Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

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.

Haymarket, there's plenty of things that the US government does with which I strongly disagree, yet I pay my taxes and don't advocate for the overthrow of the state. Am I not a hypocrite by your definition?

There's all sorts of crap that goes down in this society, whether it's government-induced or just ordinary individuals being jerks. Should I just check out because I can't get my own way?

I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

Why do I keep flashing on "A Clockwork Orange" when I read this?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

...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.... World views and cultures can be very complex. ...Not everyone shares your values and world views....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. ...

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....The modern method of managing this competition is a democratic state enforcing laws. ...

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 or other fields. ...Moral philosophy has much to say on improving the human condition. ... 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.

Bob-Well done.
Congratulations on an outstanding description of the problems that we seem to have in establishing a dialog on controversial issues. Even when we do not agree, we still need to find a way to communicate.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

You have described some key elements of science. In addition to saying they are assumptions or true a priori, you might say they are core values of many scientists. For someone whose life is centered on the scientific world view, the perspective you described might be deep down unquestionable without likelihood that these points might be examined or challenged. It is very very hard for individuals to step outside of their core values. The lack of communication here is a reflection of this.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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

I'll definitely second this.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

On another thread, Justin seems to be advocating that criminal corporate fatcats be whupped by their victims. I would interpret that as encouraging or at the very least allowing acts of aggression to be perpetrated on people who would not be permitted to defend themselves.

In my view, that isn't justice, it's petty vengeance. Individuals can come up with some pretty creepy things to do to each other. Whether "Bubba" whups you or the prison guard does it, it still hurts either way.

Originally Posted by radind

Bob-Well done.
Congratulations on an outstanding description of the problems that we seem to have in establishing a dialog on controversial issues. Even when we do not agree, we still need to find a way to communicate.

Appreciated. I'll add that I liked your condensed version of the post. Your succinct version might well be stronger than the original.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

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.

Might be too succinct.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Why do I keep flashing on "A Clockwork Orange" when I read this?

Perhaps some truths about human nature are best expressed artistically? ™

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

On another thread, Justin seems to be advocating that criminal corporate fatcats be whupped by their victims. I would interpret that as encouraging or at the very least allowing acts of aggression to be perpetrated on people who would not be permitted to defend themselves.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm in favor of having each one of their victims be able to deal out some reasonable (let each victim judge for himself; though a line should be drawn somewhere prior to maiming, I think) degree of physical punishment.
I highly doubt that any of the victims would choose to do what you so blithely advocate having someone else do on their behalf.

In my view, that isn't justice, it's petty vengeance. Individuals can come up with some pretty creepy things to do to each other. Whether "Bubba" whups you or the prison guard does it, it still hurts either way.

I believe man is competitive, that he seeks territory, property, leadership, and other forms of status. This competitiveness can be beneficial in providing an energy to a society, but there have to be mechanisms that limit the competition. There must be a balance between the selfish interests of the individual and the common good.

Justin's proposal.... seems to combine 'might makes right' with a limit on the amount of violence that might be used. (No maiming.) It might be one way that the common people might check the greed of the elites. However, the elites are apt to try for a monopoly on the use of force. That is what they do. Thus, I am dubious about the approach.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

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.

Dude, lol.

I don't deny that I've been hypocritical at times, and that I will be hypocritical in the future. But the suggestion that anarchists need to either be in prison or out of the country so we aren't hypocrites is so obviously false that I can't help but laugh.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

On another thread, Justin seems to be advocating that criminal corporate fatcats be whupped by their victims. I would interpret that as encouraging or at the very least allowing acts of aggression to be perpetrated on people who would not be permitted to defend themselves.

I'm not sure how retaliation and aggression get themselves conflated in peoples' minds. As I see it, thieves owe some sort of restitution to their victims (that is, not only should they put back what they stole, but they need to in some way make their victims whole for the wrong of having stolen it in the first place). And it similarly seems quite reasonable to conclude that the only person capable of determining what would be necessary to make a victim whole would be that victim.

So really, why wouldn't the path most correspondent-to-justice be the one in which the individual victims determined and imposed the sentence themselves? I offer it being subject to some level of societal norms (the 'no maiming' clause being an arbitrary example). That's just what it would be, after all, since the victims are going to be remaining parts of their society after whatever they do -- they can't (and likely won't, people being social creatures and all) mete out punishment which would be abhorrent without themselves becoming pariahs.

It beats the hell out of people -- not even victims, at that, but just plain bystanders -- getting to feel like their hands are clean while they go around advocating punitive rape, since they're not the ones actually doing the deed.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm not sure how retaliation and aggression get themselves conflated in peoples' minds.

The way that works is that most people, not being libertarians or anarchists, are not familiar with the self-serving redefinition of "aggression" that exempts retaliatory aggression from that category. There is a difference between retaliation and self-defense. If someone throws a punch at me, and I block the punch and hit back, that's self-defense. If someone throws a punch at me and, later in the day, I shoot his dog, that's retaliation. Both acts are violence but one is in immediate response to an attack and aimed at preventing harm to me, while the other is an after-the-fact attempt to do harm to someone because he has done harm to me. Self-defense arguably is not aggression. Retaliation, however, is.

There is another thread devoted to the purpose of the penal system. You might want to go there and argue that retaliation is a valid purpose. In this thread I will simply note that this idea is neither self-evident nor uncontested.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm not sure how retaliation and aggression get themselves conflated in peoples' minds. As I see it, thieves owe some sort of restitution to their victims (that is, not only should they put back what they stole, but they need to in some way make their victims whole for the wrong of having stolen it in the first place). And it similarly seems quite reasonable to conclude that the only person capable of determining what would be necessary to make a victim whole would be that victim.

Uh, no. Like, what if they demanded sexual favors from the crook? Like I said, some people are pretty creepy when they want their particular brand of "justice" dispensed.

"Making the victim whole" is kind of a subjective thing, doncha think? At some point the victim is going to have to accept a certain level of restitution and get on with their lives. Forgiveness is healthy.

It beats the hell out of people -- not even victims, at that, but just plain bystanders -- getting to feel like their hands are clean while they go around advocating punitive rape, since they're not the ones actually doing the deed.

I agree, and I wouldn't advocate for any sort of punishment that I wouldn't be willing to impose myself.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Uh, no. Like, what if they demanded sexual favors from the crook? Like I said, some people are pretty creepy when they want their particular brand of "justice" dispensed.

"Making the victim whole" is kind of a subjective thing, doncha think? At some point the victim is going to have to accept a certain level of restitution and get on with their lives. Forgiveness is healthy.

There are cultures where if the brother does something wrong, one can rape the sister. Granted, Justin said there have to be societal norms as to what punishments are allowed. Avoiding collective guilt should likely be part of it.

If one watches the TV crime documentaries that include interviews with the victim's and accused families, one finds a great deal of disagreement and emotion. In general, the victim and his family are absolutely ticked. If one wants anything resembling objective justice, it absolutely cannot be based on making the victim feel good an whole about what happened.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Kurt - yes indeedy i can have it both ways if that is what you are calling it . . . 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.

The whole point of your argument was to establish some standard for judging whether government in general is consensual. You are explicitly holding the North Korean government to a higher standard than the US government. Why?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

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.

I did speak to that by linking the seasteading site. You do realize that the Puritans had to expend huge resources to create their own communities in America? That wasn't exactly free. Similarly, while many libertarians may find ways to exit, there are costs involved and sneering at them now is rather like expecting the Puritans to teleport across the Atlantic by the power of their faith.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

But in the end, you do not want to turn your back on a good deal.

No, what I really have is a choice between two bad deals: one where I spend resources evading existing governments and one where I expend resources keeping my current government from harming me more than a bare minimum. I judge the latter option to be better, but it is not a good deal. You do see the difference there, right?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Haymarket, there's plenty of things that the US government does with which I strongly disagree, yet I pay my taxes and don't advocate for the overthrow of the state. Am I not a hypocrite by your definition?

There's all sorts of crap that goes down in this society, whether it's government-induced or just ordinary individuals being jerks. Should I just check out because I can't get my own way?

I don't think so.

Thank you for saying this. Exit is not the only acceptable form of dissent.

Kurt
Who said it would be easy? Who said it would be free? Who said this was a romp in the park?

It takes enormous conviction and lots of guts to do what the Puritans did. Lets remember that a whole lot of them died doing it. But because they did, we have in part what we have today. God bless them and their convictions.

Child of Socrates
Dissent is wonderful. I am all in favor of it. I am not in favor of telling anyone to exit unless they themselves demonstrate that 1)they are a fish out of water in the society they are living in, and 2) they have a better way which ain't gonna happen here. I think those two criteria fit out anarcho-libertarian friends rather well.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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).

I might propose an alternate standard for collective consent. If a government can silence dissent without the sort of human rights violations practiced by China and defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one might have a higher degree of consent. When talking to a moral philosopher, trying to claim that use of force can be used to suppress dissent and imply consent would be questionable.

From a practical point of view, the level of collective consent you described is meaningful. China has a functional government. Most nations recognize their government as legitimate. I wouldn't propose they shouldn't.

But in a philosophical discussion about whether a people as a whole has collectively granted consent, I think there is room for a somewhat higher standard.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

From a practical point of view, the level of collective consent you described is meaningful. China has a functional government. Most nations recognize their government as legitimate. I wouldn't propose they shouldn't.

But in a philosophical discussion about whether a people as a whole has collectively granted consent, I think there is room for a somewhat higher standard.

That depends on the context, and on exactly what question we're asking and why. There are meaningful distinctions to be drawn between a government like China's and one like America's. But it should also be pointed out that most Chinese are happy with the government they have. A failure to recognize this through cultural myopia leads to mistakes like the Bay of Pigs incident, in which a wholly-inadequate invasion force was sent to contend with Castro's army, on the completely-unrealistic belief that the Cuban people would rise against Castro and assist the invaders.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Child of Socrates
Dissent is wonderful. I am all in favor of it. I am not in favor of telling anyone to exit unless they themselves demonstrate that 1)they are a fish out of water in the society they are living in, and 2) they have a better way which ain't gonna happen here. I think those two criteria fit out anarcho-libertarian friends rather well.

I would disagree. Sorta. Kinda. Maybe.

1. I don't see them as fish out of water. For the most part, they are swimming around breathing the water and getting along just fine. The primary difference between the T4T anarchists and the general public is that the anarchists more conspicuously exercise their right to free political speech granted under the Constitution. I don't agree with most of the words they are saying, but I'll defend in a half hearted distant sort of way their right to say them.
2. They seem to have a different way that won't work either here or anywhere else. As far as I know, there aren't many anarchist communities anywhere. Are there any anarchist communities actively recruiting? Are they structured to scale up? Not that I've heard of. Anyway, their approach at this point is so immature that I don't think even they think they have a 'better way.' If they had, they would be living their alleged convictions.
3. Award winning teachers shouldn't use "ain't." ™

Bob --Unless "ain't" is used for a purpose or effect.

There was no established community or land for the Puritans either. They rolled the dice and took their chances and bet their lives on it. But then they had the courage of their convictions when they said they could not live under a state they could no longer support.

I agree that most libertarians are not a fish out of water. But some here with very strong convictions seem to fit that description. I believe in their freedom also. And that includes the freedom to live their lives as they see fit to live them. Sadly for them, that is not the agenda here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That depends on the context, and on exactly what question we're asking and why. There are meaningful distinctions to be drawn between a government like China's and one like America's. But it should also be pointed out that most Chinese are happy with the government they have. A failure to recognize this through cultural myopia leads to mistakes like the Bay of Pigs incident, in which a wholly-inadequate invasion force was sent to contend with Castro's army, on the completely-unrealistic belief that the Cuban people would rise against Castro and assist the invaders.

Agreed, sort of. If one is considering an invasion, funding a proxy war that would destabilize a pretty well stable country, or otherwise attempting to impose one's values by force in some far away land, I would definitely take the level of consent you described very very seriously.

But we seem to be engaging in a pie in the sky idealistic philosophical discussion. I think there is room to consider the higher standard as well. Heck, in a discussion where the standard is 'no coercion', I doubt the anarchists would accept your definition as being morally sound. Well, I'll let them argue that.

You have proposed Cuba and China as examples. I might propose Saddam's Iraq of 2003 as another country lurking in the land between the two levels of consent. Saddam had the minority Sunni suppressing the majority Shiites through methods that could well be described as state sponsored terror. He did this well enough to have a reasonably well functioning society.

At Saddam's final necktie party, he got in a brief shouting match with one of the witnesses. The heckler seemed to be celebrating revenge for the deaths Saddam caused during the terror. Saddam's response was that "I saved you! I saved you!" Given the number of Iraqi dead, displaced and otherwise suffering from the US initiated war that undid the Sunni dominance of the Shiites and Kurds, one can almost see where Saddam was coming from. Bush 43 forced freedom on the Iraqi people, but at such a cost. If the Shiites had risen against the Sunni without US support and Saddam's terror had failed to 'cleanly' suppress the revolt, how ugly might it have got?

Anyway, I think there is room in the discussion for both standards of consent.

Bob:

The one exception to the rule that a government cannot survive without the consent of the governed is if it is being propped up by an outside power, or imposed on the people by a stronger foreign people. Thus the government of Communist Poland, which probably did not have popular support, could survive because it did have the support of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government, on the other hand, did have popular support.

Saddam received military support for many years from the U.S., and that gave him the power, along with the support of Sunni Iraqis, to maintain his rule.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

There was no established community or land for the Puritans either. They rolled the dice and took their chances and bet their lives on it. But then they had the courage of their convictions when they said they could not live under a state they could no longer support.

I agree that most libertarians are not a fish out of water. But some here with very strong convictions seem to fit that description. I believe in their freedom also. And that includes the freedom to live their lives as they see fit to live them. Sadly for them, that is not the agenda here.

The Puritans who emigrated were often on the losing side of a civil war. (The fortunes of the two sides shifted back and forth quite a bit. The Cavaliers emigrating to Virginia were also often on the losing side of the same war. For a while they took turns losing.) At the time, the concept of religious tolerance (or any sort of tolerance) was weak.

That was also the heyday of Guns, Germs and Steel. The native population had crashed from newly introduced diseases. The natives didn't have the weapons or numbers to stand against the English. While most of the Puritans didn't emigrate with the explicit intent of fighting a war of genocide and ethnic cleansing, that's what King Phillip's War turned out to be.

These days, the poor anarchists just don't have the opportunities that were open to the Puritans. Nor are we 'statists' quite as aggressive and intolerant as was the norm in the bad old days. Those were the times of the militia, when every man was armed, dangerous, and quite willing to line up in rows to shot at other guys lined up in rows.

I don't expect the anarchists to leave as they have less cause, nowhere to go, and couldn't build a stable society if they did have somewhere to go. They love to wax indignant and stage fake war dances on the supposed moral high ground, but I really wouldn't expect them to act on their principles. This is about word games at this point.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bob:

The one exception to the rule that a government cannot survive without the consent of the governed is if it is being propped up by an outside power, or imposed on the people by a stronger foreign people. Thus the government of Communist Poland, which probably did not have popular support, could survive because it did have the support of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government, on the other hand, did have popular support.

Saddam received military support for many years from the U.S., and that gave him the power, along with the support of Sunni Iraqis, to maintain his rule.

You're losing me. The following is definitely not how you worded your position. I am putting the horse before the cart, where you had a different arrangement. Still...

A tyrant, disregarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, blatantly using state sponsored terror, so long as the terror successfully suppresses revolt, has achieved the consent of the people? However, if a foreign power helps pay for the state sponsored terror, the consent of the people is no longer there? The consent of the people depends on who pays for the terror?

I would think terror is terror, that the amount of coercion it takes before the pretense of consent becomes a joke does not depend on who pays for the coercion. I'm not thinking of examples off the top of my head, but I would think it possible to find tyrants who have used terror who have not needed foreign support to maintain stability for a considerable time.

There's a difference between consenting to something and approving of something. A government can quite easily survive without their subjects' consent, but not without their approval.

Two thirds of the world surface is water. There are ships and boats for sale. There are islands for sale. How easy is this suppose to be anyway?