Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

1121315171840

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible.
    Cell phone companies use similar protocols because governments forced them to. Railroad companies had huge problems settling on gauge [iirc until regulation].

    If you're a company, segregating your customers from others is a valuable strategy, and using different protocols is actually a good thing in many instances. Its not economically efficient, but that is because its market failure!
    Printer drivers, electronic medical records, electronic billing systems, the physical infrastructure for the internet, cell phone chargers (this is becoming less of an issue, but is still an issue), car parts, nuts and bolts, screws, etc., etc., etc.

    Seriously, for every example you can come up with where the free market chose a standard and the company's came together and went with it without government intervention, I can give you half a dozen examples where that didn't happen.

    Hell, in Seattle, they couldn't even agree on which way the roads should run. Which is why driving downtown is such a fucking clusterfuck. Well, that, and the fact that Seattle drivers are fucking awful.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible.

    Cell phone companies use similar protocols because governments forced them to. Railroad companies had huge problems settling on gauge [iirc until regulation].

    If you're a company, segregating your customers from others is a valuable strategy, and using different protocols is actually a good thing in many instances. Its not economically efficient, but that is because its market failure!

    This is a big part of Sony's business model, for instance. They want to create proprietary formats for data because then they can sell you overpriced blank media. Why is the blank media grossly overpriced? Because they have a monopoly and are selling at monopoly prices. But their real goal is sweet, sweet licensing dollars. They create a proprietary memory card for the PSP and they can charge everyone who wants to use a PSP an extra $20 over SD cards. They create Blu-Ray and it becomes the dominant HD format, and they get millions from companies licensing their technology.

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?

    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?

    .. Its cheap and easy to use force. Not so cheap and easy to be nice, but it makes sense in most situations.

    Shurakai on
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?

    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?

    See, this?

    This is problematic. You aren't answering the question put before you, and then you spin off into hyperbole.

    This is why people are getting particularly annoyed at trying to engage in anything close to honest debate, because you don't seem to be willing to play ball.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Here I thought I was going to slink into a hidey hole, and you guys are masters at goading me back out again.

    I admit I may have had too much fun in my posts, I apologize for any offense. I'll explain a few things.

    My comment about the Moriori was not meant to be racist or insulting. What I meant (but poorly phrased) was that if there were a solution, it may have been that they did not find it simply because it didn't occur to them. In other words, their destruction may not have been inevitable. We shall never know for sure, of course.

    You needed to phase your response better then. That said, you haven't said why you're smarter than they are for defending your community from getting destroyed from third parties.
    Thanatos, I posted it because I felt it was well written and fairly convincing, however I knew that its always better to get a second opinion and more pairs of eyes generally lead to a more thorough examination of a subject matter. I could have asked "Could you please give me a second opinion on this piece of writing." But I knew that you guys would do that anyway, because you are awesome.

    I am not out to prove anything. I am here to play with ideas. I have settled on a few conclusions in my life time.. but exposure to the idea that "a government" is not, in fact, a benevolent entity like they teach you in grade school does not allow me to settle so easily into either camp.

    You are here to change our minds, though. That requires answering questions or correct flaws we find in your theories. You haven't succeeded in that yet. Why do you hate the government, any way? Not all governments are bad or useless.
    I have already made the most critical argument, which is that, currently, we give 'permission' for a group of people to commit acts of violence against us and others *in the name of good and justice*. I feel there is something very wrong with that.

    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power. Ray's counter argument was to form a "voluntary"* replacement that did the exact same thing only it would be extremely flawed compared to the current system. What's your alternative?

    Btw, justice does exist. The justice system is far from perfect, that's why society is constantly trying to fix it not kill it like your advocating. It is competent enough to be better than nothing, as well.
    From these first principles, I branched outward, exploring whether or not it was truly as 'necessary' to be party to this essential evil. I think most of you here, even if you do realize how abhorrent it is, believe that it is necessary. Arguing that it isn't necessary.. well.. it causes discomfort, which I understand. If suddenly there is an alternative, then supporting every terrible thing we understand to be inherent to the current system is now a choice. A choice which none of us would make, given that humans, for the most part, enjoy being good.

    Other posters in this thread have already explained why having a government is necessary for society to function properly. This does not come close to answering those responses. You're still be far to vague. I'm starting to wonder whether you've thought much about it that much beyond skimming some anarchist/libertarian books and videos on the internet which is disappointing.
    I want to be a good person. So if there a chance that there is an alternative.. and I don't have to work in order to pay for the slaughter and imprisonment of my fellow human beings, I feel its necessary to look for it, and expose it if possible.

    If you want to convince us the system needs to be changed you need to give us a logical replacement. So far you and Ray have failed.

    * which is an odd word to use since society currently operates with people volunteering to do specific jobs anyway

    Harry Dresden on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible.
    Cell phone companies use similar protocols because governments forced them to. Railroad companies had huge problems settling on gauge [iirc until regulation].

    If you're a company, segregating your customers from others is a valuable strategy, and using different protocols is actually a good thing in many instances. Its not economically efficient, but that is because its market failure!
    Printer drivers, electronic medical records, electronic billing systems, the physical infrastructure for the internet, cell phone chargers (this is becoming less of an issue, but is still an issue), car parts, nuts and bolts, screws, etc., etc., etc.

    Cell phones are less of an issue because the horrible coercive EU basically said micro USB or GTFO.

    tinwhiskers on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Damn you, eidetic memory! Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Apply this question to everyday activities.
    You'd have much better luck in this thread if you had the ability to answer questions asked of you, or at least responded in a way that was actually relevant to the post you were quoting.

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible.
    Cell phone companies use similar protocols because governments forced them to. Railroad companies had huge problems settling on gauge [iirc until regulation].

    If you're a company, segregating your customers from others is a valuable strategy, and using different protocols is actually a good thing in many instances. Its not economically efficient, but that is because its market failure!
    Printer drivers, electronic medical records, electronic billing systems, the physical infrastructure for the internet, cell phone chargers (this is becoming less of an issue, but is still an issue), car parts, nuts and bolts, screws, etc., etc., etc.
    Cell phones are less of an issue because the horrible coercive EU basically said micro USB or GTFO.
    Dear EU,

    <3 <3 <3

    Love,
    Thanatos

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?

    Apply this question to everyday activities.
    Okay!
    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Go find a different store. Easy.
    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?
    Offer an incentive for good performance. But also, threaten to fire them if they don't perform to a certain standard. Coercion is useful here, but obviously isn't the only answer.
    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.
    Well, the coercion here isn't direct and violent, but you could argue that it's still there. You threaten to tell their parents, punish them non-violently with detention, etc. If they are violent, you may have to restrain them and get them help in some other way.
    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.
    You just move on, or you try to get to know her better. Coercion is wrong in this case, I agree.
    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    Well, if you're a slave owner there are already moral problems here. But really, negotiate with the slave. Ask them why they want to escape, see if you can provide a better work environment. If they continue to try to escape, maybe consider selling him because he's more trouble than he's worth and you certainly don't want to put your family at risk. But naturally there's coercion here because, well, the dude's a slave you're trying to keep him from being free for some reason.
    .. Its cheap and easy to use force. Not so cheap and easy to be nice, but it makes sense in most situations.
    Coercion isn't a cure-all, but it is useful. It strikes me as silly to toss it out because it doesn't work in absolutely every situation you can think of.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.

    Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.

    The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.

    On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.

    So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.

    Shurakai on
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power.

    This would swiftly make the criminals the new government.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power.

    This would swiftly make the criminals the new government.

    Yep.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Some equvalent of brain washing is the only way to ensure people will not WANT to skirt the rules of society. Even that is a form of preemptive coersion. The founding group may be like minded, but this lockstep resolve will invariably be dilluted by children and migrants. If one person should ever wish to break rules, which have no repercussions, then they will. Their success will emboldened others, and so on.

    If the rules have repercussions, then coercion is being employed as a deterrent.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • November FifthNovember Fifth Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    It also uses some pretty transparently weak logic
    Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violent institutions. DROs will be primarily populated by white-collar workers: accountants, mediators, executives and so on. DROs are about as likely to become paramilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely to become an elite squad of ninja death warriors. Given the current existence of governments that possess nuclear weapons, I for one am willing to take that risk.

    I like how the answer to our problems are the folks from Adams' B Ark.

    steam_sig.png
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User
    Starting to think that libertarians just resort to posting youtube videos and copy pasting books because they cannot fucking think for themselves.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Starting to think that libertarians just resort to posting youtube videos and copy pasting books because they cannot fucking think for themselves.

    They're not all this bad at articulating their beliefs. But I think those libertarians are smart enough not to come to a left dominated forum. They prefer to keep to themselves and defend their beliefs on their own turf where they outnumber liberals 10-1.

  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power.

    This would swiftly make the criminals the new government.

    Why is this? Because criminals would want to shield themselves from retaliation, perhaps? So wouldn't it make sense that evil criminals would *always* gravitate toward power, not just in instances of 'being released among the public'? Not all criminals are in prisons.

    If the majority of people are good, what would the 'criminals' (Read: sociopaths) have to do in order to attain and maintain power? Why, bribe, cheat, and lie of course. To the public. Every electoral cycle in every region in every democratic country.

    Shurakai on
  • CapfalconCapfalcon Tunnel Snakes Rule Capital WastelandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    @Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.

    Capfalcon on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.

    Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.

    The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.

    On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.

    So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.

    One night I was sleeping and I hear Journey blasting from one of my windows. I get out of bed and there are 15 people dancing outside of cars in the parking lot. I don't want to have to deal with it, or yell at them (they probably couldn't even hear me). I don't want to take out a weapon and confront them. So I call the non-emergency police number and the police show up. They sit in their cruisers for 5 mins, but either the people blasting the music didn't see them or took their standoffishness as approval I dunno. But finally, they light up and tell them to move on. They do, and I go to sleep and wake up refreshed in the morning.

    No heads were cracked!

    No force was required other than the force of mutual understanding between the police and the public.

    The government steals my money and provides services that I can take advantage of. In a lot of cases these services are tons more expensive than what I pay in taxes. And I'm better for it. That doesn't mean that I wholesale agree with everything though.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    I love how all their solutions hinge on creating a narrative of what each group of people will freely want to do. Without any evidence that any of those groups would do any of those things. And, if any of those groups act in any manner that doesn't EXACTLY follow the plans the libertarians/anarchists made up, the whole thing goes to shit.

    It's like saying "If all the people in the world acts in an amazingly selfish, logical, rational, communitarian and constructive way without ever considering ever deviating, then governments can be extinguished". Well, yeah. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power.

    This would swiftly make the criminals the new government.

    Why is this? Because criminals would want to shield themselves from retaliation, perhaps? So wouldn't it make sense that evil criminals would *always* gravitate toward power, not just in instances of 'being released among the public'? Not all criminals are in prisons.

    If the majority of people are good, what would the 'criminals' (Read: sociopaths) have to do in order to attain and maintain power? Why, bribe, cheat, and lie of course. To the public. Every electoral cycle in every region in every democratic country.

    They'll fill the vacuum left by the government. You do not want criminals given any power over a society, they'll become dictators. Criminals will do whatever they have to do to gain power, unlike us they have very little restraint. If you get in their way they'll make an example of you. A very painful example at that. The public don't mean much if it isn't organized properly, they'll institute their own system to control or overthrow yours. Nor do they care about electoral politics, whether they can influence it indirectly with bribes or take over by force. I'm talking about career criminals here, especially from crime syndicates.

    Harry Dresden on
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power.

    This would swiftly make the criminals the new government.

    Why is this? Because criminals would want to shield themselves from retaliation, perhaps? So wouldn't it make sense that evil criminals would *always* gravitate toward power, not just in instances of 'being released among the public'? Not all criminals are in prisons.

    If the majority of people are good, what would the 'criminals' (Read: sociopaths) have to do in order to attain and maintain power? Why, bribe, cheat, and lie of course. To the public. Every electoral cycle in every region in every democratic country.

    Okay, so all (or some) politicians are sociopaths. That seems to be a problem! We should probably work on reforming our political system to make sure that, at the very least, sociopaths are discouraged from becoming politicians.

    Are all sociopaths politicians? Are all criminals politicians? Well, there are crimes being committed today which are not committed by politicians. Sociopathy is not the sole cause of criminal behavior. Sometimes people are desperate. Sometimes people are hateful. Sometimes people are greedy. Sometimes people are drunk.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    @Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.

    Sure. Initiation of the use of force is justifed in the specific instance of self defense. Some philosophers extend this to personal property, which I am still dubious on, but lets name them 1-5..

    1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.

    2. Letting him kill you, which I would not recommend. Self defense is a-ok. Now, you might think a government militiary counts as self defence. Nope. If I cannot choose not to support said standing army, than I am not even able to make the choice to defend myself. I have been stripped of all power to choose, thus any choice I make (which inevitably has to be to pay taxes) is meaningless.

    3. Third party self defense. Personal choice to defend the weak and helpless is a-ok.

    4. Hooray for grey areas!

    5. You are angry that someone has slaves. You have the ability to gather others into a militia, voluntarily, to enact third party self defense if you choose. The moment it no longer becomes a choice is the moment it becomes morally wrong. "Your country" doesn't exist, so the question is meaningless, unless they force you do to something against your will, in which case you are their slave (in that you no longer have the capacity to make any alternate decision).

    Shurakai on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power.

    This would swiftly make the criminals the new government.

    Why is this? Because criminals would want to shield themselves from retaliation, perhaps? So wouldn't it make sense that evil criminals would *always* gravitate toward power, not just in instances of 'being released among the public'? Not all criminals are in prisons.

    If the majority of people are good, what would the 'criminals' (Read: sociopaths) have to do in order to attain and maintain power? Why, bribe, cheat, and lie of course. To the public. Every electoral cycle in every region in every democratic country.

    Okay, so all (or some) politicians are sociopaths. That seems to be a problem! We should probably work on reforming our political system to make sure that, at the very least, sociopaths are discouraged from becoming politicians.

    Are all sociopaths politicians? Are all criminals politicians? Well, there are crimes being committed today which are not committed by politicians. Sociopathy is not the sole cause of criminal behavior. Sometimes people are desperate. Sometimes people are hateful. Sometimes people are greedy. Sometimes people are drunk.

    Agreed.

  • VanguardVanguard Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Holy shit you're insane.

    Deebaser wrote: »
    Vanguard is the Cool English Teacher that wears sneakers, drives a convertible, and teaches at risk youth the magic of learning. He's the motherfuckin' Mary Poppins of Iambic Pentameter

    MY RPG Blog: The Earthlight Academy
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    @Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.

    Sure. Initiation of the use of force is justifed in the specific instance of self defense. Some philosophers extend this to personal property, which I am still dubious on, but lets name them 1-5..

    1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.

    2. Letting him kill you, which I would not recommend. Self defense is a-ok. Now, you might think a government militiary counts as self defence. Nope. If I cannot choose not to support said standing army, than I am not even able to make the choice to defend myself. I have been stripped of all power to choose, thus any choice I make (which inevitably has to be to pay taxes) is meaningless.

    3. Third party self defense. Personal choice to defend the weak and helpless is a-ok.

    4. Hooray for grey areas!

    5. You are angry that someone has slaves. You have the ability to gather others into a militia, voluntarily, to enact third party self defense if you choose. The moment it no longer becomes a choice is the moment it becomes morally wrong. "Your country" doesn't exist, so the question is meaningless, unless they force you do to something against your will, in which case you are their slave (in that you no longer have the capacity to make any alternate decision).

    1. Why does he need a job if he can just keep taking shit?

    Automata-Sg.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    @Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.

    Sure. Initiation of the use of force is justifed in the specific instance of self defense. Some philosophers extend this to personal property, which I am still dubious on, but lets name them 1-5..

    1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.

    2. Letting him kill you, which I would not recommend. Self defense is a-ok. Now, you might think a government militiary counts as self defence. Nope. If I cannot choose not to support said standing army, than I am not even able to make the choice to defend myself. I have been stripped of all power to choose, thus any choice I make (which inevitably has to be to pay taxes) is meaningless.

    3. Third party self defense. Personal choice to defend the weak and helpless is a-ok.

    4. Hooray for grey areas!

    5. You are angry that someone has slaves. You have the ability to gather others into a militia, voluntarily, to enact third party self defense if you choose. The moment it no longer becomes a choice is the moment it becomes morally wrong. "Your country" doesn't exist, so the question is meaningless, unless they force you do to something against your will, in which case you are their slave (in that you no longer have the capacity to make any alternate decision).
    You can absolutely choose not to support the standing army or the police. Just don't take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the government, and you don't have to support it. Sell your land, withdraw your money from the bank, and just don't buy anything, and you'll be able to live completely off the grid. Hell, you can even have free food and shelter given to you by non-governmental agencies, you lucky ducky, you!

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Is this, at least partially, a case of people being angry that some of their tax money is used for things they do not agree with?

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.

    Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.

    The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.

    On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.

    So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
    So... you're proposing a system of governance (or lack thereof) that you are aware won't function in reality?

    Thanatos on
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    You'd rather society let criminals be let free on the streets rather than arrested, put on trials and imprisoned? Because that's what your advocating for the government to give up its power.

    This would swiftly make the criminals the new government.

    Why is this? Because criminals would want to shield themselves from retaliation, perhaps? So wouldn't it make sense that evil criminals would *always* gravitate toward power, not just in instances of 'being released among the public'? Not all criminals are in prisons.

    If the majority of people are good, what would the 'criminals' (Read: sociopaths) have to do in order to attain and maintain power? Why, bribe, cheat, and lie of course. To the public. Every electoral cycle in every region in every democratic country.

    Okay, so all (or some) politicians are sociopaths. That seems to be a problem! We should probably work on reforming our political system to make sure that, at the very least, sociopaths are discouraged from becoming politicians.

    Are all sociopaths politicians? Are all criminals politicians? Well, there are crimes being committed today which are not committed by politicians. Sociopathy is not the sole cause of criminal behavior. Sometimes people are desperate. Sometimes people are hateful. Sometimes people are greedy. Sometimes people are drunk.

    I agree with you!

    However, unless we invent an infallible lie detector, or a brainscan for bad people, I don't think there is much we can do in terms of reformation to prevent those attracted to power from seeking it and abusing it.

  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    @Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.

    Sure. Initiation of the use of force is justifed in the specific instance of self defense. Some philosophers extend this to personal property, which I am still dubious on, but lets name them 1-5..

    1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.

    2. Letting him kill you, which I would not recommend. Self defense is a-ok. Now, you might think a government militiary counts as self defence. Nope. If I cannot choose not to support said standing army, than I am not even able to make the choice to defend myself. I have been stripped of all power to choose, thus any choice I make (which inevitably has to be to pay taxes) is meaningless.

    3. Third party self defense. Personal choice to defend the weak and helpless is a-ok.

    4. Hooray for grey areas!

    5. You are angry that someone has slaves. You have the ability to gather others into a militia, voluntarily, to enact third party self defense if you choose. The moment it no longer becomes a choice is the moment it becomes morally wrong. "Your country" doesn't exist, so the question is meaningless, unless they force you do to something against your will, in which case you are their slave (in that you no longer have the capacity to make any alternate decision).
    You can absolutely choose not to support the standing army or the police. Just don't take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the government, and you don't have to support it. Sell your land, withdraw your money from the bank, and just don't buy anything, and you'll be able to live completely off the grid. Hell, you can even have free food and shelter given to you by non-governmental agencies, you lucky ducky, you!

    And so you see why it is not really a choice. Its the Dad saying to the 14 year old "My house, my rules. If you don't like it, you can GET OUT."




  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    He can't take his money, because money only exists because of government. He'd have to trade goods.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    @Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.

    Sure. Initiation of the use of force is justifed in the specific instance of self defense. Some philosophers extend this to personal property, which I am still dubious on, but lets name them 1-5..

    1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.

    There are problems with your other answers, but I'd just like to talk about this one for a minute.

    Philosophically speaking, how is this not coercion? You are saying that if someone does something "bad", that people will treat them poorly, to the point of exiling them from the community. What if this is tantamount to a death sentence? How far do you go in rejecting them from the community? Do you deny them housing? Work? Food? Contact with their children? How do you exile someone without coercing them, won't they just come back? Maybe they're living on the streets since no one will sell them a house, due to their thieving ways, and they have to go dumpster-diving to eat. Or maybe they just steal more in order to stay alive. The people at the grocery store can't use force to keep them out because that would be coercion. They're not actively hurting anyone, only taking property and you're dubious about property rights, so you can't justify harming them as self-defense.

    I think this poor wretch would rather just spend a night in jail and know that there's a system in place to keep him alive and part of society than just be thrown to the elements because he doesn't conform.

    "Rejection by the community" is one of the oldest forms of coercion. You may have heard of it, it's usually referred to as "honor". People have killed and died over it. Nations have gone to war over it. Countless lives have been destroyed, genocide has been committed, family torn to pieces, because they were "rejected by the community". By phrasing it like that, you make it sound soft and reasonable, but it's just as bad as threatening someone to pay taxes for roads with a gun, if not worse.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.

    Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.

    The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.

    On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.

    So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
    So... you're proposing a system of governance (or lack thereof) that you are aware won't function in reality?

    Yep! In other words, I am framing the argument in such a way as to point out the futility of government reform.

    At least if we want to create an ethically sound system.

    Shurakai on
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.

    Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.

    The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.

    On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.

    So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
    So... you're proposing a system of governance (or lack thereof) that you are aware won't function in reality?

    Yep! In other words, I am framing the argument in such a way as to point out the futility of government reform.

    At least if we want to create an ethically sound system.

    Oh well that's silly, you're doing nothing of the sort. Throwing out these arguments is interesting to talk about, but it doesn't really have any bearing on government reform. Your system isn't perfect... and neither is government. Good job. How can we make it better? Do you really think this is an all-or-nothing proposition?

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • VanguardVanguard Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).

    So... what's the alternative?
    Apply this question to everyday activities.

    You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?

    You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.

    You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.

    Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
    I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.

    Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.

    The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.

    On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.

    So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
    So... you're proposing a system of governance (or lack thereof) that you are aware won't function in reality?

    Yep! In other words, I am framing the argument in such a way as to point out the futility of government reform.

    At least if we want to create an ethically sound system.

    And we are pointing out why a slightly corrupt government is a better alternative to being gang raped by another country were we to dissolve one.

    Deebaser wrote: »
    Vanguard is the Cool English Teacher that wears sneakers, drives a convertible, and teaches at risk youth the magic of learning. He's the motherfuckin' Mary Poppins of Iambic Pentameter

    MY RPG Blog: The Earthlight Academy
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.

    Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    Your underling comes in the store and is threatening you with a gun. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You are a teacher in the public school and two students are beating another student up. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    You were raped in an alley last night. Today, you see the person that did it. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
    The other half of your country refuses to give up their slaves. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?

    @Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.

    Sure. Initiation of the use of force is justifed in the specific instance of self defense. Some philosophers extend this to personal property, which I am still dubious on, but lets name them 1-5..

    1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.

    2. Letting him kill you, which I would not recommend. Self defense is a-ok. Now, you might think a government militiary counts as self defence. Nope. If I cannot choose not to support said standing army, than I am not even able to make the choice to defend myself. I have been stripped of all power to choose, thus any choice I make (which inevitably has to be to pay taxes) is meaningless.

    3. Third party self defense. Personal choice to defend the weak and helpless is a-ok.

    4. Hooray for grey areas!

    5. You are angry that someone has slaves. You have the ability to gather others into a militia, voluntarily, to enact third party self defense if you choose. The moment it no longer becomes a choice is the moment it becomes morally wrong. "Your country" doesn't exist, so the question is meaningless, unless they force you do to something against your will, in which case you are their slave (in that you no longer have the capacity to make any alternate decision).
    You can absolutely choose not to support the standing army or the police. Just don't take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the government, and you don't have to support it. Sell your land, withdraw your money from the bank, and just don't buy anything, and you'll be able to live completely off the grid. Hell, you can even have free food and shelter given to you by non-governmental agencies, you lucky ducky, you!

    And so you see why it is not really a choice. Its the Dad saying to the 14 year old "My house, my rules. If you don't like it, you can GET OUT."

    You don't have to do this in America. It won't be easy but then at least you'd get your society. If you have any rich friends try to buy an island. You'd have to figure out how to start everything from scratch (or close to it) and a system for importing and exporting if you want supplies from foreign countries. I don't recommend going to Thiel's libertarian islands once they're built I expect them to have slave labor and unless your rich or well connected guess who will have to do the shitty jobs?

    Harry Dresden on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Shurakai wrote: »
    1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.
    You know who this guy is? Whats to stop you from claiming some guy you don't like stole from you too? And why would he need a job? His job is stealing your shit.

    But answer me this @Shurakai if you can: Whats your basis for owning that store in the first place?

    Purchasing goods from one who is not the legitimate owner does not bestow legitimate ownership. As such in order to establish legitimate ownership, even through a secondary party, one must identify an origin for that ownership.

    If we accept all humans are of equal moral standing, then the ownership of anything that is not unique to that individual must be equally owned in a state of nature by all members of a community.

    Claiming exclusive ownership of anything except your physical being and your labor requires you to subsume the ownership rights of everyone else. In a stateless society where there is no coercion, how does one take ownership? All exclusive ownership lacking unanimous consent of all individuals, and at least arguably all future individuals, would be theft of their ownership or potential ownership.

    So without a body politic that has absorbed some of the natural rights of its citizens that will create a system by which exclusive ownership is enacted, how do you propose you got that grocery store in the first place?

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.