law should only punish violence? In which case there would still be no individual right of consent, because the only criminal laws would exist to restrain violence, and your right to disobey the law would depend on your nonviolence -- i.e., on your obedience to the law.

As long as humans have any violent tendencies, we cannot live except under an umbrella of coercive law. And I do not see our violent tendencies disappearing any time in the foreseeable future, genetic engineering excepted.

Kurt - yes indeedy i can have it both ways if that is what you are calling it. The situation and government in a democracy is far different and imposes a completely different set of laws, rules, regulations and behaviors than does a state like North Korea. The definition I quoted from the dictionary was written and published in the USA for the USA. Do you have a North Korean dictionary which we can argue about?

In point of fact, what constitutes CONSENT in North Korea is not the same as what CONSTUTES consent in the USA. Whole different ball game.


All this neglects the obvious fact which you and others do not want to speak to: you can leave anytime you want to but you don't. Instead, you remain in a system you strongly claim to object to, you pay your taxes and obey the laws despite railing against them with all kinds of theoretical BS about natural rights and how many angels can dance on the head of an anarchists pin. But in the end, you do not want to turn your back on a good deal. So you piss and moan and cry in your beer and then order another round.

Hypocrisy of the worst stripe.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Perhaps. Still, I have to at least consider taking him at his word. He asserts his philosophy is not useful.

It's enhanced my understanding of certain things. Not yours, not Mikeberts.

He does not seem interested in talking about the consequences of putting his philosophy into action. To me, what is the point of moral philosophy if one is not going to ask whether good or evil will follow from one's theories and actions?

Sure I am, and I have done some elucidation on this thread. But, apart from Brian, I can hardly figure out what you all want from me.

It seems intentional to me. He doesn't seem willing to moderate or budge off of it, at any rate.

Oh, brother.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

(snip for technical reasons - first two pps of his response -- Brian talks about rights here.)

Sure. When government decides to grant rights to its citizens, it is either imposing a side-constraint on its own actions and/or promising to guarantee to something to these people.

I would agree that rights are not ends in themselves. I just don't think they are means to utilitarian ends.

It's not at all clear what you mean by "not inherent." If these are things the state normally (I would say without exception, not just "normally") does, then they ARE inherent to the state.

By inherent, I mean true a priori.

But again, we run into that problem: what is right cannot be what is impossible. What is unacceptable cannot be what is unavoidable. The state is unavoidable, and abolition of the state is impossible, without vastly increasing the occurrence of aggression against individuals. This is the crux of my argument, and you have not answered it except by repetition of the above.

Which is why I think your objection is relevant -- it undermines the idea that we have a right to not be aggressed against. But I don't think your idea about "what will happen" is correct. Is that what you want me to address?

H.m.,

You obviously do not know what hypocrisy means; otherwise, you would stop repeating this ridiculous notion that the act of living under a government that you do not believe is legitimate is sufficient for being a hypocrite. There is nothing inconsistent about railing against the government and using the government to your advantage, because they are two different things. (It would be hypocritical to rail against using the government to your advantage and then going and and doing just that.)

You still have not shown why continuing to live under the U.S. government is tacitly consenting to their rule over your person. Do marijuana users consent to the State's rules regarding marijuana? Do anti-tax advocates consent to taxes? No, they don't, because the State doesn't ask individuals if they consent to their rules: it makes demands which you are obligated to follow. If you refuse, force will be used against you. This is not an environment of individual consent; if it were, my refusal would be honored.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I would agree that rights are not ends in themselves. I just don't think they are means to utilitarian ends.

If they are not ends in themselves, then they are means to some sort of ends. If not utilitarian ones (and I recognize that this is another technical term of philosophy and what you mean by it may not be the same thing I do), what sort of ends are rights a means toward?

By inherent, I mean true a priori.

Nothing is true a priori. The closest we can come to that, is assumptions that must be made in order to engage in some activity. For example, in order to engage in science we must assume that natural law applies in all real circumstances, that we are able to perceive it through the senses with suitable correction for error, that the best way to do this is the interaction of observation and reason known as the "scientific method," and that our knowledge can never be complete. If we don't make these assumptions we cannot do science -- but that doesn't mean they are true.

But I don't think your idea about "what will happen" is correct. Is that what you want me to address?

As it's the great hole in your anarchist philosophy, yes, you need to.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Sure I am, and I have done some elucidation on this thread. But, apart from Brian, I can hardly figure out what you all want from me.

I can't tell you what others want very well, so I'll focus on my own perspective. I think you could extrapolate to how others feel if you wanted to.

There is a values clash here. Individuals have world views, ways of looking at and understanding the world. Associated with world views are values. What things are important for an individual to succeed? World views and values are generally tightly coupled to the point that one goes with the other.

In addition to individuals, cultures also have world views and values. A culture might be a group that shares world views and values. Anarchism might be or might become one such culture. It is a way of looking at the world with associated important things which should be striven towards.

World views and cultures can be very complex. In talking about them here, they have to be simplified. The scope of the discussion has to be limited somewhat in order to remain comprehensible. This might be just a limitation on the media. We are limited to a few paragraphs. We aren't going to be writing books.

Your own world view and values seems to be focused on a philosophical perspective. There are certain key points you are pushing, which seem to be held as important. As is usual with world views and values, it is very very difficult to evaluate your own objectively or change them easily. Your core values in this discussion seem to be property rights and avoiding aggression. The state is perceived as an entity that aggressively takes property. If property and aggression reflect the most important aspects of how you perceive the world, the question of whether the state is legitimate isn't very difficult.

Not everyone shares your values and world views. Not everyone is content looking at the world in the way you do. I for one would like to be able to discuss the problem from the perspective of my own world view and values. I have been unable to engage you in such a conversation. You have ignored or rejected my attempts to look at the problem from another angle.

I am interested in animal behavior and war. I consider man to be an animal, sharing many behavior traits with other animals. I have proposed that man is a social animal who forms groups that selects leaders, makes rules and defends territory. This is, of course, an over simplification. Man does many things. He will also seek a mate and nurture his young, but that isn't directly relevant to this conversation save to the extant that a man who is part of a well led well regulated group with a well established and defended territory will be better able to nurture his young.

Rather than limiting the conversation to the philosophical perspective, I'd like to expand it to include what we know about how humans behave and how his societies function. Men compete for status. Leadership, property and territory are (among other things) reflections of how much status an individual or a group has achieved. Competition for status can take place between individuals within a community, and between communities. Competition for status and resources can get out of hand. War and criminal behavior will stand as examples. A rule forbidding aggression is one common and very basic rule that limits competition within a community. It is not sufficient. It cannot be the only rule.

Thus, my perception is that men compete for status and resources. The rules of the community must manage this competition. Anarchy does not seem to provide the necessary mechanisms to manage the competition. If there is no state and no rule of law, how is man's inherent greed, competitiveness and aggression moderated?

I fear my world view would reject any notion that man is not greedy, competitive or aggressive. History is too full of counter examples. I can also argue that well regulated competition is healthy for a community. There are reasons why competition and aggression are basic human traits. They provide an energy to human society, but it is a dangerous energy.

The modern method of managing this competition is a democratic state enforcing laws. I won't go so far as to suggest this is the only plausible solution. I definitely don't believe that the current solution is perfect, that there is no need for refinement. I'd like to hear new ideas. I'd just like them spelled out in enough detail that they can be evaluated.

Now, my interests in war and animal behavior hardly represent the only alternative to philosophy. There are lots of folks here that have interests in economics, politics, history and other fields. I suspect they would like to have their world views and values considered too. For the most part, their dislikes of anarchy are compatible to my own perspective, though they might approach the problem from entirely different starting places. Brian seems to be saying something similar to what I'd like to say, but he is coming from a philosophical vantage point. You seem more willing or able to listen to Brian.

Moral philosophy has much to say on improving the human condition. Philosophers might reasonably be given a place at the table. They should not have the only place at the table. Any claim that ethics and morality are primarily the realm of philosophy and that other fields are not relevant to improving the human condition would be absurd.

Matt - your ire is understandable. You are obviously uncomfortable facing your own hypocrisy and so you have adopted defense mechanisms so that you can justify your own actions even though they fly in the face of your stated beliefs. That does not make you bad or unique or even special. It is part of being human.