Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Perhaps you aren't listening?



How does one define 'legitimate'? Your libertarian principles might be a basis for creating a sustainable culture. A set of values can be a basis for forming a group, selecting a leader, making up rules, and enforcing them over the scope of a given territory. However, there are many possible sets of principles. Cultures already exist where a wide variety of principles have been used to center a group around.

If one wanders into the territory of many a State, those people living there will be of the delusion that their State is legitimate. On what basis do you claim they are not? Again, I can see that anarchists can create an internally self consistent logical system. I do not see formal proofs that the anarchist systems are uniquely internally self consistent. I do not see a sufficient list of premises and confirming verifications based on observation of the real world that convinces me in the least that libertarian theory corresponds to how the real world works.

Philosophy is like that. There are lots of theories, doctrines and systems that purport to explain the real world. To my mind, philosophy does not have the tools to uniquely prove any of these theories, doctrines or systems. This is why I would prefer to deal with systems that are at base derived from observation of the real world. I would rather start with people like Toynbee, Aubrey, Lorentz, Toffler, Strauss and Howe. No matter how many ivory tower mind games philosophers might play, they cannot to my mind discredit patterns found in the real world.

This is why I believe a lot of folk are asking who named you to be God. You have not uniquely identified your system as legitimate to anywhere near the point of implying that other systems are not legitimate. You are rejecting other systems by the standard of your system, but not acknowledging that others are equally justified in rejecting your system by the standards of theirs.

Which is why this thread might well continue growing in length if not depth indefinitely.

I very much agree. It's right back pretensions of "self-evident truths". And IMO too much of such discussions degenerate into Wittgensteinian pseudo-problems, detached from reality, or even the kind of self-deceptive sophistry and definition manipulation Plato engaged in by twisting people's sense of justice and goodness into supporting a brutal totalitarian hell. That is why HR got worked up over how Libertarians were using the term "Liberty".

Give me concrete answers to concrete problems derived from facts, not ideology and wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt, I'm going to answer just two things from your last post to Bob, which I think go to the heart of our disagreement. It's too good an opportunity to pass up.



Philosophy does need to correspond to observed phenomena insofar as it concerns itself with the observed world. Granted, philosophy deals with questions outside the scope of science itself, but nonetheless they are questions in many cases -- including all of the ones discussed on this thread -- which make claims about the world we experience, and to that extent the observed nature of that world is pertinent.



You speak of this as if "what all humans ought not to do" is insulated somehow from factual reality. It is not. What ought to be is dependent on what is, and on what can be. It is never the case that what ought to be is also what cannot be. It is also never the case that what should not be is what must be. And so in order for libertarian ethics (or any other ethics) to constitute more than a meaningless emotional grunt, one must concern oneself with patterns found in the real world. One must indeed discredit those patterns AND suggest a workable alternative (assuming one believes they ought to change).

Let me give you a hypothetical example. There are religious sects (e.g. the Shakers) that believe all sexual intercourse to be wrong. Since the statement "this is wrong" is not a claim of fact, it cannot be disproven by methods of science. However, what science can do is to determine that, one, it isn't possible for everyone or even most people to give up sex, and two, if they did, the human race would cease to exist within a single generation. The only way to advocate celibacy as a moral imperative with logical consistency is therefore to accept that it is an ideal that applies only to a select few, and that most people need feel no shame or guilt in failing to live up to it as it does not apply to them. Otherwise, one is implicitly claiming that most people ought to do the impossible and that it would be a good thing if the human race were to perish, neither of which is consistent with Shaker beliefs.

Do you understand what I'm implying here? A moral assertion is not a claim of fact, but it is a claim about the real world. It is a valid response to such an assertion to point out either that people cannot follow it, or that if they did results would ensue which the person making the moral assertion would not like. Either of these is a claim about the real world which can be made on a scientific basis, and is enough to refute the moral assertion itself, even though that assertion cannot directly be refuted by scientific means.

The refutation of "A is right, B is wrong" need not take the form "No, A is wrong, B is right." (This is simply a butting of rhetorical heads, a pure conflict of wills without resolution.) Instead, it can take the form, "A implies C, which you find good. B implies D, which you don't. Therefore, you do not believe that A is wrong or that B is right, unless you simultaneously deny what is manifestly, factually true."

And that brings us back to anarchism. I have asserted something factual: that the state even at its worst suppresses more violence and oppression than it causes, by a large factor. In support of this assertion, I have presented the high level of individual violence in all precivilized, non-state-governed societies, and pointed out that the chance of a person (particularly a male) dying in such societies from any cause other than human violence was far, far lower -- i.e., the chance of dying by human violence was far, far higher -- than it was globally in 1942, a year of extraordinary state-sponsored violence, let alone any more normal year such as this one. (If you happened to be a German or Russian soldier fighting in Russia in that year, this might not be true, but globally it is.) There is no question that state-sponsored violence in 1942 far exceeded its occurrence in precivilized times (even if we fudge the concept of "state-sponsored" to include primitive war, which strictly speaking wasn't state-sponsored). But the level of violence overall was much, much greater in the primitive societies.

This observation is pertinent because your stated reason for supporting anarchy is that you object to aggression. But abolishing the state would result in a large net increase in aggression. Therefore, you cannot consistently approve of anarchy, except by denying that claim about factual reality. You may of course do that -- you may insist that I am factually incorrect, and that a stateless society would NOT result in an increase of individual aggression over what would be lost in state-sponsored aggression. (Such an assertion would however require much in the way of evidence, since it is both counter-intuitive and contrary to what historical evidence we have.) What you cannot do, though, is to claim that this observation about the real world, if true, does not invalidate your assertion.

The simple claim "aggression is wrong" is independent of that observation. (Although not of other factual observations which might be made.) The claim "the state is wrong because it is an aggressor" is not.



On the contrary, either of those is a perfectly valid response. One can show that political system X has features and benefits A, which make it superior to politicaly system Y, and the same with ethical system Q over ethical system R. An absolute refutation of political system Y or ethical system R -- e.g., refuting a divine-authority system of morality by trying to prove that God does not exist -- is not necessary. It's enough to show that an alternative is better.

This is exactly the way of thinking I like. Great post, Brian!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Likely not. There is hope for Matt. (I shall not mention Fruitcake. I shall not mention Fruitcake...) ™

I was first a Communist, then a Anarchist in high school, then came to reality in my 2nd year of college (not too long after Katrina ushered in the 4T as a matter of fact), he'll grow out of it.

Hey all, this thread is moving fast and Haymarket has a point to make:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You seem to be assuming that most people are in the same position you are -- that they accept the state's governance only because it has the power. This is not true. Most people accept the state's governance because they know that government is necessary.

I actually agree with you here.

However, in all cases the overthrown state was replaced by another state -- which goes a long way to disproving your assertion right there.

I don't think you've gotten what I've meant by consent, then. I don't deny that most people want a state. I just don't think the State is a consensual entity.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I am with Matt, I think, if he is saying that states do not ask for consent from individuals before issuing orders, and do not much care if individuals within their territories actively dissent. There is an assumption that legitimate governments can enforce laws, and individuals do not have an option of ignoring the law just by saying 'no'. If Jefferson's "consent of the government" was ever intended as individual consent, I'd like to see examples from his era of it ever been implemented.

Yeh. From what I know of Jefferson, he probably followed Locke on consent. (Both think that individual consent is a necessary component of a legitimate government. Most liberal philosophers today tend to reject that.) Locke thinks that we tacitly consent to government by living in a particular society -- this is not far off from Haymarket's definition. I think this is highly problematic on both an epistemological and logical level because I think it ignores what meaningful consent looks like. But I've expounded on that enough, and have repeatedly linked this article that helped to inform me on the matter.

Anyway, if clarity is desired, instead of defining what one means by 'consent' in a post that will soon be buried and forgotten, one might have to spell out phrases like 'collective terror induced consent' to spell out just what one is saying.

Well, I really thought (and still do think) that I'm not using anything other than a common definition.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I can't necessarily speak for them, but perhaps they see their role here as educational. As far as I'm concerned, they've succeeded.

I created this thread because there were a lot of discussions on these subjects that needed there own thread. This forum is way overrepresented by radical libertarians. (Kurt, Justin, Arkham, Skabungus, Independent, Rags, and myself are regulars that come to mind -- maybe The Rani, too? And we've also had quick pop-ins by people like Cohort '89.) I'm glad that a few liberals are getting something out of it, though.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Matt, I don't think I like where this seems to be going.

If I disagree with the policies of the elected administration (say, Bush 43), but yet make no overt move to overthrow the government, does it follow that some outside entity (say, al-Qaeda) has a right to attack or arrest me because I am somehow insufficiently in opposition? Does my tacit approval make me a legitimate target?

I don't think anyone has a right to attack anyone based on what they believe.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Who's moral law? Yours?

I don't think anyone's ever mistaken me for a relativist...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Libertarians and anarchists have the same idea you expressed, that a government should respect/guarantee "rights." Libertarians think that's possible but that it's not being done. Anarchists don't think it's possible and believe that the state should be abolished.

I would add the qualifier "some." Many of these people are utilitarians. I think it's also possible for someone to be an anarchist yet think that government may respect people's rights. I used to be among this crowd.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I made a point to Matt a bit back that he had a self consistent argument and a plausible set of values, but he was rejecting other people's self consistent arguments with plausible values purely on the basis that they were inconsistent with his own. He was using his values to reject other people's values without first proving his own values True in any unique objective sense.

That's book-length material. No thanks!

Perhaps we need a distinction between pragmatic or practical legitimacy, and moral legitimacy.

Indeed, but that distinction has been there already.

It seems that Matt is looking for a society that is moral, but is not necessarily pragmatic. He doesn't see his flavor of anarchy happening in the foreseeable future.

My views on this are complicated. I'm more optimistic than Kurt, but I'm no fool.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How is their decision to give us their property for less different than the anarchist's decision to remain under a government which he believes to be illegitimate? After all, the supplier could have decided to not sell to us at all just as the anarchist could decide to leave. Both require some loss which neither wanted to make. The desire to avoid this loss is a form of coercion.

Why is one decision considered consent and the other not?

Why do you think that the ability to leave the country makes the State a consensual association?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler '54

This leaves Matt out in the cold, though. He seems to believe in a universal moral code.... his own.

Are you implying that I think I'm someone like Jesus or that I simply believe what I believe? Either way, it's absurd.

He does not seem to be acknowledging that different peoples want different things.

There. I acknowledge it.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

This is GROUNDHOG DAY again and again.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Proudhon also said that property was freedom. His point was that not everything we call property is justly possessed, nor is it all unjust either. All of the various radical property theories have as their basis the idea that present property titles cannot be taken at face value. A sense of justice precedes the assessment of property, not the reverse.

This does rule out the theory that property should be whatever society says it is. That may be true in actual practice, but that's only because the rules of society are informed by our sense of justice. That's why the aversion to philosophical introspection that some of the liberals here have expressed is poisonous to social development.

I really don't don't like arguments over definitions (What is property? What is Justice? What is Liberty? Etc.), they ultimately degenerate into squabbling over definitions I prefer descriptions of whole social systems. There is no abstract thing labeled "The State" or "Property" or "Rights" or "Liberty" that exists independently of the social system they are embedded in. Redefining "legitimate" property in the modern Western context to, say, exclude absentee owners (like many Left-Libertarians espouse) is just that, redefining. It's, IMO, a bone-headed way of going about the problem. The real solution would be to influence the system in a way that discourages "absentee landlordism"

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I still think that business of "rightful" ownership is the crux of a lot of the disagreement. On what basis is something "rightfully" owned? This is not a simple question, and deserves better than a simple answer.

First off, and to repeat from way back, "ownership" implies coercion and threat of force. To say "this is mine" is to say, "I alone am entitled to use this, and anyone else who does so without my permission will be punished." That is what defines property. The threat of force may be made by the owner, or by the community or the state on the owner's behalf, but it must be made, otherwise there is no property.

On the very simplest level, therefore, property is the seizure of unowned goods and the assertion of privileged use backed by a threat of force.

If we wish to apply less barbaric rules to who owns what (and generally we do), then we must restrict the application of force to those instances which comply with those rules, and refuse to do so otherwise. Also, the situation becomes much more complex when all goods are owned, and so acquisition of property becomes the transfer of goods from one person's ownership to another's, rather than the seizure of unowned goods. In that case, we establish rules whereby property may "legitimately" be transferred, apply force to protect those instances, and apply it to discourage all other forms of property acquisition, which we thereby define as "theft."

Thus, it is somewhat inaccurate to call "theft" the acquisition of property without the owner's permission. Rather, theft is the acquisition of property against the rules governing such acquisition. Sometimes property can be acquired with the owner's permission and still be stolen. We use a different word than "theft" in such cases -- we call it "fraud" -- but it's essentially the same thing. Also, sometimes property can be acquired without the owner's permission without it being theft. For example, if a lawsuit grants a sum in judgment, it's safe to say that the sum is taken without its owner's permission, but this is not theft. The only consistent rule is that if property is transferred against the rules for such transfer, it is not legitimate and may be corrected by force.

Now let's consider the way wealth is produced and ownership of it acquired in our economy. (Again, it's important to consider the real world in the process of forming our moral judgments. Moral principles formed outside that consideration are the equivalent of pure mathematics, and may or may not apply to the reality we actually experience.)

Wealth is produced collectively, always. People work together to create wealth, applying thought and effort to natural resources. The resulting wealth is divided among those who work to produce it, according to rules. It's impossible to say in any definitive fashion how much person A contributes to the production of wealth as compared to person B. Thus, a common libertarian principle, that of ownership deriving from labor to add value, becomes useless as a practical matter, for we are never in any real-life case able to determine how much of the wealth produced is generated by one person's labor compared to another's. A different principle than this is required.

In actual practice, we determine ownership by who owns the natural and man-made capital required to produce wealth, not by those who work to add value. The people doing the labor to create the wealth are not entitled to a share of it a priori; it belongs to the owner of the capital, who must buy labor if he needs more of it to produce the wealth than he can supply on his own, but the wealth ultimately produced still belongs to him. In that way, the workers in effect receive a share, but that's not how we think of it. Rather, the work to produce the wealth is treated as a commodity, and is transferred to the owner of the capital just like any other commodity, in exchange for an agreed-upon price. The owner of the capital then owns the labor as well, and so owns the wealth produced with both. Often, this system results in severe inequities. One may rejoice in those inequities as Fruitcake does, or attempt to ameliorate them through government action while accepting the fundamentals of teh system, as Bob Butler would do. One may also propose a more radical change that would hope to eliminate the inequities at the source.

But if one does propose such radical changes, its incumbent on one to pay attention to real-world, practical reality, and consider how such a radically new system would work. Because if it would not, it doesn't matter how righteous and principled it is, it's still a bad idea. That was the problem with Marxism: great in concept, but flawed in practice.

I want to add here that anarchism, as I see it, suffers from a misunderstanding quite analogous to that of Marx. Marx' most basic mistake was the belief that all conflict was class conflict, and so if social classes were eliminated through economic egalitarianism, all conflict would disappear, the state's raison d'etre would be gone, and the state would wither away. In fact, while some conflict certainly IS class-based, not all of it is, and so the elimination of social classes does not eliminate conflict; moreover, social classes tend to form over time without constant collective effort to prevent this -- all of which keeps the state from withering away as predicted.

Anarchism suffers from a similar error, the belief that all aggression and economic inequity derives from the state. Quite obviously some aggression and some economic inequity does, but not all nor, I would say, even most of it, and the state acts to suppress more of these things than it causes.

This is exactly why I support a Market Socialist economy. It would provide a solution to the economic injustices in our society without disrupting the basic fabric of our modern Western society, just change a few rules about how businesses are governed and where they get capital from. It is what Karl Popper called "piecemeal social engineering".

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

My thinking is thus:

1. People have wants, needs, desires, and ambitions. These may conflict with the wants, needs, desires, and ambitions of other people

2. People are ends unto themselves and should not be used only as means to an end

3. Because people are ends unto themselves people have a right to fulfill their wants, needs, desires, and ambitions as long as others are not used as mere means to an end as of the others' wants, needs, desires, and ambitions do not matter.

4. There there needs to be social organization and coercion to prevent people from selfishly trampling on the wants, needs, desires, and ambitions of others. In complex societies this is social organization is expressed as a system of impersonal rules and institutions known as a state. The State mediates conflicts between individuals with conflicting wants, needs, desires, and ambitions and uses coercion to enforce it's decisions.

5. fulfilling one's wants, needs, desires, and ambitions as long as one does not trample on the wants, needs, desires, and ambitions of others is called self-actualization.

6. Self-actualization is a good thing.

7. Society has a duty to remove obstacles (discrimination, poverty, lack of access to education and knowledge) to self-actualization.

8. Liberal Democracy is the best type of state for resolving conflicts between people's wants, needs, desires, and ambitions and for removing obstacles to self-actualization.

9. A liberal Democracy is a state where there are free, open, and fair elections and a transparent, responsive government that respects the privacy of it's citizens.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All states are living on borrowed time, the question being how much time they have on account. There are certain criteria for liberal democracy being accepted by the people. The people must have a high level of education: most of them must be literate, they must be accustomed to thinking for themselves, and they must have some awareness of the world around them beyond the confines of their own village. Before these measures reach a certain critical mass, a liberal democracy will never have popular support; once it does, that is the only government that will.

I believe that's why the French Revolution failed initially. Most of the French people were still peasants at the turn of the 19th century; it hadn't been all that long since they were serfs. They didn't want radical change and a voice in the government wasn't important to them, they just wanted the nobility out of their faces and an end to the oppression they felt in their daily lives. (More than anything else, they wanted food. That's how bad things had gotten.) Napoleon was very popular, proving that what they wanted wasn't a republic but a good king to replace a bad king. Like Caesar, Napoleon was never called a king, but like Caesar, he governed as if he was one. By the end of the 19th century, though, French society had changed enough that a genuine republic was possible and one emerged.

As a society changes, the government that is called for also changes. Our own governing structure has radically changed in each of the past three Crisis eras. We are in another such period of change now. It's conceivable that future 4Ts (although I think not this one) will see the end of liberal democracy. For example, what if through human genetic engineering we breed a line of natural superior leaders? These would be people under whose leadership everyone would benefit, leading happier lives, with more freedom, opportunity, and security. Would it not make sense to give power to those who are bred and engineered for the task? What sense would democracy make in that case, or if it still did, would it not consist only of a popular choice among the natural leaders? Wouldn't permanent dictatorship make perfect sense if we could somehow ensure that every dictator would be a Caesar or a Napoleon (minus the warmongering), and not an Idi Amin or a Saddam Hussein? The biggest problem with monarchy, after all, is that the son of King John the Genius might well be King William the Wastrel or King Thomas the Tyrant.

Material change mandates a change in government. That's the problem with trying to come up with a formula for good government that will stand the test of time.

Interestingly, I have thought of some interesting sci-fi stuff based on just that. With an AI super-intelligence as "King", lesser hyper-sapients as "Aristocrats", and trans-sapients and baseline sapients as "commoners". Status is based on level of sapiency.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Are you implying that I think I'm someone like Jesus or that I simply believe what I believe? Either way, it's absurd.

Your persona is closer to God the Father's. Thou shalt not commit aggression. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property. Any alternate point of view that doesn't Obey The Two Commandments is condemned from the High Throne. Conversation with those who have a more complex nuanced grounded approach is beneath the All High One.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That's book-length material. No thanks!

So sorry I can't compress human nature into a sound bite for your convenience. Forgive me, Father.

Originally Posted by Odin

Interestingly, I have thought of some interesting sci-fi stuff based on just that. With an AI super-intelligence as "King", lesser hyper-sapients as "Aristocrats", and trans-sapients and baseline sapients as "commoners". Status is based on level of sapiency.

I was considering responding to Brian from this angle as well. Perhaps AIs would evolve faster than further than genetic engineered sentients?

But these aren't likely to be the issues of this crisis.

I don't think the true humans will concede power easily. There are any number of science fiction series that present superior beings as a threat. The issues raised aren't trivial. Perhaps such problems might come to a head in another eight generations? Four?

I see a revolt against the machines or supermen as more likely than a utopian anarchy, but that's another thread...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Your persona is closer to God the Father's. Thou shalt not commit aggression. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property. Any alternate point of view that doesn't Obey The Two Commandments is condemned from the High Throne. Conversation with those who have a more complex nuanced grounded approach is beneath the All High One.

So sorry I can't compress human nature into a sound bite for your convenience. Forgive me, Father.

Fuck off, son.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Fuck off, son.

Which is about as sophisticated a response to my world view as I've gotten from you. You seem just incapable of stepping outside of your own world view.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Which is about as sophisticated a response to my world view as I've gotten from you. You seem just incapable of stepping outside of your own world view.

Here's a go: you're one of many resident prophets of secular, authoritarian, militaristic, majority-rules socialism. Anarchy is a heretical branch of the common religion, liberalism, and you deny its effect on history in order to perpetuate the sacred myth that whatever happens next is supposed to happen because we've achieved the ideal form of a civilization. Any negative consequence is inherent to the human condition so the heretics should stop complaining and agitating before they're deemed a threat (this is differentiated from the elder prophets, who declare we should be exiled.)

Close?

We have our two commandments, you have tomes of case law and legislation passed from on high. You think our religion is too simple to work, and we think yours is too complicated and inhumane.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All states are living on borrowed time,...

Wouldn't permanent dictatorship make perfect sense if we could somehow ensure that every dictator would be a Caesar or a Napoleon ...?

Only if you start by making me the dictator.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Which is about as sophisticated a response to my world view as I've gotten from you. You seem just incapable of stepping outside of your own world view.

I concur with Bob,
Amen

Originally Posted by independent

Here's a go: you're one of many resident prophets of secular, authoritarian, militaristic, majority-rules socialism. Anarchy is a heretical branch of the common religion, liberalism, and you deny its effect on history in order to perpetuate the sacred myth that whatever happens next is supposed to happen because we've achieved the ideal form of a civilization. Any negative consequence is inherent to the human condition so the heretics should stop complaining and agitating before they're deemed a threat (this is differentiated from the elder prophets, who declare we should be exiled.)

Close?

We have our two commandments, you have tomes of case law and legislation passed from on high. You think our religion is too simple to work, and we think yours is too complicated and inhumane.

Not particularly close, from my point of view. I encountered this style of argument on the Global Warming thread. It was said that liberals viewed global warming through the lens of a religious world view. Liberal concerns were based on faith rather than evidence. This seemed to be a reversal of how I saw the discussion. The liberals were quoting main line science from reviewed journals. The opposition were finding excuses to dismiss and not talk about main line science.

Here, I'm trying to fold in discussions from the perspective of works of Aubrey (The Hunting Hypotheses, The Territorial Imperative), Lorenz (On Aggression) and Grossman (On Killing) reviewing how humans behave. One then looks at the anarchist position and asks if the lessons and perspectives of the real world are compatible with the approach advocated by the anarchists. It doesn't look compatible to me, but I can't get any of the anarchy advocates to talk about how humans really behave. The most recent objections have been 'too complex' and 'reflects religious thinking.' These responses remind me of Fruitcake's 'verbal aikido.' They don't refute the argument. They are just poor excuses for not seriously addressing the argument.

I see other liberals as having problems similar to mine.

I see my own world view as scientific first, political second and religious third. I see most people as having some degree of their values anchored in all three aspects of culture. Me, I'm not big on religion, but if science or politics don't have a lot to say about a problem, well, I was brought up Catholic.

If one presents a social question, some might try to answer the question using various ways of looking at the world. Me being me, the scientific method spelled out by Newton in Principia Mathematica seems to trump arguments coming from political or religious theory, assuming observation and experiment can be made to apply. While my politics are generally liberal, I try to back my political values with observation of the real world. Thus, the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence aren't Holy Writ accepted on faith without question. One also might want to be aware of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr's court cases and precedents dealing with how to apply the concept of rights to the real world.

Not everyone thinks this way. I wouldn't expect a fundamentalist or evangelical with a faith in literal interpretation of the Bible to be capable of evaluating evolutionary theory well. In this discussion, I'm seeing hints that for some people the philosophical perspective trumps the empirical. The question of the best form of government has been presented as a purely moral problem. Only philosophers or priests have dominion over moral problems. Scientists are not supposed to address moral problems. Therefore, evidence of how real people function in the real world is excluded from discussion about the best form of government.

This is a fairly sophisticated form of verbal aikido, but it is verbal aikido none the less. I could find other words describing it, but Craig is trying to steer us away from that sort of language.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Not particularly close, from my point of view. I encountered this style of argument on the Global Warming thread. It was said that liberals viewed global warming through the lens of a religious world view. Liberal concerns were based on faith rather than evidence. This seemed to be a reversal of how I saw the discussion. The liberals were quoting [Received Wisdom] from [Sacred Tomes].

Edited above for accuracy.

Of course, fundamentalists of all stripes consider their way of doing things, their holy writs, to be self-evidently correct. And the worst thing one can do is challenge them on the fundamental basis of that self-evidence. Anthropogenic-Global-Warmers and Secular-Authoritarian-Militaristic-Majority-Rules-Socialists share this in common. Perhaps that quality represents the reason why the venn circles of those two groups so overlap...

It doesn't look compatible to me, but I can't get any of the anarchy advocates to talk about how humans really behave.

Then you haven't been reading. A good quarter to a third of what's been posted by us on this thread has been exactly that -- how people actually behave, as evidenced by several current, historical, and anthropological examples. And how the weight of evidence supports the anarchist contentions.

SAMMR-Socialists, on the other hand, have responded with not much more than their emotional contention that people are largely fundamentally scum, and that cooperation for them is counter-natural. Of course, the evidence to support those contentions is vanishingly thin on the ground.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Then you haven't been reading. A good quarter to a third of what's been posted by us on this thread has been exactly that -- how people actually behave, as evidenced by several current, historical, and anthropological examples. And how the weight of evidence supports the anarchist contentions.

Except that, of course, it doesn't. The weight of evidence supports the fact that, absent the state, people are far more violent on an individual basis than with it. As I said earlier (and have not read a response to), in a typical year in a precivilized, stateless society, a person (especially a male) was more likely to die by violence than, globally, in 1942 -- and that's cherry-picking a particularly awful year in terms of state-sponsored violence. Comparing a typical year in a stateless society to a typical year in a civilized one, the gap is even larger. Despite the fact that civilized war is much larger-scale and bloodier than primitive war, civilized life, which is to say, life under a state, is less violent overall by far.

That's what the weight of evidence shows. The likely reason for this is not hard to figure out, provided one is really willing to examine how people actually behave rather than some wishful-thinking version. Imagine yourself traveling from, say, San Francisco to San Jose without a state to discourage violence. You will meet many strangers on that journey. You don't know that a stranger you meet is violent or has bad intentions towards you. But you don't know that they don't, either, and you DO know that you're on your own against them, barring help that might come from other strangers around (whom you also can't know anything about).

Today, I can and normally do make that journey completely unarmed and unworried about anything but traffic on the freeway or a breakdown of the transit system. In a stateless context, I would pack heat. Encountering any stranger, I would watch that person suspiciously, ready to draw my gun and defend myself at need. I might even show my gun, just to make sure they knew I was armed and not easy pickings. I would worry at each encounter, and experience an adrenaline rush.

And I'm male. If I were female, it would be worse.

And suppose someone did try to attack me? If they did it with sufficient surprise, I would be SOL; otherwise, we'd have a fight. Maybe I'd win, maybe I'd lose. Let's say I win. My assailant lies in a pool of his own blood, several slugs in his body, dying. I get the hell out, but not before his buddy memorizes my features and which way I was going. He reports the events, edited of course, to my late assailant's family. They think I murdered him. Can they call the cops, have them arrest me, bring me to court, where I would get a trial based on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and presumed innocence? No, they have no such recourse. They're on their own, and must obtain justice for themselves. So I must worry about them coming after me and seeking revenge, or at least demanding reparation. And if they do, and if I'm killed by them, then my family has similarly no recourse against them but to take justice into their own hands -- which they do. And so on.

That's reality. That's how people actually behave. And that's why the state, despite the violence it precipitates itself, generates a large net decline in violence and aggression.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Why do you think that the ability to leave the country makes the State a consensual association?

If being within the United States had no value to a rational person, he would leave. If he refuses to leave, this must mean he finds value in staying within the country. That is, he recognizes benefits of residing here.

If a person does not wish to pay taxes but refuses to leave, then he is free-riding on my dime. I haven't consented to his free-riding.

What about my consent, and that of the millions of citizens who fulfill their obligations as citizens? We have no say under your moral law?

Consent is a two way street.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If being within the United States had no value to a rational person, he would leave. If he refuses to leave, this must mean he finds value in staying within the country. That is, he recognizes benefits of residing here.

Roughly, yes. But there's a bit of a gap if you are going to make the jump from that, to consenting to the government's rule over their person.

If a person does not wish to pay taxes but refuses to leave, then he is free-riding on my dime. I haven't consented to his free-riding.

What about my consent, and that of the millions of citizens who fulfill their obligations as citizens?

Correct. You haven't consented to supporting these "free-riders"; the State makes you support them regardless of whether you want to or not. I think your consent is important -- why do you think I keep talking about it?

We have no say under your moral law?

Another strawman? Really???

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Which is about as sophisticated a response to my world view as I've gotten from you. You seem just incapable of stepping outside of your own world view.

No Bob; it's that I can't understand what the hell you are talking about, and the stuff that I do understand are either strawmen caricatures or rude ad hominem attacks... usually both. You talk about various influences on your perspective. Fine. Looking at historical cycles, what people actually do, etc. are perfectly relevant to any discussion about political philosophy, and they should be included at the table. My point was that without value input, you just have a science of politics, not a way to proceed. (For example, a lot of people tend to look at Austrian economics and dismiss it as libertarian ideological fantasy, but the conclusions are only broadly libertarian if certain values are inputted. It's just a theory of economics.) My idea is that you need to wear the science hat and philosophy hat if you are going to have a coherent discussion about these sort of things.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Correct. You haven't consented to supporting these "free-riders"; the State makes you support them regardless of whether you want to or not.

Actually, my understanding is that he was talking about tax evaders, in which case no, it does not. Tax evasion is illegal. The state attempts to collect the taxes owed, and punishes deliberate and knowing tax evasion with criminal penalties.

Another strawman? Really???

I don't believe that is a strawman. The point is that whether to have a state or not is a collective decision, not an individual one, and that's just as true if the decision is not to have one as if it's to have one. Without a state, I have to go through the situation described above whenever I want to go anywhere. The state won't victimize me itself obviously, but it will fail to suppress others who might, and against whom I must defend myself whereas now the danger is much less and I can travel without worrying about such things. If the collective decision TO have a state is a violation of your choice as an individual not to be governed, then the collective decision NOT to have one is equally a violation of my choice as an individual not to have to defend myself whenever I walk out my door.

My point was that without value input, you just have a science of politics, not a way to proceed.

I can see that. Can you see, though, that trying to make the values input independent of the objective facts, as you spoke of doing earlier, leaves you proceeding blindly?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, my understanding is that he was talking about tax evaders, in which case no, it does not. Tax evasion is illegal. The state attempts to collect the taxes owed, and punishes deliberate and knowing tax evasion with criminal penalties.

That's not what I get from a reread. It seems that he was objecting to supporting people who evade taxes, hence the free-rider comment.

I don't believe that is a strawman. [...] If the collective decision TO have a state is a violation of your choice as an individual not to be governed, then the collective decision NOT to have one is equally a violation of my choice as an individual not to have to defend myself whenever I walk out my door.

Fair enough. But I thought he was specifically talking about consenting to supporting these free-riders, suggesting that it doesn't matter to me. (Actually, he was suggesting that my "moral law" grants you no say.) Now, you're correct that you don't consent, or can't consent, to statelessness because consent isn't a part of the game, as statelessness is just a lack of a state. I don't find this particularly problematic though, since the lack of ability to consent to certain states of affairs is an inevitable facet of human life. I think the moral problem only arises when you cannot consent to an actor doing something to you (e.g., ruling you, taking your property). What emerges from anarchy, if there are no reversions to monopoly order, are consensual orders. At least that's what I favor.

EDIT: Didn't catch this.

I can see that. Can you see, though, that trying to make the values input independent of the objective facts, as you spoke of doing earlier, leaves you proceeding blindly?

Yep. How can we know about what's best for humans if we don't know the first thing about them?

(Again, I do plan on addressing your miscreant argument.)

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I think the moral problem only arises when you cannot consent to an actor doing something to you (e.g., ruling you, taking your property). What emerges from anarchy, if there are no reversions to monopoly order, are consensual orders. At least that's what I favor.

Not to do is to do. (Although obviously not to do the same thing.) The distinction between action and inaction is artificial in that we are always acting. If I see someone about to attack you, and I choose not to intervene, then my inaction impacts you by permitting you to be attacked. That's on an individual level but the same applies on the collective level via the state. If a majority of the people choose not to have a state (assuming that were even possible, which it's not), then they collective choose not to allow the state to intervene to suppress aggression. As that leaves me more open to being victimized by aggression (and/or to having to defend myself against it), this inaction impacts me by permitting me to be attacked. Thus, it is every bit as much subject to considerations of consent as the state.

That's not what I get from a reread. It seems that he was objecting to supporting people who evade taxes, hence the free-rider comment.

That's what I meant. Your original claim was that "the state makes you support these free riders," which is not true. The state does not willingly permit tax evaders, therefore does not make anyone else support them. If they are successful in evading taxes despite the state, then one must support them, true, but it is the tax evader making this happen not the state.

(Again, I do plan on addressing your miscreant argument.)

I look forward to it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Your original claim was that "the state makes you support these free riders," which is not true. The state does not willingly permit tax evaders, therefore does not make anyone else support them. If they are successful in evading taxes despite the state, then one must support them, true, but it is the tax evader making this happen not the state.

The tax protester doesn't bring a gun to take your money. The IRS does.

This isn't rocket science.