| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
Short answer to libertarianism/anarchism: Natural forces are coercive. Interpersonal forces can alleviate that coercion, at the cost of applying interpersonal coercion. If this interpersonal coercion is milder than the natural forces, it's a net win. Well-applied redistribution increases freedom. (As, of course, does the application of force to restrict peoples' coercion of one another... but libertarians at least recognize that.) | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 12:33 L wrote: Unless you prove to me that civil society is not the result of collective action, I don't think your qualms with instances of defects in government amount to more than strawmen. oh ok. you mean then, you want me to prove to you that people can respect eachother without being forced upon, by a collectivist group like a state? why do you like being whipped around so much lol thats not hard to prove at all given some principles... Rights dont actually exist but there exist claims to them. There exists people claiming to have rights. I call that a claim to right and I havent seen such explanation elsewhere so pls listen. People very often claim to have a right to their inherited, homesteaded, traded, or transformed property. I do claim that i have the right to my stuff too. But ultimately, there is no such natural rule that has to be followed. I believe there is no God to punish us for breaking them either. So the only punisher and enforcer of your claimed rights is ultimately whoever feels like defending you against perceived violators. This may seem like "law of the jungle" for you, or might makes right, but fear not because it ain't. it is mere reality, and it is that way even with the best constitutional republic possible. Fact is, the government is no more than a group of people. These people have no super powers, they have no god-given immunities. They are an organization providing a service. The big difference between the government and any other business of course is that it is legitimized into getting its money before any service is given. A regular shoemaker for example would have to convince you first to give his money before any shoe is sold. But not for the state - he can force you to do pay him for its services, even if you do not use it afterwards, even if you never asked for it. Now I know you're touchy on the subject of law mr. L so I'm going to try to explain briefly to you why such vile proceedings aren't necessary at all to ensure a stable legal code. Lawmakers are the suppliers of law, they offer the general public with a set of codes that settles disputes and clears up confusing interpersonal issues people may have over property and civil rights. A healthy law code does have to be personalized and changed as often as people adapt their views and new problems arise. So first off, the notion that lawmakers are law givers is wrong, they are not. They have to answer to the demand for laws, not do whatever they like and the people have to follow. On the contrary, if the people get pissed off at the poor quality of a lawmaker at settling disputes and issues, it may topple him down no matter what, even if he has a legal monopoly, there may be revolution, or he could be isolated and impeached, whatever. You prob know what can happen better than I do. Therefore, the most efficient method of law distribution I argue is not the monopolistic model of one-size-fits all that is imposed on us in modern day USA, but a decentralized, free-market system, much like any other type of service. If you have certain qualms about the uncertainty or stability of this model, let me reassure you again. It will be actually more stable than a monopoly. You know why? Because a thousand judges think better than one. Because the minds of many more lawmakers will more proficiently devise that best lawcode that is demanded by a society. What can be more stable, a set of judges I can count on my two hands being in charge of a whole nation's legal code, or countless, competitive judges that are trying to serve the publics needs best, voluntarily and naturally so? Now if its a matter of whether there would be a demand for such extensive and competitive legal resources, I would be honest and tell you "I don't know". I can't know for certain what people want, and I'm not going to pretend I do know (I'm not a collectivist after all). But I assure you that if there is such a demand, then there is profit to be made off it (do not be fooled, the monopolistic judges of today do earn quite a salary, which would probably be reduced given more competition and more potential judges being able to serve the public). And if there is profit to be made, then let the courts make the dough they voluntarily deserve! | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: ty me so good at drivelzTen pages of incoherent drivel? I salute you, sir. On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: why are natural forces coercive exactlyShort answer to libertarianism/anarchism: Natural forces are coercive. Interpersonal forces can alleviate that coercion, at the cost of applying interpersonal coercion. If this interpersonal coercion is milder than the natural forces, it's a net win. by natural forces you cant mean like.. the wind, volcanoes and shit right? hope not but that would be funny On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: Well-applied redistribution increases freedom. (As, of course, does the application of force to restrict peoples' coercion of one another... but libertarians at least recognize that.) I guess if you repeat something a thousand times it makes it true... | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
On April 28 2010 13:03 Yurebis wrote: why are natural forces coercive exactly by natural forces you cant mean like.. the wind, volcanoes and shit right? hope not but that would be funny Those natural forces are coercive, yes. They impose serious restrictions on the actions and individual can take, and may threaten death. I was thinking more in the direction of hunger, cold, and disease, as they're more frequently relevant. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
you mean then, you want me to prove to you that people can respect eachother without being forced upon, by a collectivist group like a state? This isn't about respect. Civil society isn't about tolerance. Quite the opposite, its defined based on the clear revocation or renunciation of a group of rights. Locke would say that the renunciation is based upon mutual consent to be bound. Hobbes would say that the renunciation is somewhat independent of consent and is the result of a power monopoly.So try again. Why is civil society not based in collectivism? So the only punisher and enforcer of your claimed rights is ultimately whoever feels like defending you against perceived violators. There you go, rights exist based on the systemic use of coercive force. A common power to keep them all in awe, so to speak. Tell me again how your society works without systemic use of coercive force and how do you force people to exert force when they'd rather not? How do you prevent people from supplanting justice for a system of tit-for-tat, in which in-groups develop a systemic advantage? How do you deal with the 'unjust'? Either its a collective endeavor, or its an outright rule of the strong over the weak. Since you seem to be arguing over the latter, tell me again how your power monopoly is supposed to be objectively superior to the former? As for the rest of your post, a majority of your information is downright wrong and I simply don't have time to fill in the gaps for you. That thousand judges line, for instance, is flat out wrong. Certainty in the law is one of the prime pillars in any legal system, so you need to know which judgement is the one that shapes your liability. Your claim that dispute resolution is a monopoly is wrong. ADR is huge and operates on the consent of parties. The rigid monopoly is of formal courts are normally only used when there's a lack of consent to engage in ADR. There are more inaccuracies, but frankly, they're irrelevant. The basis of rights is the important portion. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 13:18 Severedevil wrote: Those natural forces are coercive, yes. They impose serious restrictions on the actions and individual can take, and may threaten death. I was thinking more in the direction of hunger, cold, and disease, as they're more frequently relevant. can you make a distinction between rational and irrational entities please edit shameful grammar I mean, no use trying to talk hunger out of oppressing us. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 13:19 L wrote: This isn't about respect. Civil society isn't about tolerance. Quite the opposite, its defined based on the clear revocation or renunciation of a group of rights. Locke would say that the renunciation is based upon mutual consent to be bound. Hobbes would say that the renunciation is somewhat independent of consent and is the result of a power monopoly. So try again. Why is civil society not based in collectivism? There you go, rights exist based on the systemic use of coercive force. A common power to keep them all in awe, so to speak. Tell me again how your society works without systemic use of coercive force and how do you force people to exert force when they'd rather not? How do you prevent people from supplanting justice for a system of tit-for-tat, in which in-groups develop a systemic advantage? How do you deal with the 'unjust'? Either its a collective endeavor, or its an outright rule of the strong over the weak. Since you seem to be arguing over the latter, tell me again how your power monopoly is supposed to be objectively superior to the former? As for the rest of your post, a majority of your information is downright wrong and I simply don't have time to fill in the gaps for you. That thousand judges line, for instance, is flat out wrong. Certainty in the law is one of the prime pillars in any legal system, so you need to know which judgement is the one that shapes your liability. Your claim that dispute resolution is a monopoly is wrong. ADR is huge and operates on the consent of parties. The rigid monopoly is of formal courts are normally only used when there's a lack of consent to engage in ADR. There are more inaccuracies, but frankly, they're irrelevant. The basis of rights is the important portion. oh I'm sorry but I did not know what civil society meant... I just thought it meant a society organized with a legal monopoly ok well it can't work without some degree of "coercion" sometimes I think when an obvious thief breaks into someones home, is found guilty by a court, and is evading all communications, it would be "fair" to break into his home and take whatever was stolen back for restitution and if that can't be found, I don't know (not a law enthusiast at any rate) but in extreme situations I would not reject a code which would allow for restitution with other pieces of property owned by the thief. I see what you mean L, and I do feel that power wins even if a perfect and altruistic collective is in place to handle it. So I've tried to explain why a free market would be superior. Because just as much as people can demand that their government be fair and transparent, they can demand for businesses to do so as well, and I argue directly on that basis, that business can out-compete the government easily on an open field. Because businesses have a much more direct benefit to listen for fluctuations in demand, they are more efficient at doing so than government, which only has to worry about reelection in arbitrary periods. So vis-a-vis, if people are to demand more fairness, on both systems, the one that will respond faster IS the for-profit legal courts. So.. you obviously know more than I do about courts and law codes.. and it's fine if you don't want to bother (I don't even know what that ADR is). But if i understood anything from you is that you don't dispute that free markets are more efficient, but just that you'd wish for a kind statist to subdue all the criminals and treat all its citizens equally? Sorry if I'm wrong but that would be wishing too much if thats what you want. The thousand judges line is pretty obvious 2 me, idk what u talking about... nine judges are both cheaper to corrupt and more likely to swindle a major ruling than a thousand judges competing in a whole country... but its k | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Whether a society can completely exist without violence I'm not certain... but I'm certain that I'm not going to cherish something like democracy as the best thing there can ever exist. I think men can live perfectly fine w\o having to convince half the population of a huge geographic area where he lives, to be left alone. pretty ridic. imo | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
This applies to the individual and collective, since the collective is just a large of individuals holding more or less the same convictions. They need the proper mindset, as I mentioned above. Then if it comes down to the individual, how do you approach your own individual thinking and ideals? The ideal is not simply whatever you want, because, as I said, large numbers of more educated individuals have already established a large history of human thought and what really is the "ideal" and what is really "truth" (philosophy, religion, psychology). It is wise to look at their methods and ideas IN THEIR CONTEXTS to formulate your own individual thinking. Again, you need to approach this with the proper mindset, or else all and any act of communication (whether between individuals or through books) will be rendered ineffective. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
I think when an obvious thief breaks into someones home, is found guilty by a court, and is evading all communications, it would be "fair" to break into his home and take whatever was stolen back for restitution You wouldn't get whatever was stolen back in restitution. You'd get it back in compensation. Restitution would give you the amount the thief gained from you in return. Compensation would pay for the amount of damage you suffered, which would include things like repairs for broken locks, etc. (That's an aside)and if that can't be found, I don't know (not a law enthusiast at any rate) but in extreme situations I would not reject a code which would allow for restitution with other pieces of property owned by the thief. But good for you on not rejecting said code; No one cares what you think, you're just an individual, After all under your own conception, and no one can possibly know that you wouldn't want your shit stolen from you. So how is anyone else going to act in your interest in a collective? I see what you mean L, and I do feel that power wins even if a perfect and altruistic collective is in place to handle it. So I've tried to explain why a free market would be superior. Because just as much as people can demand that their government be fair and transparent, they can demand for businesses to do so as well, and I argue directly on that basis, that business can out-compete the government easily on an open field. Nothing can compete with a monopoly of power and there is no "perfect altruistic collective", nor could there be under your starting axioms. The first business to set up an armed force and subjugate their opponents becomes the new defacto government. In areas wherein governments cannot rally sufficient force, small warlordships crop up. In areas where power is bountiful and government strength doesn't grow proportionally to the total potential power, open war between the state and organized crime occurs. Power follows the exact same pattern that capital wealth does: it flows upwards. If you outcompete the government at providing protection, you are the new government. Surprise, that's how conquest and revolution work! Decentralizing power results in struggles between said groups in the form of war. The only method of true individualization would exist in a format wherein people could not join their physical forces together, which simply isn't the case. Because businesses have a much more direct benefit to listen for fluctuations in demand... and the rest of the post: Really has nothing to do with the non-existence of collectives. Has to do with your perception of the efficiency of businesses. But if i understood anything from you is that you don't dispute that free markets are more efficient, but just that you'd wish for a kind statist to subdue all the criminals and treat all its citizens equally? Free markets are fantastic for optimization of a number of goods and services. They perform horrendously, by contrast, in a number of other instances. And no, there are many important functions of government which flow from extra-criminal sources. But frankly, that's entirely irrelevant and isn't needed to disprove your position. All you really need to do is go back to first principles, look at the base characteristics of humans, then extrapolate from there. Human history has never been one in which individuals act autonomously without a social structure, and for good reason. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On April 28 2010 13:49 Yurebis wrote: I am of the belief that the less violence the better. there is no "optimal level" of coercion where everyone is happy. thats ridic. Whether a society can completely exist without violence I'm not certain... but I'm certain that I'm not going to cherish something like democracy as the best thing there can ever exist. I think men can live perfectly fine w\o having to convince half the population of a huge geographic area where he lives, to be left alone. pretty ridic. imo How exactly do you have a society without violence? Either there's coercion to prevent violence, or there's violence. Any form of deterrent to violence is violence in and of itself, ergo unless human nature was completely changed there seems to be no method of removing violence from the equation. (unless you assume that coercion isn't violence, but you seem to take the opposite position). | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 14:37 LunarC wrote: My point that I was trying to make in my long-ass post was that without the proper mindset, argumentation/falsification/verification will only exist for the sake of existing, in other words, it is not trying to end in a solution, it is trying to end in coercion or dichotomy. They should instead approach differences with the intent to reach a synthesis. That inevitably entails the destruction of both opinions to create a coherent new idea. This applies to the individual and collective, since the collective is just a large of individuals holding more or less the same convictions. They need the proper mindset, as I mentioned above. Then if it comes down to the individual, how do you approach your own individual thinking and ideals? The ideal is not simply whatever you want, because, as I said, large numbers of more educated individuals have already established a large history of human thought and what really is the "ideal" and what is really "truth" (philosophy, religion, psychology). It is wise to look at their methods and ideas IN THEIR CONTEXTS to formulate your own individual thinking. Again, you need to approach this with the proper mindset, or else all and any act of communication (whether between individuals or through books) will be rendered ineffective. no way around it man there cant be such thing as a scientific ought there is nothing in us, genetically, biologically, historically, that says we have to do this or that. history is history. it can be examined inductively to build a principled theory but theres nothing in history or any theory that binds man to act a certain way man will act as he wants to no matter what. even if forced by another mans means to an end what you can say however is suggest to others what the best means to their ends are. and explain why such means are better than whatever other alternative they think. if youre right, then they have no reason to not adapt unless their ends arent as stated... but thats the most that can be done. voluntarily or you can just force them into doing what you think should be done. wont prove anything ofc but hey, theres like 200 countries in the world that do just that so who am I to argue right. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: You wouldn't get whatever was stolen back in restitution. You'd get it back in compensation. Restitution would give you the amount the thief gained from you in return. Compensation would pay for the amount of damage you suffered, which would include things like repairs for broken locks, etc. (That's an aside) ty4info On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: But good for you on not rejecting said code; No one cares what you think, you're just an individual, After all under your own conception, and no one can possibly know that you wouldn't want your shit stolen from you. So how is anyone else going to act in your interest in a collective? I know. they will act in my interest because they want my money similar to how you're able to buy a shoe or, you can also buy legal help even today in fact no need for collectivism but I guess you know that. On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: Nothing can compete with a monopoly of power and there is no "perfect altruistic collective", nor could there be under your starting axioms. Cool, so it comes down to the lesser evil then? On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: The first business to set up an armed force and subjugate their opponents becomes the new defacto government. In areas wherein governments cannot rally sufficient force, small warlordships crop up. In areas where power is bountiful and government strength doesn't grow proportionally to the total potential power, open war between the state and organized crime occurs. Power follows the exact same pattern that capital wealth does: it flows upwards. I don't believe that necessarily happens. Businesses will only build enough resources to sustain the market demand + profit. So if some court or defense agency starts pilling up ammunition and mercenaries to take over the country, their rates are gonna go up disproportionally to their services, and their clients are just gonna migrate to smaller and now relatively more efficient agencies. imagine if walmart were to start building up an army... On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: If you outcompete the government at providing protection, you are the new government. Surprise, that's how conquest and revolution work! not unless they demand tribute regardless of service like a state today does... but maybe my definition of gov't is different. government is that agency which enforces a monopoly on some services (legal, defense, etc.) and requires its subjects to involuntarily pay it through taxes. it is the only agency which is seen by the public at large to have a legitimate use of force. a for-profit business agency would: - not have such monopoly, -not require everyone to pay him -not be seen as legitimate if it uses force to the extent that the modern state does the type of force that I would tolerate it to do would be just for restitution (or compensation ty) but you could very well have an even less violent agency that wont do that. they could, instead of requiring the thief to compensate for their clients loss, simply "blackmail" him by asking every other business in town to (voluntarily) ostracize him. the thief wont be able to buy any food, go into any property that does not want a thief in there, and will have great difficulty finding work. He's blacklisted from any place that agrees to the legal code made by the defense agency. and that could be enough, idk more on force/violence/coercion later (i use them terms interchangeably...) On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: Decentralizing power results in struggles between said groups in the form of war. The only method of true individualization would exist in a format wherein people could not join their physical forces together, which simply isn't the case. free association does no harm to anyone... now if they use those guns to an extent where enough people consider it violence, they'll be stopped, and I don't mean violently the state for example would immediately vanish if people simply stopped paying taxes and allowing it to pay for guns w\ inflated money. especially since its literally bankrupt already... On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: and the rest of the post: Really has nothing to do with the non-existence of collectives. Has to do with your perception of the efficiency of businesses. Free markets are fantastic for optimization of a number of goods and services. They perform horrendously, by contrast, in a number of other instances. And no, there are many important functions of government which flow from extra-criminal sources. those instances include.. violence, right. because violence is so costly, it is best performed by a state, which can offload the costs of violence to its slaves er taxpayers. and I've seen rebuttals for every other service too, would you care to mention so i can ramble about them too...? On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: But frankly, that's entirely irrelevant and isn't needed to disprove your position. All you really need to do is go back to first principles, look at the base characteristics of humans, then extrapolate from there. Human history has never been one in which individuals act autonomously without a social structure, and for good reason. ofc, allow me to clarify what I mean when I bash collectivism I don't bash socialization or hierarchies. I bash the involuntary ones. The ones you can't not be a member of, that you can't leave, secede. Everywhere you go today has a thug saying he has a claim on your property and person, when it's not even their property I'm standing on. And the people around think that's normal. Don't even realize the thug is there. And the ones that do notice how cruel that is, like you, then think its necessary. Why? If you find the thug's (state) services necessary, it is for you only. remember there isn't a "greater good" spirit to call upon for guidance? Every means you adopt is your means, and every end you want to reach is your end. Why force everyone to pay for the services that you find important? You don't know their ends, you don't know what means they would choose instead. If its truly important for "society" (the other individuals around you), and you were indeed right, then those people will pay for it too. But if you force them to, then you will never know if it was indeed necessary, because you're being a thug and not letting them decide... So history is seldom a proof that the state is necessary, when the state was forced to be there in the first place. that ain't proof that the state is necessary today just as much as it wasn't proof that feudalism was necessary a thousand years ago. and monarchy, and despotism, and on and on. What is, has no bearing on how it should be. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
I don't bash socialization or hierarchies. I bash the involuntary ones. The ones you can't not be a member of, that you can't leave, secede. Everywhere you go today has a thug saying he has a claim on your property and person, when it's not even their property I'm standing on. And the people around think that's normal. Don't even realize the thug is there. And the ones that do notice how cruel that is, like you, then think its necessary. Why? ]It's still possible to secede from society. You can renounce your citizenship and rebuild your voluntary society of non-coercion in Antarctica. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 14:42 L wrote: How exactly do you have a society without violence? Either there's coercion to prevent violence, or there's violence. Any form of deterrent to violence is violence in and of itself, ergo unless human nature was completely changed there seems to be no method of removing violence from the equation. (unless you assume that coercion isn't violence, but you seem to take the opposite position). So, what constitutes violence is for each one to decide. Is me changing the pixel patterns on your screen violence in my part against you? I am after all intruding on your optical senses Is a man talking to another intruding on that other's ears? how about screaming? going even "lighter" than that, imagine there were two on an unowned piece of land. Man A is in front of man B. Is A intruding B's right to move ahead by standing in front of him? I mean.. you could go on and on with idiotic scenarios like that but, point is, theres many different things that could be or could not be seen as violence I don't consider homesteaded or traded property to be violence (not going to go into specifics for homesteading, but ofc, it's arbitrary) I don't consider defending your homesteaded or traded property to be violence anarcho-communists would think I'm intruding their rights by claiming to have exclusive control over anything but my own body perhaps. 2 bad I say... I don't consider restitution (or compensation in extreme cases) to be violence and a lot of anarchists can disagree, idk harmful physical contact is violence (probably not the best definition) taxation is violence (obv) a legal monopoly is violence, or rather raiding someones establishment that didn't do anything involuntary and yeah, involuntary interpersonal actions that aren't conceded to before or afterwards by either party is violence (not the best definition by far) and by "is" I mean "I consider it to be" (should be obvious by now) so the state is obviously violent, not unlike the popular conception of a criminal mafia a business that offers legal or protective services wouldn't be, because it doesn't tax, it doesn't shut down others businesses, and it doesn't coerce besides for cases of restitution and compensation, and again, they would not even do that if their clients don't want them doing that. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 29 2010 00:05 MoltkeWarding wrote: ] It's still possible to secede from society. You can renounce your citizenship and rebuild your voluntary society of non-coercion in Antarctica. hahaha nah I prefer to bitch about the state all day long obv. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 29 2010 00:16 MoltkeWarding wrote: So are you claiming the right to secede from society and afterwards still be part of the exact same society you just seceded from? secede from being a subject of the state the state =/= society and the state doesn't own all land either think this way, would you not see it as right for the countries in the world to be able to reject joining a world organization, and seceding if one were to exist? then, why is it not fine for states (subdivisions of a federal state) to secede a country and then a county from a state a township from a county then an individual from a township? all that is, is the secession of a smaller organization within a bigger one if you accept x number of people doing it v. a >x number of people why not accept an individual v. >1 number of people its all involuntary in the first place regardless... obv you would respect the choice of a member from an alcoholic anonymous group seceding from it or me seceding from teamliquid a slave running away from its overlord an establishment not paying extortion money to the mafia then... why not a citizen from the state why do you find the state legit in keeping its subjects but not all of the above. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
blazinggpassion
United States27 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
RSL Revival
WardiTV European League
RSL Revival
FEL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
