The God of the Machine - Tranche 16

Posted by mshupe 1 year, 5 months ago to Government
39 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Chapter VIII, Excerpt 1 of 1
The Fallacy of Anarchism

Government originates in the moral faculty. The essence of self-government consists in keeping promises; the formal organization is instituted by agreement, and the power is delegated for the purpose of maintaining contract freely entered . . . embodied in the constitution, and private contracts between individuals. The mode of the conversion of energy must correspond to the mode of association. Anarchy is practicable only to savagery. Force is what is governed.

But war and leadership seem to by synchronous. A regime of popularity is effective for starting a war; and indeed, must do so. The error can be maintained only by rejecting the facts of savage behavior and the specific testimony of intelligent savages as to the purpose of the council of war. Primitive war can be begun and carried on by impulse of fighting men. They are the force. In no case could the council apply force. They simply had none.

The initial truth is brought to light whenever citizen or subject is sufficiently determined; force cannot compel obedience in the social order. What it can effect is death, whether of subject or king. Leadership is obliged to justify itself daily. In a settled and productive society, continuity is necessary, with the time space factor in economics. While industry got up steam during the nineteenth century, political changes were in reverse, more power accruing to government under ‘socializing’ measures.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 year, 5 months ago
    In the foreward to her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand quoted from American Pragmatism: Pierce, James, & Dewey written by Edward C. Moore “All knowledge is in terms of concepts. If these concepts correspond to something that is to be found in reality they are real and man’s knowledge has a foundation in fact; If they do not correspond to anything in reality they are not real and man’s knowledge is of mere figments of his own imagination”

    Clearly, nonconformist is using words disconnected from reality, no concepts needed – a word salad similarly employed by the Vice President.

    You’ve done a good thing bringing this book to this venue. Please stop responding to this fool. You are just wasting your valuable time. You are boxing with fog.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
    All force/violence/coercion is immoral, except maybe when used for self-defense. This is true irrespective of existence of anarchy or government. To say that government (coercive organization) is needed to prevent violence is to promote statist propaganda. Giving government special rights to keep order is like letting the fox guard the hen house.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 1 year, 5 months ago
      Actually, retaliatory force is moral and essential when the best way to rectify injustice involving violence, coersion or fraud. In any event, the point of this book is the long circuit of energy transmission, its moral foundation, and the machinery it requires.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
        Actually no, I disagree. Retaliation and punishment is not logical, reasonable or productive.

        By punishing someone, not only are you causing disproportional damage to them, but you are also causing damage (money/time/risk) to yourself without any way to get back what was lost.

        Making an example out of a perpetrator would also be immoral.

        You have the right to recover damages from the perpetrator and to also to recover funds spent bringing them to 'justice'. If they need mental help/rehabilitation, they might need to pay for that too. However, it would be immoral to make them suffer more loss than the above.

        Prison is immoral.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 1 year, 5 months ago
          Are you advocating pacifism?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
            Clearly, peace is good and war is bad. However, I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves by violence if no other option exists. If they have defended themselves (and recouped the damage that was inflicted on them), they stop having the right to continue inflicting damage on the other party. No retribution or punishment is allowed. Trust me, repayment of damages is punishment enough and then some.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by VetteGuy 1 year, 5 months ago
              So what should be done in cases where repayment is not possible (the perpetrator has insufficient funds), or the perpetrator refuses?

              Just shrug and say "oh well" ?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
                Good question. I thought about it but didn't come up with a solution yet. Shit happens, what are you going to do?

                The right thing to do would be to have that person pay off as much as possible, regardless of whether the whole thing can be paid off or not. Obviously, they would have to work to pay it off into the future, possibly until death.

                One off the wall idea is to have the perpetrator birth children and have them pay off the damage until it is fully paid off, but that is morally questionable. Also, probably not very practical.

                Another idea is to invent life extension technology.

                The wrong thing to do would be to put that person in prison for life.
                1. The tax payers are going to pay the prison expenses. What did they ever do to deserve this?
                2. The victim doesn't get anything back.
                3. The perpetrator is forced into a situation in which they are not very productive. Why not allow them to do what they are good at and use the labor to repay damages?

                Imprisonment should be avoided if possible. Maybe have that person go through some sort of rehab where they admit wrongdoing, admit their debt to the victim and agree to rejoin society as normal, and have them devote themselves to repaying damages. If they don't admit anything and the wrongdoing is proven beyond reasonable doubt then we can allow them to be forced to work it off in some sort of labor camp that would maximize wages of the imprisoned (and redirect them to the victim after taking out the expenses).

                Death penalty is just stupid IMHO. Why waste a perfectly good body?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 1 year, 5 months ago
      That is the Libertarian position. To be sure, government is force, and government is essential to defend rights. A rational, developed society delegates retaliatory force to prevent anarchy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
        I don't see why you wouldn't want to have free market in the space of defense of rights.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 1 year, 5 months ago
          There are no free markets without defense of rights as a prerequisite. You contradict yourself with "defend rights" while endording the paralysis of the defense of rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
            I don't understand. Why couldn't you hire a non-governmental organization to defend your rights? Like a private security firm.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 1 year, 5 months ago
              There are many reasons why that is a stupid idea. First, you are surrendering the entire concept of due process and independent third parties to adjudicate contracts. You are advocating protection rackets and the guys with the most hired guns to rule. In any event, markets devolve, production ceases, disease spreads, and misery and becomes the growth industry. Ever heard of the Dark Ages? That's precisely what you advocate. Regardless, do you not know where you are? Are you a troll in the Gulch?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
                Why would you conclude that?

                The private security firm would presumably do everything in a lawful manner, probably better then your state enforcers.

                A private security firm would not force their 'security services' on people. People would hire them voluntarily. Your state goons, on the other hand, are suspiciously looking like they are running a protection racket. They take your money by force and if you don't comply, they come to fuck your shit up and throw you in jail. How is that not a protection racket? At least with a private security firm you have a choice, so, over time only the most conscientious firms would have business.

                We've already talked earlier about what I think is the source of all the trouble: predation. Giving the job of law enforcement to the state is like giving the job of guarding the hen house to the fox. The end result isn't going to be good.

                As far as I know, the dark ages happened because Roman Empire collapsed. That happened because it became corrupted from within (predation). If people become non-productive and start stealing from each other, I think it is pretty obvious some shit is going to go down.

                The statist propaganda would like everyone to believe that if the state is dissolved, everybody would die. However, that is not necessarily the case. They might die, if the state is killed by the collapse of society due to predation. Alternatively, there might be a civilization boom because there is less parasites running around forcing people to give them all their money.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 1 year, 5 months ago
                  Because your case rests on force over reason. It ignores the conditions necessary for productivity and innovation. It allows for compromise with irrational ideas and behavior. To think that thousands or millions of private security firms would maintain the supply networks and energy flow is not rational. It would become tribal competition and warfare. There would be no enforceable standards to solve the complexity of time and space. In essence, human vitality requires liberty over time and space. Force paralyzes and negates that. We agree on the current state of American justice and culture.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
                    I am not advocating for force/violence, quite the opposite.

                    If you read some of my other posts elsewhere, you might get a better idea.

                    I propose that there is a universal law system that can be derived from basic axioms, such as the golden rule, by applying logic and reason. One of the laws is the immorality of violence (except maybe for self-defense). My view is that state is illegal/immoral according to this universal law because it uses violence to force people to do stuff (without it being self-defense).

                    You may have a state that adheres to this universal law but it might as well be a private security firm at that point due to fact that it wouldn't have any special (immoral) privileges that you, the masses, are currently giving the state.

                    I don't see how my ideas of the universal law and prohibition of all-powerful monopoly criminal organization (the state) would suddenly cause all productivity and innovation to cease, supply networks and energy flows to stop and tribal competition and warfare to begin. The enforceable standard would be the universal law derived at by logic and reason with logic proofs available for everyone to check (and not corrupt statist legislature deciding laws on a whim). I agree with you that force is bad but I disagree with you that only a single (prone to corruption) organization (the state) is allowed to bestow it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mhubb 1 year, 5 months ago
                  "The private security firm would presumably do everything in a lawful manner, probably better then your state enforcers."

                  if you believe that, you are delusional
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
                    Governments are notorious for barely being able to function. So, the government that can't do anything right all the sudden gained competency in protecting rights?

                    How is competition good for the private sector but not good for things like security?

                    Let's say a private security firm that was granted a contract to provide security for a city screws up. They would be fired and replaced with somebody more competent. Try doing that with your government agency. You'd probably end up in jail or killed.

                    Am I missing something?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by mhubb 1 year, 5 months ago
                      yup
                      you are missing lots

                      the basic issue is that We the People have grown fat and lazy and life has become way too easy so people have let stuff grow out of hand

                      and those that swore Oath site on their hands doing nothing

                      so now the a major swing has to happen the other way...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by nonconformist 1 year, 5 months ago
                        I would interpret oath breaking you speak of as simple corruption (predation).

                        Predation in society always tends upwards unless there is a force that is destroying it, such as a war. You see, when there is a very low amount of prey (productive people), predators start going after each other (war, societal collapse). They almost completely exterminate themselves such that only the very small amount of productive people are left. Society can then restart with nearly zero predation.

                        I think my theory better explains the current situation than just people being fat and lazy.

                        The state is a predator, by the way. You have been warned.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 1 year, 5 months ago
    In the Ms. Paterson's usage, the term 'leadership' is in the context of authoritarianism. In other words, political power is concentrated; there is little or no mass inertia veto.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo